Are there any benefits of Primary school that HE can't usually provide?

[carolinecordery]

Hello all, I haven't registered my DD for Reception, which she would be eligible to start in September.
I was just wondering if you thought there were any benefits of primary school that HE can't provide. What things are good about primary school that are only available through attending?
I'm planning to HE and am convinced of the benefits of doing so, but want a rounded picture. It's easy to think of loads of things that would be, relatively, a bit crap about primary school, but is there ANY really good reason to go? DD's non-resident dad would rather she went.
Thanks, Caroline

I HE my grandson. I've had custody of him since he was 2. He'll be 13 on Monday. He's been HE since he was 6. I think people worry too much about others' opinions, like school v. HE. My 7 kids all went to school. I'd have rather they didn't. If I'd known about HE I would probably have done it. It suits us as a family now. Some of my kids don't agree with it, but what do I care. I tell them, like I tell anyone who questions my choices to just piss off and mind their own business. I don't ask my kids why my grandchildren and I don't ask others why they send their kids to school. No one needs to defend their lifestyle choices. When I shut my door at the end of the day, I know it's the right choice for us.

Bsolutely, Marjorie- you are right. But we wouldn't have much of a discussion that way, would we.........

I don't think that a discussion is wanted!
Sometimes I think that perhaps other people don't use the 'talk' like me. I click first on discussions I am on and see if there is anything to add. Only 3 are active at the moment so they get my attention. If there is nothing to add I look at last 15 mins- and on odd occasions, if boring, I look at unanswered questions. Often I don't get past discussions I am on-therefore I post a lot.

I came back to it because the assumption was made that if people knew they could HE they would do it and they only send to school because they assume they have to. I think that the numbers wouldn't go up if most people knew; there would be more but they can't afford it-in the same way that lots of people would privately educate if they could afford it.

We are allowed to make any comments at all about how schools are failing DCs, but we are not allowed to say that some HEers fail their children-it appears that any parent can do it well.

marjoriew... :) x

There are examples where schools are havens for children. A haven from abuse, neglect, starvation - sometimes the only meal a child gets that day. There are examples where HE laws are abused especially where girls from certain cultures are concerned. HE only works if parents are suitable but to define that is difficult. On the whole, 99% are and 1% probably aren't.

Maybe when theres evidence that parents are failing children by HEing then maybe people would be up to discussing it. The government are constantly admitting that schools are failing kids. Google it & see the results. As for people not knowing you can legally HE I'm 1 of those because it hadn't crossed my mind to look into it. I was on another forum when I saw a post about it, that is when I researched. HEing isn't as common here as it is in the states. Can I also point out that asking the LA about HEing is laughable since I know loads of people have been told by them that it's illegal. I'm going to really throw myself to the wolves here cuz the people who have been saying that socialising is top of the list seriously needs to stop picking arguments with the people who have their priorities right by talking about their kids education instead of being popular. My family have been there for me through out not kids I know from school & yes Im still in contact with some but that's only cuz of fb or I wouldn't have bothered

Kas - a quick google like you suggested also shows that there is evidence that SOME (and I mean some, a tiny proportion) parents use HE as a way of slipping under the system and hiding abusive situations.

People upthread have discussed people they know where HEing obviously isn't working for the families.

To deny it fails some is as daft as to deny the school system fails some.

Really? I couldnt find anything except the 1 that the la's keep trying to use as reasons for thinking HEing is a cp problem

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13052013

I can see this from all sides - I have HEd, I currently send both my children to primary school, and I teach children from a (largely illiterate) community which removes most of their children from the school system at the age of 13 to 'home educate' them (in fact, to use the girls as childcare for younger siblings - the boys occasionally get to stay on for a few more years).

From my professional teaching experience, I would therefore say that not all HE provides good education - and in fact can be used to ensure that children of some communities do not get sufficient education to be equipped to leave that closed community even if they wish to.

From my personal HE experience, I would say that HE can be fabulous, as it can provide an education absolutely tailored to the child receiving it and can balance education and nurture in exactly the proportions that a particular child needs.

I am now, as I say, the parent of two schooled children. In choosing to send my children to school, I weighed up their 'short term' needs in their primary years - which I reckoned HE with a good dose of 'after school' type activities could easily provide - and their 'long term' needs to prepare them for their 11-18 and then university education. For me, and for my children, I felt that secondary schooling with its specialist teachers for specialist subjects (my DS shows an aptitude for Maths - which I could meet long term - along with an aptitude for languages, politics and history which I felt less equipped to help him with up to GCSE / A-level) would fit better than attempting to deliver the same type of education via HE. My children are academic types, who were likely to need that relatively 'conventional' type of secondary education. I therefore chose to send my children into primary school as a bridge into the secondary education I felt would best fit their needs and aptitudes.

There are definitely good arguments on both sides - and the best fit will take account of parents, the child, the child's age and stage of education, the HE and other 'out of school' group opportunities available and the particular school which forms the alternative.

teacherwith2kids. Unless I am mistaken I think I know the communities of which you speak. They take children out of school because they don't want them to fall foul of drugs, crime and teenage pregnancy. Sometimes these children go to primary and rarely secondary school. The males are regarded on a higher plane than females. The upshot is girls married at 16, males involved in drugs and crime. However, in fairness I don't agree with standards but this has been their culture for hundreds of years, and they are a minority unless I am mistaken. I am not from one of these communities by the way nor would I treat my dcs like this.

"They take children out of school because they don't want them to fall foul of drugs, crime and teenage pregnancy"

Actually, I think it's more that they don't want their girls to have the freedom and self determination that they are entitled to.

Ah, seeker you know these communities too. I know but thats what they say is the reason, the children believe it. In fairness again though traditionally that was the core reason. Not saying I agree at all, just I have experience of it and have researched this area at Post Grad level.

I'm going to really throw myself to the wolves here cuz the people who have been saying that socialising is top of the list seriously needs to stop picking arguments with the people who have their priorities right by talking about their kids education instead of being popular.

Nobody is prioritising popularity over education. What a ridiculous suggestion.

As has already been stated on this thread, socialisation is about much more than making friends, and I would argue that it is an important aspect of my child's education - not an alternative to it.

Many studies have shown the importance of good social skills and "emotional intelligence" as a predictor of future success as well as happiness. Now, I'm not suggesting that these skills can't be acquired by children who are home educated, but to suggest that they are simply not important is both myopic and ignorant.

Outrageous behaviour is outrageous behaviour- tradition or no tradition.

Just out it interest, morethan, what did you mean upthread when you said something about meeting teachers whose morals you questioned?

Have the people who were told by LEAs that it was illegal not taken it further? I would be very annoyed that they should get away with lying to people and would want to stop them doing it in future. It is merely an option that anyone can take and just as valid as any other option.

I would say that the HE kids I know are more emotionally intelligent...

i was told by my LEA that he was illegal and i did indeed complain! i he ds1 and ds2 until they were 9 and 6yrs old, i had to apply for a school place for ds4 for this sept, when i did so i only put down the primary that ds2 and ds3 attend, we are slightly out of catchment but as he has siblings he has that priority, i knew we should get a place and only put the ONE school down on the application they called me to say i needed to put down another option incase i dditn get first choice, i said NO as if i didnt get first choice i would be keeping him at home until a place became available. they told me i couldnt do this and that he HAD to go to school, i said NO he has to be educated which i can do myself, they repeated that he had to go to school and i told them they should perhaps check the rules themselves as no he doesnt have to go to school. they got really funny with me, i quoted the guildlines myself, as an ex HE i know them well! and i wrote and complained, i also told them they should change the form they send out that states that a child has to go to school once they are 5 (the one you get telling you to apply for a place etc) and make it clear that you can apply for a place if you wish but that you dont legally have to send you child to school.

anyway i got a call back and an apology and they are 'looking into' the wording of the letter they send out to all children due to reach school age!

and i think there is still a lack of knowledge about he i have met so many people who didnt know it was a legal choice, or they thought it was but thoughtg you had to be a teacher yourself etc.

the lettesr that most leas send out to parents with a child who is about to reach school age does state you child needs to attend school, and tell you all about applying etc, but they dont mention he or the fact that legally a child doesnt have to attend school, they certainly give the impression that school is the only legal choice, that needs to be changed.

"Have the people who were told by LEAs that it was illegal not taken it further? I would be very annoyed that they should get away with lying to people and would want to stop them doing it in future. It is merely an option that anyone can take and just as valid as any other option."

'Very annoyed' doesn't even begin to describe how I feel about my LA's lies, Exotic. As far as I know they have not spun this particular fib (that HE is illegal) but they tell plenty of others. We've taken several complaints through. It is a longwinded process. If the LA won't admit wrongdoing, there isn't much else you can do. The LGO doesn't seem inclined to act, from what I have heard. (I haven't taken anything that far myself.) Sometimes there is a change, then new staff appear with some new regime and it all starts up again. There is a fundamental problem with asking people who are very keen on school education to deal with home education. Many of them seem to see it as their mission to reduce the numbers of home educators in their area. If I remember correctly, one LA even leaked an internal document in which they discussed targets for reducing the numbers of electively home educated children on their patch.

Many studies have shown the importance of good social skills and "emotional intelligence" as a predictor of future success as well as happiness.

how much does school give this though? I think that your average kid rolls along quite well, but probably would have anyway; the naturally emotionally intelligent child is popular and happy at school, but probably would be wherever they are; the child who lacks natural social skills and emotional intelligence probably has a horrible time at school and makes few friends. How much do you think school actually changes who they intrinsically are and who they'll be as adults?

This is a genuine question btw - I really don't know and I wish I did. My DD has always had problems relating to other children. She makes initial contact quite easily because she's confident, but then she has trouble sustaining that contact because she doesn't read the other child's signals very well at all. She wants contact with other children but at the same time she finds it stressful, often confusing and frustrating. That was dominating her life at school to the detriment of her education and wellbeing. But having taken her out, I now worry that she doesn't get sufficient 'practice' at learning how to interact more skillfully.

Some children (and adults) find forced interaction with groups of people very stressful. Some children go through school life with few or no friends. Some are horribly bullied. I don't think that forced 'socialisation' when it makes the child unhappy is necessarily a positive.

"I would say that the HE kids I know are more emotionally intelligent..."

Would you? I wouldn't be silly enough to make a generalisation like that about weather group.

Or even either group....

You are so pompous seeker. An advert to put one off home ed?!

Colleger - can I ask why you are so rude to me? This isn't the first time. Or is it bad form to ask something like that? All i did was call you on a generalisation that you must realise was a bit silly- does that call for personal abuse?

Ouch. Come on, we can argue debate without venturing below the belt (that sounds v rude but I know what I mean!).

Surely it's not a generalisation if you are comparing people that you know?

I know that my DCs playing with their school friends is very different to them playing with their HE friends. It's a tiny sample, so I don't dwell on it too much, but it is noticeable.