Is it important what children are taught?

[seeker]

I've been thinking about this since I was on a very interesting thread about home education, and somebody said (I paraphrase) that it was up to parents what children were taught, and in the long run it didn't really matter so long as it didn't affect their day to day life.

I find this really interesting. If my school educated children were being taught something that was patently untrue and unscientific - for example that the world is 6000 years old - I would intervene and expect the "authorities" to intervene on behalf of my children and their peers. This may not affect their day to day lives, but it would definitely affect their critical faculties and their ability to look at the world in a rational way.

Do people think that parents should have the right to set up their own schools or home educate if what they are teaching their children is actually scientifically wrong? Or "wrong" in some other way - limiting girls'choices, denying access to good quality sex education,advocating Jihad - there are lots of examples to choose from. any thoughts?

seeker I've replied to your msg about nursing homes btw.

And at the idea that there's only one Scottish HEor in the the whole world!

No, I've never been on radio...

I can agree in principle that children should not be taught nonsense, and that there maybe should be stuff that everyone knows. But it's a question of how you ensure that, without infringing on parents rights. And when you consider that there are children in HE who don't have an SEN statement but probably would if they were in school, it's harder still to say anything about what say an 8yo should be required to know, because there'll always be exceptions.

Seeker - I really like your idea of a baseline list of stuff, but the problem is of course, who determines this baseline. Jesuit maxim: "Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man." I rather think that they'd keep the man though.

The recent report that schools spend too much effort in KS1/2 on reading and writing at the expense of other subjects has caused me to re-evaluate the way I was concentrating on R/W with DS1 since that was what was in his bag.

I've been talking with him about what we could do in 'discovery time' - which I'm planning on using to replace 'reading time' for a bit. He's expressed an interest in art and explorers as well as the usual space/dinosaurs/robots subject matter. I think we need a few more subjects -science, the world, different people, but other than some of the Dorling Kindersley books, I'm still at an early stage of finding a set of baseline books. And the challenge being - do I consider books that don't follow my own materialist/humanist leanings!

I think it is incredibly important. I don't think that there are topics that are necessarily specifically "must knows" as it were, but to learn to enquire, to be able to research, to be aware of the spectrum of thought, to learn how to interact with others, to accept boring learning as well as interesting stuff, because sometimes you can't learn the interesting things without the boring foundations, to have a broad understanding of the world, history, culture etc. Hugely important.

Some teachers are much better than others, and I am sure that there are therefore excellent HEers too, but I learnt a lot from the different ways I was taught, and different things from different people because of their passions and approaches. I certainly would not be able to teach my children (we would all hate it, and I haven't the patience at all), my dh on the other hand probably wouldn't be too shabby, but it would be narrower than school because he doesn't like art or PE for example. If you can do it well then commendations to you, and why not, but past primary I'm not sure how you could hold the breadth of subject knowledge that say my dh has about history (ex history teacher) or my mother about religion (ex RE teacher) or the skills of my BIL (es CDT teacher). Spot a theme here! Lol I guess there must be ways and means, but surely you have to be completely committed and unable to do anything much else than teach or prepare for it?

I just wanted to make comment about teachers. I had a very history teacher who was a Labour Party activist. As well as knowing his stuff and being able to make it entertaining, he would often frame his comments about the evens we studied in a very 'old labour' context - lots of discussion about social forces and the general direction of history ensued in his classes, which are the only ones I remember fondly. And in part, that's where I picked up my contrarian attitude

We are an autonomously educating family-we don't 'teach' our children anything.
We haven't done any formal work for years, instead we 'facilitate' whatever they are interested in, answer questions, go out and about in the world, and talk and talk and talk about anything and everything.

For us, our priorities were raising happy young people who are confident, articulate, problem solvers and free thinkers, able to explore and research whatever they want to.

It turns out this is a very efficient way of educating-for us certainly it has worked, with both of the elder two in full time work, enjoying life and with a mixture of OU and A Level qualifications gained.
There is an article that compares informal and formal home based education which might go someway to explaining what I am talking about.

I posted this note on another thread about whether teachers would consider home education, but i think it is relevant here too.

I am getting ready to home educate one of my children. I was very worried about this exact same question in the title of the post!

However, I have 'learnt' that it doesnt really matter - but no one 'taught' me that.

That, for me, is key to that way I want to home educate. As a parent, in law, I have a responsibility to provide an education that is both suitable for how we live and effective, while not limiting his ability to integrate/beome part of a different social setting if he chooses when older. So, if we live in a small eco-community of small-holders, artists, craftspeople (one day!) the education we provide could be about learning the importance of biodiversity, changing seasons, permaculture principles, farming, landskills, pottery, cooking, homemaking skills, preserving, building your own home, generating power from natural resources etc. This would be seen as suitable as it would be reflective of the community in which he lived.

An education is deemed effective if he learns the things we would like him to learn. We cannot, however, STOP him from learning other, additional things that are not maybe OUR lifestyle choice, for one day, they may be his. And I will encourage this! He is not me. He is he.

I very much like the principles of project based and inquiry based home learning, so we will be working with HIS choice of projects, plus OUR principles of living plus knowledge and experiences of our friends, other home educators/resources/reflections.

To learn and to teach are different. I want him to learn all the things he wants to in order for him to have the adverntures he wants to and be a fulfilled and happy man in adulthood. I do think it matters what he learns and RETAINS and therefore shapes his character and values, but I dont think most of what really matters in this world can be 'taught'. It has to be learned. By him. I am not responsible for what he learns - I cannot be as I am not him! by job will be to make sure that I provide learning opportunities for him to do so.

Qualifications are not a requirement for univeristy if you have been home educated. I doubt they will give a place to a schooled student with no qualifications, but 'methods' of home education mean that there IS no formal testing by which to mark by, so often it becomes irrelevant. I understand that indepth interviews and projects submitted will be taken in place of qualification.