Guest post: "This September, my daughters won't be going back to school"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

When we first considered home education, I pictured handwriting practice, daily reading tasks, desks and mini-projects. I used to be a teacher; I imagined some kind of co-op, where I'd teach four or five children Stuff I Knew and another parent would include our children in a similar group for Stuff They Knew.

We decided to opt out of the school system after a brief dabble with preschool for Evie, who's now five - her four-year-old sister Clara won't be starting school this September either. Society can sometimes laugh, with varying degrees of mirth, about the lack of fun and creativity in schools. But given the government push for testing and an ever-narrowing curriculum, we stopped laughing and just felt a bit sad. We decided that home educating would suit our family better.

Of course, we had early worries about doing the right thing for the kids; qualifications; making friends; the embarrassment of telling people.

Although I'd initially envisioned a kind of school at home, my children don't learn that way; in fact, few of us learn that way. It's how schools work because there are 30 children in each group with one adult, and that's hard to manage. It's what has always been done.

We're usually wet or muddy or covered in ice cream or - on good days - all three. Some days I'm Queen Elizabeth I at Hampton Court Palace (but a nicer one at Evie's instruction, because our ginger queen wasn't known for her benevolence) and the girls are my daughters (but secret, illegitimate daughters, because she didn't have any really). Other days we might go back to check on some tadpoles at the park. The girls are enthusiastic explorers and biologists. I'm a rather repetitive and slightly irritating Protector of the Tadpoles. No tadpoles have been harmed, but many have been stroked.

I always knew that these kinds of activities were legitimate ways of learning, but surely you'd also need lessons, or some form of structured teaching. I had read a bit about unschooling but I wasn't really convinced. The essence is that you live with your children and allow them to live: offer lots of opportunities and resources, and allow the children to choose how they spend their time. Be supportive and talk to them. It's the parenting that most of us did when our children were babies and toddlers. They learnt to talk and walk, and recognise individuals, they knew their colours and how to count, and how to stack things, and what would make them feel better if they got hurt. As I started to look for and find learning in ways that don't look like school, this way of educating, and living, made the most sense to me.

We're lucky these days that lots of unschooled kids have grown up and been to university; they're getting good jobs and living satisfying lives without ever having faced the stress of year 6 SATs or last minute Sunday night homework or bullying.

So we're unschoolers. We don't do it in exactly the same way as anybody else, because everyone has their own set of interests and learns in different ways. We go on all sorts of trips organised by home educating parents - to museums and nature reserves and sites of historical interest - and a whole lot of unorganised trips to parks and IKEA and the swimming pool. We read lots of books and go to the library to get more. We play with toys. We watch a lot of Netflix and YouTube and are currently in a phase of playing an abundance of Kirby's Epic Yarn on the Wii.

We spend time with lovely friends and travel around the country to see family. We never take tests; we're never limited by a curriculum; we don't sit if we want to run, nor do we run when we need to sit.

I don't worry about the same things any more, which luckily leaves me time to worry about the mess, or the sibling squabbles or what we'll have for tea instead. I know this is the right choice for us. If they need qualifications there are plenty of ways to get them; they have lots of friends of all ages; and I'm not at all embarrassed to tell people that we're not on holiday, actually, we home educate.

Here is a post about what grown up unschoolers do. www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201406/survey-grown-unschoolers-i-overview-findings

Comparison to those home schooled and following a curriculum/those from same home background in school? Recruitment sought from those dissatisfied with their home/unschooling career? Recruitment by someone who might not be unfailingly positive about unschooling and hence safe to talk to if you're dissatisfied?

Hmm, thought not.

Ther only places where I have known squads of thirty people to be marched from place to place, expected to address their superiors as 'Sir' and forbidden to use the lavatory without permission are prisons and the army. You will forgive my observing that such conditions are not really my idea of good socialisation! To you call your boss 'Sir'? Do you ahve to ask permission at work if you wish to empty your bladder? School is not a good place to learn about socialisation.

I don't know about you but I was certainly never marched anywhere when I was at school, and having to ask may we use the bathroom is absolutely not an indication of whether a child is able to socialise with their peers . You've gone off on an anti-school tangent and not answered my question.

I didn't teach my dd anything, I don't know why some posters can't comprehend this. [confusing]
My spelling isn't the best, but i have worked hard to overcome my difficulties, and like to be corrected.
My dh is grammar school educated and was more than capable of covering ks2 English level.

School has failed some of you on the ability to comprehend comments.. that is not what was said. Totally agree.

Well as interesting as this is, I'm off to school now to hear what strategies they are going to use and what support they can offer dd, I'm sure it will be acceptable as the school is Fab.
If they can't offer what she needs then we will H.ed again from Monday and the taxpayers on here can save their 30k they pay for her fees.

Simon, unfortunately sometimes trying to get your point across is like pissing into the wind, but thank you for trying.
I wish you and your dd all the best and I hope she continues to thrive whatever direction she takes.

'having to ask may we use the bathroom is absolutely not an indication of whether a child is able to socialise with their peers '

Spending all day in an environment where even the most elementary physical needs cannot be answered without seeking permission is not a good preparation for life. Nor is being required to address superiors as 'Sir'; something which will never again be encountered in real life for most children. This has a bearing on the question of socialisation, because the conditions in schools are highly artificial and resemble nothing in society at large. Have you ever been obliged to share your day only with a group of people who vary in age from you only by twelve months at most? This is not normal life. I will say nothing teachers telling children specifically that they come to school to learn and not to socialise; a common enough experience. I have never heard of any teacher who suggests that the purpose of a school is to provide a palce where you can hang out and socialise with your mates!

So it's not really about horses for courses. When home eders ask for the it's horses for courses but then rabidly attack school and schooling and even those who send kids to school (which face it has happened on this thread a fair few times) then it's only understandable that they themselves aren't saying horses for courses. But they seem to ask for it themselves though.

This is another wonderful video from a grownup unschooler talking about how she did later and addressing some of the common concerns - all also raised on this thread.

I think you might be a teeny bit out of date on what schools are like these days Simon.

Certainly the school where I left my four year old for the first time this morning does not require anyone to be called Sir, nor ask permission to use the loo, and although children are in age-segregated classrooms, they play with children of a variety of ages, learn to socialise with teachers and children of all ages, in fact one of the major learning points for primary school is learning to socialise with adults and children.

I happen to think that playing/learning (indistinguishable at this age) benefit from being done with children whose abilities (social, cognitive etc.) are close to the child. They can push the individual child that little bit further without having abilities that are so far beyond that child that the child doesn't know where to start. Children also like to push themselves to do something that their friend can (which can be cooperative, doesn't have to be competitive).

I have never heard of any teacher who suggests that the purpose of a school is to provide a palce where you can hang out and socialise with your mates!

Perhaps not, but my 11yo dd would certainly see it that way.

She does learn in school, undoubtedly, but a lot of her academic learning probably takes place outside of school. The benefits of going to school, in her eyes, are predominantly social. Not only hanging out with her friends, although that's a big part of it, but working with different groups of people, taking on leadership roles, exposure to different ways of thinking etc.

Learning would almost certainly be more efficient if she did it at home, but I doubt she would enjoy it as much.

You still aren't answering my question and I think it's because you realise home education is preventing the child from socialising amongst their peers , and potentially inhibiting them from gaining skills learned via play and talking. It really doesn't matter whether it represents society, it matters that the child is learning skills they will use when they go out into larger society. It matters that they're meeting all different sorts of personalities, people from different backgrounds, people with different needs, learning about conflict, diplomacy, resolution.. in an organic way that doesn't seem like an education and learning but actually is.

Did I say that any teacher suggests the purpose of school what you've just implied? No I didn't, but socialisation is the added benefit of schooling. Like I've said, it's an organic learning experience. You find school socialistion lacking with it apparently not being a representation of society, yet have failed to tell me how you achieve the socialisation aspect in a home school environment. Something which we KNOW is important as the socialisation skills we learn as children have a direct impact on us as adults.

And it's interesting to note that in one of the studies posted, it was the unschooled kids themselves who said the social isolation was a negative. Now I asked my question because I was genuinly interested, but the defensiveness and attacks on formal schooling has been quite insightful.

It is not the job of SS to monitor HE kids. Sorry. And you should know this if you "know your way around the CP system". There is no duty to monitor... UNLESS there is evidence that an appropriate education is not taking place. Education should not be conflated with welfare. The systems are already in place for kids who are needing SS.

That it is not the job of SS to monitor HE kids was exactly my point, Simon. My argument is that it should be. Home education creates a welfare issue in my view, because, either deliberately or as a by-product, it makes children potentially vulnerable.

"Even if all the home educating parents on this thread are doing a bang-up job, it's surely not much of a stretch to see that that isn't going to be true in all cases."

Ah,.. a bit like some schools then Have you seen the studies on UK standards compared to the rest of Europe?

Again, I made this point myself. I also made the point that schools are monitored rigorously as a result. Why should home educators not be held to similar standards?

We should have a social worker? What on earth for? You are ridiculous. I really worry if you are still "involved in CP". Good God. Save your "worry" for kids being abused.

Why am I not surprised that at the first whiff of social services involvement, the school refuseniks throw up their hands in horror at the stigma of it all! I predicted it in my previous post actually, but edited it out as I thought it would be inflammatory - clearly I needn't have worried! In my experience, the home edders who have reluctantly given up on schools that were failing their children would have positively welcomed SS involvement, as it might have given them some leverage to get the support they were seeking for their DCs. For the rest of you, really, what’s the problem? What have you got to hide? If there is no problem with what you're providing, and your DCs are genuinely happy with it all, there would be no further action. But what if there is a problem, and you can’t or won’t see it? What if your DC is miserable but you experience their desire to go to school as a criticism of your choices and won’t entertain it? Or perhaps, to open up your perspective a little, what if some other, not so marvellous, home educator is doing this to their child? Why should that - possibly very isolated - child not have access to an advocate? I think such behaviour on the part of a home educator would be abusive actually. Is there really anyone here who thinks this would be OK?

And I didn’t say I was ‘involved in child protection’ actually. I hope whatever else you are teaching your DD it’s not textual analysis.

I think you might be a teeny bit out of date on what schools are like these days Simon

I agree.

Teachers facilititate opportunities for children to socialise, trips clubs, groups, parties etc. You will also find schools are for building life skills apart from qualifications, Teachers care about children and understand there has to be balance.

Over the last few years I have read a number of Mumsnet discussions about home education. Invariably, those commenting who are not involved in home education are dismissive of it, or critical of it. Almost equally invariably they will say that they once knew someone who was home educated who XXX. They usually demand some manner of inspection or monitoring.

Schools are inspected because they are providing a service to families, paid for by taxation. Any service funded by taxation, must be monitored in order to ensure that taxes are applied properly.

I have been researching and involved in this topic for too many years to mention and have yet to see the views of those commenters reflected in reality.

The reality of the situation is that home education is the legal default as it is the duty of the parent to ensure that their child receives a suitable education. They may if they wish, use a school to do that of course.

In school a significant number of children fail to achieve the required 5 GCSEs at grade C or above. A majority of children report themselves as being bullied. A significant minority leave school unable to read or write.

Home educated children on average achieve a full grade higher than their schooled peers academically. Research shows them to be at least as well socialised as school children are.

Home educated children are considerably less likely than school children to commit a crime and are considerably less likely to be unemployed as adults.

In short, on any measure, home educated children are doing well.

Of course one can point to a child who did less well, but it is clear that the proportion of home educated children doing 'less well' is very much smaller than that of schooled children.

There is a lot of emotion involved in this discussion, not least because those who send their children to school tend to view home educating families as critical of their choices. They defend their own feelings by criticising the home educated. Home educating families are not criticising the choices of others, rather they are making valid choices for their own children.

Home education is a legally valid, effective choice of education provision to make.

It does not require monitoring because it is neither state funded, nor a risk factor.

Schools need to improve so that every child receives a good education, which currently they do not. Most parents have little choice but to use schools and that is not something that they can be criticised for.

What they should do is step back and think how they would feel if the comments below were directed at them, their choices and their children.

@princessmombi - I have three home educated adult children. One just graduated university with first class honours. He didn't sit any tests until he went to college. My second is in her second year at Nottingham Trent, and she was the same, and my third went to school in the April of year 10 and managed to function quite well at GCSE exam level without any prior experience, she is off to Plymouth Uni this September. All left college with GCSE's, English A Level's and the qualifications that they focused on, to get them into uni.

@MidnightVelvettheSixth - I applaud your self awareness. I have home educated for many, many years, and I agree, I don't think it is for everyone. However, I do think that I myself have grown into it over the years, and wasn't something I found easy at all to begin with.

To answer your question, there are loads of methods to aid learning. My son 'chooses' to do his maths via a website. But to be really honest, I found that the kids that went to college/school when they were ready and went with purpose (see above reply), while they did have to work hard, they all managed to catch up and get the qualifications they needed, because they were very self motivated.

@user1471734618 - I think most of us home educators are also slightly irritated by the belief that this has come easy too them. Many families have made very large financial sacrifices to choose that option or have had to scrape and scrounge each month to make it happen.

Not all are middle class and have totally had to rethink life, career and choices in order to make it happen.

So I think the frustration runs both ways.

@RitesOfSpring - Not all those hours spent at school are about making friends, and not every child has a wonderful experience of school friendships. I occasiounally speak to friends on Facebook I went to school with, but for me, I made tighter friends at uni and or through parenting.

I have 5 kids, all have been home educated (until they asked to move on), that has happened at different ages for all of them. I have one remaining child at home.

They have all made valuable and lasting friendships. Not just with other home educated children, but also from other groups they have belonged too.

I have had a mixed bag of experiences, where one of mine made really tight friendships when she went to school at 15, and another who seems to tolerate the kids at school, and defaults back to his home ed/Explorers mates, because that is who he connects with.

I think it is important to allow children to find friends where they find them. For some that will be school, for others clubs, for others (who are home educated) a different community. The important thing is that kids belong- not fit in.

@LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett I certainly know men who home educate, and parents who share the task also.

Other points-

I don't demonise school, but I do see it as a service provide. All of mine thus far have moved successfully into an institutional setting when needed too. I see faults in the home ed community and in the school community. There is no utopia.

They have leadership opportunities and found other avenues for large group activities, such as sport, drama, choirs etc.

They have managed to go on to University, hold down jobs, have friends and function in society. I suspect as many schooled children have too. Horses for courses.

It's not for everyone, but anyone who believes in it can make it happen.

I see faults in the home ed community and in the school community. There is no utopia.

I think that's the most honest post I've read from an HEer on this thread.

"Sam I do indeed know what radical unschooling is. "

What is it then? And how does it differ from Unschooling and Autonomous?

"Likewise "child led parenting" I have experienced a family who supposedly were doing this but if you read my posts upthread you'll see how it works out in practice."

This is at odds with people that I know and studies done on outcomes then.

"I have not talked upthread about how the parenting aspects have worked out but they have tended to lead to massively overtired toddlers and older children anxious about going to bed (because the answer to "I don't want to go to bed" is not "let's work out why not and see how we can make it less scary" but "OK don't then", battles over food (children having one idea of what they want to eat and parents having prepared something else) or an unhealthily restricted diet, outgrown clothes and shoes continuing to be worn (though that aspect seems to be more due to not bothering to buy new ones/check sizes than much to do with unparenting), minor health problems not checked (child does not complain of them because they are, well, a child) and mental health problems dismissed (because child is a child and cannot really put the problems into words)."

None of these would be Radical Unschooling... because "unparenting" is something completely different.

"Several of these would have been spotted by professionals at school. Of course, the parents listening to the professionals wouldn't necessarily have happened either."

Our kids see Drs, Childminders, tutors and the general public every day. Seeing as most kids in the news for horrible abuse were seen by "professionals" regularly, I would not use that as a standard to adhere to. Some of these kids (Daniel Pelka for example) was seen by teachers everyday and were failed. There are sadly many more cases like that.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-24106823

"invisible to professionals"... really? Horribly failed more like.

Home educating families are not criticising the choices of others, rather they are making valid choices for their own children.

Most of the ones I know in person are not. Most of the ones on this thread (and a couple that I know IRL) are most definitely criticising not just the decision to send children to school but our whole parenting philosophy.

"MindSweeper Thu 01-Sep-16 12:57:24
You still aren't answering my question and I think it's because you realise home education is preventing the child from socialising amongst their peers , and potentially inhibiting them from gaining skills learned via play and talking. It really doesn't matter whether it represents society, it matters that the child is learning skills they will use when they go out into larger society. It matters that they're meeting all different sorts of personalities, people from different backgrounds, people with different needs, learning about conflict, diplomacy, resolution.. in an organic way that doesn't seem like an education and learning but actually is."

Oldest myth in the book and it has already been answered on this thread. Watch Joolz's video...

I surely cannot be alone in noticing how contradictory and inconsistent are the criticisms being levelled at home education? On the one hand, they are hothousers, whose children take GCSEs fantastically early. On the other hand, they need social workers, one to each family, in case they are unschoolers; whose children might learn nothing! They are both micro-managing helicopter parents, who are always organising every last aspect of their kids' lives and, then again, they are so neglectful that they let them go to bed whatever time they wish!

It strikes me that the reservations about and opposition to home education that we see here are not founded on observation at all. It is rather that some people disapprove of the very concept and then invent reasons to back up their prejudices.

"Why am I not surprised that at the first whiff of social services involvement, the school refuseniks throw up their hands in horror at the stigma of it all! I predicted it in my previous post actually, but edited it out as I thought it would be inflammatory - clearly I needn't have worried! In my experience, the home edders who have reluctantly given up on schools that were failing their children would have positively welcomed SS involvement, as it might have given them some leverage to get the support they were seeking for their DCs. For the rest of you, really, what’s the problem? What have you got to hide? If there is no problem with what you're providing, and your DCs are genuinely happy with it all, there would be no further action. But what if there is a problem, and you can’t or won’t see it? What if your DC is miserable but you experience their desire to go to school as a criticism of your choices and won’t entertain it? Or perhaps, to open up your perspective a little, what if some other, not so marvellous, home educator is doing this to their child? Why should that - possibly very isolated - child not have access to an advocate? I think such behaviour on the part of a home educator would be abusive actually. Is there really anyone here who thinks this would be OK?"

We have nothing to hide. Get your own house in order first. You are so keen to throw your parental rights away, we are not. Or our child's...
The state makes a very poor parent.
MY child does not want to go to school, she has the option. Same as most of our kids, if they wish to go to school then they do. Many kids (if given the choice) would not want to go to school. Where is the choice for your kids?

Home educating families are not criticising the choices of others

No? Really? Of course they are. They are criticising schools, and making jibes at those who fail to conduct their legal responsibility of educating their kids by outsourcing this job I.e. Sending kids to school. All sorts of criticisms have been launched at schools extracting instances of neglect and abuse from the media by saying X bas abused. x went to a school. Therefore Y conclusion is drawn. Read some of the posts by simon for example, and you really do not see a modicum of criticism about the choices of others?

I could start my own thing today about doing activity A in X manner. Then from the small numbers doing that I could look voila - in this small group I have a higher rate of employment/nicer souls than all the world out there. Therefore it must follow that my activity is better. Which is not what follows. Correlation, causation etc etc.

You are so keen to throw your parental rights away, we are not. Or our child's...
This sentence above is not a home educator criticising the choices of others, then?

I asked how you combat the lack of socialisation, I was genuinely interested to hear how you do this yet instead of answering me you launched an attack on schools. You had an opportunity to display how you do it, yet you didn't.

I surely cannot be alone in noticing how contradictory and inconsistent are the criticisms being levelled at home education? On the one hand, they are hothousers, whose children take GCSEs fantastically early. On the other hand, they need social workers, one to each family, in case they are unschoolers; whose children might learn nothing! They are both micro-managing helicopter parents, who are always organising every last aspect of their kids' lives and, then again, they are so neglectful that they let them go to bed whatever time they wish!

Surely you are not arguing that all HEers are the same? I'm sure that there are both hot-housers as well as parents who fail to teach their children anything at all. People inevitably go into these things with different motivations, and there is no inconsistency at all in pointing out the potential risks at either end of the helicopter-neglect spectrum.

'It matters that they're meeting all different sorts of personalities, people from different backgrounds, people with different needs,'

Yes, this happens more in the real world than in the classroom. Home edcuated children meet old people, young people and those in between every day. That is why I mentioned the situation where they are at school compelled to belong to a group all of about the same age. That is a strange situation which restricts their chances to mix with a wide cross-section of people. This is particularly a school problem; the inability to socialise freely. For the home educated child, there is no bell which rings and tells them that they must now end an interesting conversation or game.