Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

How about home education?

94 replies

Hazzy · 21/04/2001 13:49

These days, choosing which school to send your child to seems to take up more and more of parents' time, energy and often money. I wonder how many people out there have considered home education - and indeed know that it's perfectly legal; the law merely states that children from 5-16 must receive a 'full-time education' suitable to their age, aptitude and abilities. And you can do that at home.

The Mumsnet page on choosing education simply says: "Give up your career, move into a less expensive area and cancel all social engagements for the next twelve years. Educate your children at home." Although I understand these sentiments, it would be a shame not to explore the option further.

There are something like 150,000 children in England and Wales who are being educated at home. Parents have all sorts of reasons for choosing this way of life: perhaps their children were unhappy or were being bullied at school; maybe a suitable school is too far away; or perhaps the parents just feel that the present system cannot deliver the sort of education that children deserve - where they are not pressured into achieving impersonal goals in a system that seems to care more for league tables, the National Curriculum and group control than it does for the development of a child's love for learning and need for creative play and 'work'.

Of course, home education takes up time - but imagine an end to school runs, and pre- and after-school care! Many 'experts' (but don't let that put you off :-)) reckon that the actual time a child takes to 'learn' to read, write, do arithmetic and so on is remarkably short - what is more important is that a child is doing it at his/her own pace and with support and encouragement. After all, we don't all learn to read at 5 or 6, and do long division at 10 or 11 - if at all!

My partner and I home educate our six-year-old son (and intend to home educate his four-year-old brother) after he spent one frustrating and fruitless year at what is reckoned to be a good school. Perhaps our experience - and those of other home educators we know - would be helpful to anyone considering home education. So please fire away with any questions, objections or concerns you have...

OP posts:
Hazzy · 26/04/2001 14:29

Just to clarify a few points... I don't see any necessary connection between home educating and not getting qualifications - if you want to take exams, you don't have to go to school. If you want qualifications for a specific reason, then study for them and take the exams.

Tigermoth, there are families on benefits who home educate - but going to school doesn't necessarily come cheap either, even if many things are subsidised or free. I guess I'm saying that life isn't a bed of roses for families on benefits - so home educating isn't any different in that respect.

I'm sure some families would find it almost impossible to consider home educating, though of course we all pay taxes to pay for state education (with expenditure currently at about £70 a week per secondary school pupil). I'm not suggesting that home educators necessarily get 'paid', but it wouldn't need a revolution to ensure that all children had equal access to educational resources. It's only a shame that the school system isn't imaginative enough to develop different approaches such as the flexi-schooling I mentioned before.

Of course, just as some children's family circumstances might make home education virtually impossible, there are plenty of children in the world who find it impossible to go to school - for instance, children living in remote areas of Australia who participate in the 'schools of the airwaves'. I don't think these children are widely regarded as deprived or cut off from life's opportunities.

Best wishes

OP posts:
Jch · 26/04/2001 15:58

I've just sat and read through all of these messages, and the thing that keeps striking me is that so many people think that going to school is the only way to gain a qualification! There are so many routes to doing this and, in our case, our son is studying at home and taking a GCSE in physics at a local secondary school. He is doing this because it is what he wants to do and he is already talking about doing an A' Level in the same way.

Additionally, he is looking at working either with animals or in horticulture. He has spoken to a local kennels and will be spending time there each weekend when he is 14; he also has agreement from a local garden centre to spend an hour or so a week learning nursery work. He is already taking over our garden!

He is socialising with a wide variety of people and is doing a wide variety of 'subjects' (although I doubt they could be categorised as in a school); some because he feels it would be good for him in later life and some because he is really interested.

Since he left mainstream school he has shot far ahead, educationally, of the friends he left behind (although he still sees them socially) and is now happy in what he is doing and confident that he will be able to make a mark in his world when he is older. All this at 13...and he still has a number of years of compulsory education to go. I envy him his opportunities.

Now this may seem very much like a majority of children. However, this is a child who has special needs, is dyslexic and was so lacking in self confidence 18 months ago that he was wanting to throw himself under a bus...he was bullied by class 'mates' and teachers. The final straw was the day he ended up in hospital with injuries sustained in a sports hall when the children were again unsupervised. Mainstream school nearly killed my child...I am so glad I found out that home education was possible.

Cadge · 26/04/2001 21:12

Hi all,
My 3 children, aged 8, 7 and 4 are home-educated. The eldest two attended school, I worked in the pre-school class, helped in their classes every week and was a school governor so I have a fairly good idea what we have escaped from!

My middle daughter changed from being a bright, inquisitive, merry child to a sullen, bad tempered demon within half a term of starting school. She had no difficulty with the work (she taught herself to read at 3 and a half), the teachers liked her , she was popular with the other children, so what was the problem? Nothing specific, she simply didn't like it, she had no time to herself, it was boring....The staff tried hard to help her, giving her more challenging work, then elevating her a year group but she got unhappier daily

We eventually, in year one, plucked up the courage to de-register her. From the day we told her that she could finish at the end of term she skipped into school!

Our eldest had always been fairly happy, was 'too popular' according to her teacher, was doing well, and declined our offer to home-ed her too. That is, until she saw what we got up to and met the new friends we made. One day she said that she'd decided home-ed kids were different to school kids, they don't mind if you're older, younger, boy or girl they all just play together. So 5 months later she was de-regged too.

So, two different reasons to home -ed, one because she hated school and one because she prefered home-ed, both entirely the child's choice.

We have two thriving local groups which meet up 3 times a month for fun (usually about 30 children at each meeting), we book taught group sessions at museums/galleries/zoos, go on trips regularly, hire a gym coach once a week at the local gym (works out at £1 per child) do fortnightly drama lessons at a local theatre and invite local groups, such as The Wildlife Trust, to lead sessions for us. We can do all this during the day rather than crammed into the weekend or in the evening when everyone is tired. The children get to play a lot too and it is always the child's choice to attend these events or not.

Unfotunately the image of children sat at the kitchen table 'doing school at home' and mum as the teacher is the one that springs to mind when home-education is mentioned. This is far from reality, I only know two families, out of the fifty that I can think of, that do lessons at home. The rest do bits here and there or tackle things as they come up, and it's amazing what does come up!

I think we need to see home-ed as a different model of education rather than as a substitute for school, I prefer to see school as a substitute for a real (home)education. The world is full of 'successful' people with 'good' jobs, it is sadly short of peace makers, lateral thinkers and people in tune with their own feelings.

Here are a few web site to look at that may answer some Qs:
www.home-education.org.uk

www.free-range-education.co.uk

www.open-education.org.uk

Cadge · 26/04/2001 21:16

Forgot to add that my partner and I have a job share, working 30 hours per week between us, and claim working families tax credit. So living on benefits does not exclude anyone from H.Eing.

Sml · 27/04/2001 08:28

Cadge, that's very interesting, at last a home educator has described the details of a model that sounds attractive to me! The regular meetings with the same group of similarly home educated children that you describe sound excellent. Can you elaborate a bit more on how you teach the core knowledge needed to pass, say, GCSEs, if it's not done by having lessons round the kitchen table? Do you ever hire specialist tutors? OK, you can do learning at places like museums, but how do they pick up, for example, how to do the calculations needed to pass GCSE Maths or Physics? How structured to you make the courses? for example, in your group of home educated children, are the children studying roughly the same sort of stuff at the same time? (obviously they are when they're out together)! How mixed is the group? ie does everyone come from educated middle class backgrounds? Is there the possibility to join a group like this outside big centres like London or Oxford? Do you think that your family had a bad experience with schools and that if you could afford, say , the small private school of your choice, that your daughters would get as good an experience as you are giving them at home?
I must say that a lot of what you say about school strikes a chord with me, but in my case, I escaped out of a state primary, to a very academic girls school where I was able to learn at my own pace.
Thank you in advance to Cadge and all the other home educators for completing the picture with more details!

Lil · 27/04/2001 13:24

Cadge

i totally agree with your last comment that 'the world is sadly short of peace makers, lateral thinkers and people in tune with their own feelings.' and this seems a common theme through all you HE messages. However, can I just stand up for us 'conventional' guys, and say (Bugsy take note) that education does not stop at the school gate. There is nothing wrong in the government using schools to teach us the skills society needs to live! That's the whole point of schooling. All these other trips to libraries, zoos etc that HE base their education on are used by school-eds as well! Good parents spend their weekends and evenings enlightening their children into the way the world works, morals and our ethics. Its not an 'either' 'or' situation.

There is no need to take your children away from mainstream in order to give kids a holistic view of life. THEY CAN HAVE BOTH!

Hazzy · 27/04/2001 15:06

Hello Lil,

You wrote: "Good parents spend their weekends and evenings enlightening their children into the way the world works, morals and our ethics. Its not an 'either' 'or' situation." But the problem for children might be that school and parents are not 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. This is not to say that children should only get their window on the world from one direction, but if the school parcels up knowledge into subjects and key stages, while the parents are helping their children explore the world in all sorts of ways, I can see children getting disenchanted with the school way of doing things.

Sadly, it's all too common to see parents (with often the best will in the world) handing over the education of their children to the school because "teacher knows best". If parents are told not to 'teach' their children to read but simply to help them along with the method selected by the school, then the parents are being pressured into complying and seeing their role as strictly secondary.

And I know of at least two instances of teachers telling parents not to give their children such a stimulating and varied life outside school, because it makes them restless or bored with schoolwork.

Whether or not parents home educate, it's vital that they can have the confidence to know that they can help their children in all sorts of ways, rather than be cowed into accepting the 'professional' way as the only way.

Best wishes

OP posts:
Cadge · 27/04/2001 15:16

Hi again,
We live in Cheshire, a town of 12,000, hardly a city. Home-educators are not as thin on the ground as you think! There are 6 families in our town, that I know of, but only 3 of them get involved in our group. There are local groups in most areas and if not then start your own, that's what we did!

As for teaching to GCSE level, well my eldest is only 8 so we haven't given it much thought yet. To be honest I'm not convinced that GCSEs are necessary at all. When the O and A levels were introduced the idea was that you took A levels in the subjects that you were good at and O levels in your weaker subjects, not Os progressing onto As. There is no reason why a child can't go straight onto A level studies.

When I was a school governor I attended a course run by the LEA for governors, (there are lots on offer, ask your governing body for info on how many of the governors have attended courses, it won't be many!), titled 'How Learning Really Works'. It was one of the things that helped me decide on home-ed! It was based on the research that has been done into how the brain works and Howard Gardener's theories on Multiple Intelligence. Believe me, the people at the forefront of education theory are convinced that the classroom is not the best place to learn, that the school model as we know it is outdated, that paper qualifications are not the best judge of ability, that the majority of children are being discriminated against because their natural learning preference is not visual/oral. This is a course run by the LEA! They know things have got to change, the most forward thinking universities already accept video recordings and oral presentations in place of written work, international companies give employees lumps of plasticine to kneed while listening to presentations (brain function is enhanced by physical activity), so why do schools continue to insist on sitting still, not fiddling etc? Children need movement, fresh air, natural light and for the learning to be relevant to their lives.

Oh dear, I'm rambling, back to your Qs:
Our group is very mixed, aged from toddlers to 12, from various social and religious backgrounds, some parents have degrees, some have no fomal qualifications. When we go on trips it's a case of 'do you fancy going there/doing that?' not of following a curriculum. I'd be surprised if any two families followed up/prepared for a trip in the same way. We (our family) don't follow any curriculum or set out to cover particular subjects. If the children are interested in something we help them to find out as much as they want to know, you might be surprised that the relationships between numbers is fascinating when it's not called 'work'. We make learning and pursuing topics that interest us a way of life, rather like eating a healthy diet.

Lil, yes schools do use some of the real world as a resource, once a year on a school trip for most kids, and the rest of the time is spent in the same room, under artificial lights, being prepared for the 'real world'.We don't remove our children from the real world in the first place.

Of course you CAN do lots of things in the evening, but do you? In our case the girls were too tired, too stressed or had too much homework to leave much energy for anything else and this was Primary school! They also need some time to daydeam.

Tigermoth · 27/04/2001 15:46

Cadge, I can't write a long message at the moment, but I've been following this message board all through the day. I think you've given a generally a very good example of how home education can work. Some bits still worry me though, especially the fact that your regular group consists of only three families. Are you happy with this? Of course you can't just magic up more families, I know. But how do your children learn to rub along together regularly with a larger social group of less like-minded people?

Lil · 27/04/2001 16:07

Hazzy

I really think comments like 'And I know of at least two instances of teachers telling parents not to give their children such a stimulating and varied life outside school, because it makes them restless or bored with schoolwork.' are not exactly word for word what is said. i mean come on teachers don't talk like that. I know not all teachers are good (of course) but neither are all parents and its just as easy for me to say that i'm sure some of the parents who do HE are not perfect and make big mistakes.

The problem is the HEs are coming over as very evangelical. Evangelical poeple are not discerning, and it would be nice to see one of you admit a weakness, ANY weakness with home-Ed (we all know the problems with school-ed, class sizes etc) but you aren't. Its all perfect in your descriptions. Nothing is, that's why many non HEs are rather sceptical.

Hazzy · 27/04/2001 17:10

Hello Lil,

Those instances I quoted are genuine - and not dissimilar to the "children should learn to be bored" that we were told by our son's reception class teacher.

You wrote: "I know not all teachers are good (of course) but neither are all parents." Of course, and we're all "not perfect and make big mistakes". Surely, that's the point of sites such as Mumsnet. If someone said, "Look, there are plenty of parenting manuals out there - why don't you just go out and follow what the experts say instead of questioning them and getting things wrong all the time?" they'd rightly get a poor response. The 'experts' have their place, but we should never bow down to them. We learn all the time (as parents, children and human beings) by asking, exploring, listening, watching, talking and picking ourselves up when we fall over.

I don't think I've ever said that there weren't any 'problems' or weaknesses associated with home educating (and I've mentioned money, families in isolated homes and 'fitting in' before) but given the generally woeful knowledge about home education in the rest of the community, is there anything really wrong with us doing a bit of evangelising?

Best wishes

OP posts:
Jch · 27/04/2001 21:09

Regarding the comment that teachers do not ask parents to refrain from giving children a 'life' outside of school.

That is exactly what happened to us. We were told that to take our son to a museum devoted to the English Civil War was wrong because not all the children would have the same advantage. Our son was also told that he would not be allowed to go on bike rides at the weekend unless he knuckled down in school! That is really dictating the whole life of a child, not even sticking to the 'school' hours.

I think this is far more frequent an occurrence than is realised.

Cadge · 27/04/2001 22:15

Tigermoth, I said their were 3 home-ed families in our town, not our local group. We have about 25 families on our mailing list and regularly have 15 families (30 children) ar our get-togethers. There are 15 children at the gym lessons, 30 at the drama (split into 2 groups) and most taught sessions at museums etc have a minimum number of 20. Most of the families live in the nearby towns, 15min drive, but some travel further. Of course I would like more home-ed families within walking distance but we don't shun the schoolies you know!

Just because my children don't go to school doesn't mean that they can't be friends with school children. We live on a small estate and have children knocking on our door EVERY day. I was actually glad when the Easter hols were over as we had a houseful for 2 weeks! Some of these children are at the school mine used to attend but some go to church schools. They have all the usual fallings out and handle it as well as the others. Mine do get a bit fed up with the others only wanting to play 'teachers' though!

SML, I think I had a fairly average school experience, not particularly inspiring but not too bad. My reports always said I had the ability but not the motivation. I left at 16 with 7 O levels and no idea what I wanted from life. I left the country at 19 with £100. and a vague plan and returned 6years later with a husband, two kids and a sense of purpose. My husband's experience was similar. Even if we could afford a small private school we wouldn't send our daughters to one UNLESS they requested it (in which case we would try to find a small, democratic school). I would not enforce home-ed on a child that prefered to go to school any more than I would force a child to attend school if they were unhappy to do so, but how many school kids have been given the choice? How many parents even know that it is legal? How many health visitors ask 'are you sending your child to school?' as opposed to 'have you got his name down yet'?
Best wishes.

Cadge · 27/04/2001 22:23

I thought the following report might be of some interest in the 'socialisation' debate:

Ruled by Their Peers

by Karen Gram
Southam Newspapers
Vancouver, British Columbia

Inside the kindergarten classroom of an elementary school, the children
gather at the door ready to go home. Some wait quietly for the teacher to
dismiss them. They wave to parents from the threshold and hold up artwork,
eager to show what they have made. Others ignore the adults. They play and
push each other into the hall. They chase each other in circles, oblivious
to admonishments of teacher and parents.

The second group demonstrates perfectly the early stages of what a
Vancouver-based clinical and developmental psychologist fears is a trend
destroying the psychological health of an ever-growing number of people. Dr.Gordon Neufeld calls it peer orientation. It is rampant among juvenile
delinquents, but it is evident in every school and on every playground. He
says the children in the first group take their cues from adults. They are
"adult oriented" and are most closely attached to parents or other adults
responsible for them. But those in the second group try to win attention and
approval of peers - not parents. They are "peer oriented".

"This is scary," says Neufeld, "because as the kids age and their
orientation to peers strengthens, mob rule, a Lord of the Flies syndrome,
sets in and parents and teachers are left in the dust, incapable of reaching
children, morally or intellectually."

Neufeld has led parenting seminars for 16 years; there is a 3-year wait for
private consultations. He says parents today want their children to have all
the best opportunities to learn. So they put them in programs as young as
two years old, enrol them in umpteen after-school lessons or put them in a
day-care so they can work and provide a comfortable home with all the
amenities the kids want. The kids are busy, but they lack the closeness of a
parent. Instead, they are surrounded by other children and end up bonding
with them. Behavioural problems inevitably arise.

Studies show that the worst behaved kids are those who spend the most time
with other kids. Neufeld says peer-oriented people can't see their own
boundaries or maintain their own identities because their priority is the
approval of their peers. In the long run, peer orientation prevents children
from developing into healthy, mature adults who can integrate into society
while maintaining their own identity and morals. In the short run, it
prevents children from learning from teachers or parents. They learn more at
recess and lunchtime than in the classroom, and it creates severe behavioral
problems.

Peer pressure, a phenomenon that became a significant problem with
baby-boomers, is a consequence of peer orientation. But Neufeld notes that
the pressure comes not from the peers but from an internal desire to please
or be similar.

Dr. Joan Pinkus, a developmental psychologist, shares Neufeld's concern.
"It's happening a lot and it is a concern to me," she says. "The things
children need most - stability, empathy, security - peers don't give that.
So they are missing an important element of development." Says Neufeld, "If the child is not connected, if the child's working attachments are peers,
you are left impotent."

That impotence was obvious with the juvenile delinquents he used to work
with, he says. Group discussions with these youths were impossible. They
avoided eye contact and told him they didn't have to listen to him and that
he didn't know anything about them. But their obedience to peers was
outstanding. "If a peer suggested he go joy riding, that's what the youth
did," he says.

So how have peers come to exercise such influence over children today?
"Children naturally seek another human being from whom to learn how to
behave and to develop a sense of their own identity," he says. "In the past,
that has come from adults - parents, grandparents, care-givers and teachers.
Children attached themselves to parents, or parent-substitutes, and
gradually gained from them a sense of security from which to act and an
understanding of boundaries."

But things changed with the babyboomers, the first mass youth culture in
North America. Today's youth are the children and grandchildren of the first
deeply peer-oriented group and the phenomenon has compounded, says Neufeld.

With parents increasingly absent, impersonal day cares and child centres
taking on more parenting functions and television exerting increasing
influence on children, the essential primary bonding mechanism of childhood
is being destroyed, Neufeld suggests. And that's trouble.

"Peers are not nurturers," says Neufeld. "They were never meant to be
nurturers. They compete for nurturing." Parents, on the other hand, have the
capacity to nurture and should give it freely - but frequently don't. "As
parents, we have forgotten our basic function," says Neufeld. "We're the
anchor point, we're the psychological womb, we're the secure home base."
"Parents need to provide the closeness, the contact, the twinkle in the eye,
the interest, the delight that nurtures the child as long as they are
attaching to us," he says.

Neufeld's approach is right, says Elaine Jones, whose name has been changed to protect her son's privacy. Her 12-year old son, "Tom", was so attached to a friend that he wanted to move out when denied permission to go to a party at the boy's house. The friend was like a drug, she said. They got into trouble at school together and when Tom was at home, he just 'did time"
until freed to be with his friend.

After seeing Neufeld, and making an effort to do more family-oriented
activities, her son is back to his old self, says Jones. "He is warm, he has
conversations with us, he talks about his school work, he is back with us."

Neufeld says punishment or authoritativeness would not work in this type of
situation. "Punishment misses the point that the children are taking cues
from each other. The only way they could break the cycle is not through
'teaching a lesson', but through changing their working attachments."

www.familyplayce.org/Articles/Ruled_by_Their_Peers/ruled_by_their_pee
rs.htm

Cadge · 28/04/2001 13:31

Re qualifications, we have two colleges within easy travelling distance, one has accepted primary aged children on adult-ed language courses when accompanied by their parents who were also taking the courses, and both accept home-ed children on GCSE courses from age 14.

Sioux · 28/04/2001 17:57

Hi everyone,

Just to join in: we started home education as a temporary measure when we moved abroad. I personally had a pretty enjoyable school life, though I've forgotten most of what I learned, and my sons were very happy in their primary school in the UK. When we moved, my older son was part way through Y6, my younger son in Y4.

We thought we would home educate until the end of the academic year while we all settled in and looked at available schools. The teachers at my sons' school were affirming and encouraging, suggesting text books that might be useful, and assuring me I needn't worry about the national curriculum or anything like that.

After about three months while we adjusted to our new life and used text books roughly according to NC guidelines, my sons said they'd like to continue home education because they enjoyed it so much. They said they were learning more than they'd learned at school, and loved the flexibility of going at their own pace. They liked not being limited by bells and timetabling, and having so much more free time.

Three years later, we're continuing and have no intention of stopping. We talked about the GCSE issue a year ago, and the boys opted to take the 'National Christian Schools Certificate' which is based on an American 'homeschool' curriculum, and gives a qualification equivalent to 8 GCSEs and 3 A-levels, over 4-5 years, using a correspondence course. We checked the UCAS site and sure enough it's acceptable for many college and uni courses. Quite rigid in some ways and very 'American', but has a good grounding in maths and grammar, and plenty of elective options.

I also know of home educators in the UK whose teenagers have gone to adult-ed classes, or taken GCSE correspondence courses, or via the Internet, or with personal tutors, or at home using text-books and a bit of informal research. The point is that these teenagers have control of their lives and have made their own choices. They're not pushed into taking 9 or 10 GCSEs so their schools can look good in the league tables, they're taking them because they are internally motivated and enjoy the subjects. If they find they haven't got one that they need when they decide on a career, they can take them later. Adult ed classes offer GCSEs in a term or two for any age. I know someone who took GCSE maths in her mid-30s, and someone else who took GCSE Spanish in her mid-40s. (Both got grade A)

As for socialising - yes, it can be lonely at times, particularly in a foreign country where there aren't many home educators. But children in schools here (as in many countries) don't have lunchtimes to mix socially. School hours are 7.45am - 1.30pm with two brief breaks for snacks during the mornings. Almost no after-school clubs, few team sports.

One of my sons joined Cubs for a while, the other plays in the town band. Ironically his clarinet teacher runs the local private school orchestra, and he's asked my son to join that too! Orchestra was the one thing he missed most from his primary school. Both my sons also go to a church youth group which has an official meeting once a week, an unofficial gathering at McDonalds, and recently has had at least one unofficial weekly gathering at various members' houses.

We have a small home educators' support group which meets monthly, with 11 families. Children of all ages mix together quite happily. We have other home educated friends over once a week for an afternoon, and, living abroad, we have plenty of visitors from the UK. Acquaintances have commented that my sons are surprisingly mature, and polite, and seem to get along well with adults - unlike the majority of teenagers in this country who are far more peer-dependent.

Team sports? Well I never enjoyed those at school, and my DH loathed them at his. What torture it was running up and down a field on a bitterly cold day in shorts and a tee-shirt. My OS does enjoy cricket but there's no chance to play that properly here. However once a year we return to the UK for a month and he takes a cricket course at our local county ground for fun.

The Youth group does some fairly informal soccer, basketball, rounders and table tennis, and we have impromptu cricket and french cricket in our back garden. Children in the UK who are keen on team sports can join YMCA type groups or leisure centres - but my two prefer roller blading or climbing trees or walking.

Apologies for the length of this message, but I hope it's reassured those who are concerned about academics and/or sports for teenagers, explained a bit more about why socialising isn't a problem, and encouraged others to see that home education isn't necessarily a last resort due to problems in school, but can be a best choice out of several potentially good options.

Sml · 01/05/2001 08:59

Thanks to all the home educators for all this information and evangelicism!

Tigermoth · 01/05/2001 09:13

...yes, me too. Not sure about the evangelicalism but thanks for the information!

SueDonim · 04/01/2002 01:04

I thought this article about attempts in Scotland to trace all children might be of interest to anyone involved with Home Education

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.