What do I really truly think about schools?

[emmaagain]

In response to a discussion with AbbeyA in another thread, but I can't cope with these Byzantine conversations-go-everywhere thread.

I'll try to be very succinct.

1. Schools are inherently places where people get bullied [it's a feature of closed societies which people have not chosen to enter, like prison. Where outside such societies those who don't fit in with the particular culture can choose to leave it, finding alternative people to mix with, in schools you have to stay in a room with people you dislike day in day out]. If your child is not one of the ones being bullied, you might not notice it, but look around. There is often someone being belittled, whether it is by staff or pupils. Except of course in the perfectly happy skippy schools where it never ever happens (only I'm not sure I believe in them)

1. Schools are inherently and institutionally coercive. The teacher is the authority figure, and right and proper in a room of 30 pupils not all of whom want to do what everyone else wants to do, or even be there. The alternative would be chaos. But I am ideologically opposed to my children spending their days in a dictatorship, however benevolent. (NB I am aware that most will not agree with me about it being wrong to submit children to the dictatorship of adults, at home or at school. I am a libertarian and that's an unusual stance. But I am trying to express my objections to the institution of school and this is a large part of my moral objection)

1. Schools have really weird cultures which don't reflect the world outside at all (asking permission to speak or urinate? Eating on someone else's timetable? Stopping an activity when someone else says it's time to move on rather than because you've finished?)

1. Schools, by definition, cannot enable a child to learn in the most efficient manner, as responsive to their ability and interests. Because there is a national curriculum. Because there are so many children for each adult - there's no way there could be a truly personalised curriculum. Educational professionals do their bets, I know, to respond to the needs of each child, but there's no way they're going to come close to what a parent can do, just by definition.

GCSEs might not be wonderful but there are lots of children who don't want or wouldn't be up to A'levels, OU or degrees, and GCSEs are the only qualification they will get. Apprenticeships are like gold dust these days, there are very few and the competition for each place is huge. My DS wrote over a hundred letters. He eventually got a very good one at the last minute. He had to have minimum of 5 GCSEs with Maths and English at C. He also got a very good report from his school. An HE child is unlikely to have the qualifications and would have no school reference.It may work if you had family connections but we had no connections what so ever.

what has made me angry is that you are crossing threads. and negatively so, with what you percieve as my intentions, without the least shred of actual proof.
i do not intend to hijack this thread, nor commit the same deed. i bowed out of this thread a while back as i felt i had nothing further to add.
i'd appreciate it if i was not discussed on this thread any further.

An HE child is unlikely to have the qualifications and would have no school reference.It may work if you had family connections but we had no connections what so ever.

We haven't found this to be a problem to be honest.
We have used references from other people in the real world and we used the good GCSEs that Ds did have-and which he got despite being dyslexic and despite not going to school for 11 years and that got him onto the course he wanted.

Other home edders have got good apprenticeships simply because they are out there with the firms they have wanted to be working with-and not bogged down with homework/exams etc

Others still have bypassed GCSEs and A levels and have used the OU to get their degree or to prove their ability to work at the required level, for jobs/apprenticeships/college courses/university places.

The fact that they are home educated has helped them stand out from the crowd on the CV and in IMHO this has helped on their applications every time.

"An HE child is unlikely to have the qualifications and would have no school reference"

Yes, Abbey, you're right. slaps forehead why didn't I think of that before? Of course. It's well nigh impossible for HEed children to sit GCSEs or gain any other qualifications. And definitely unlikely that the average HEed child would know anyone sufficiently prestigious to write them a job reference.

That statement is so wrong, AbbeyA. Lots of HEed children sit GCSEs. Some of them don't bother. Some, gasp, go straight on to the OU foundation courses, which are accepted by universities in place of A levels. Why on earth would parents undertake to HE their children if they were going to end up with their life choices curtailed by lack of qualifications?

I have read through a large part of this thread, and I find it really fascinatingly interesting. My dd is not school age yet, but I have considered HE, as my own parents, I know, considered with me. (They were both qualified teachers and my home life saw a lot of HE style stuff on top of me going to school). But, actually, the more I read on here about HE, (despite loads of great posts) the more off-putting I find the attitude, of 'us against them' and 'school is a bad terrible place' and HE is better because...this that the other.

I was bullied terribly at school, but it got sorted out in the end, and I have some fabulous memories of school too, particularly the learning in some subjects where I had wonderful inspirational teachers. So right now I am sitting on the fence and reading all about HE.

The thing that bothers me most is that there seems to be a general assumption among HE'ers that their style of educating is superior, because it is one-on-one, and that school cannot match up to what they provide? How about a more balanced look at what school can provide? Namely, lots of friends, access to loads of equipment, excellent teachers (who are specialised in their field...yes I know there are crap ones too), artists in residence, theatre productions, out of school activities, just too much variety to mention. Okay that's a good school, but there are lots of positives in my opinion with a good school. I agree whole-heartedly with many of the negatives mentioned in the OP, and some of the time I hated school.

But on the other hand, what are the negatives of HE? We don't hear much about those? What about those kids (there were lots at my school) who had a dull/ boring/ awful/ abusive/ bullying/ destructive/ or un-stimulating life at home and school was a fabulous respite? (And a chance to shine and do well). Some HE kids must have a brilliant, superior and wonderful education at home- the ones whose parents have the social skills, time, commitment and enthusiasm to ensure their child has a proper well informed and well rounded educational experience. But what about those that are secretly just opting out of society/ deliberately alienating their kids from belief systems different to their own/ projecting their own hatred of school and social systems in general/ just can't be bothered to be told what to do by the school and can't equally be bothered to properly HE, just leaving their kids to a kind of 'learn it yourself, if you're interested in it' kind of chaos? Do some kids who are HEdders simply become alienated from society, and lack the skills to get on in the big wider world?

These are merely my own anxieties about HEdding, and not meant to be a criticism of anyone's choice in any way. I just want to hear more balance, that not only are some schools FAB, but that some HEdding is a disaster, as it really must be, for some families? Surely? Anyone on here who was HE and would not do the same for their own kids for example? Sorry to waffle on sooo long!

Speaking a teacher who has witnessed home educated kids thrust into mainstream system for GCSE or A Level, they are often a bit wierd and find it difficult to make friends/socialise with their peers. I'm sure some emerge unscathed from the experience but I have yet to meet them.

Furthermore, is the purpose of education not to prepare kids for the outside world where they will have to mix with lots of different people (some who might not be very nice to them) and eat on someone 'else's timetable' (it's called a luch hour at work).

Perhaps the home-ed children who don't fit that easily into the mainstream school system do fit well into the outside world.
I have seen quite a few school-ed children leaving school and looking like a fish out of water for a while.
Different systems take time to get used to.
I don't know for definite but surely worth a thought.

Hi Christmaspixie

this thread started as a tiny offshoot to another conversation, where I was verging on thread derailment. The OP was about putting the case for school not being a great place.

I don't know how many times I've written in the last 24 hours that I know many children are happy at school, that I know many schools are friendly and supportive and enthusing places, that I know many teachers (certainly the majority of the ones I know) are not doing a job, they are pursuing their vocation, and doing so with passion and expertise.

All that is a given.

I was trying to explore how, if and when a child is not happy at school, the root causes of that unhappiness might be to do with the generalised institution of school rather than with a failing of either the child or the specific school in question.

Of course I put it in exteme black and white terms in the OP. I was trying to make the strongest possible argument to support that hypothesis, but it's only a hypothesis! yurt has already persuaded me away from the libertarian-inspired hypothesis being one that would be generally acceptable, leaving three I'm still chewing over, and not yet persuaded of the counter view. But I haven't read yurt's last post properly yet, so I might retract one of the others (the most vulnerable hypothesis is the school-is-a-weird-social-system one IMO. help me chip away at that one.)

I don't mean to "us and them". I want to get better ideas. But I think there is an inevitable "us and them" because those who do send their children to school, even when it is patently the right decision, often see us not sending our children to school as an implied criticism. Certainly many teachers I have met, even close family, see our decision as a personal criticism of their life's work. If we thought school was the best place for our children we'd send them there. So by definition we're going to be aware of the disadvantages of school, and in our and, more importantly, our children's, minds they are big enough, for our children, that they are a deal breaker. What are we supposed to do? Say "Oh. Well, we HE, but it's probably a really stupid thing to be doing, what with school being such a marvellous place for all children"?

gillaz "often a bit wierd and find it difficult to make friends/socialise with their peers." that might be why they came out of school in the first place. Chicken and egg, maybe?

For some people, the one and only place in life where they find no social niche is school.

"weird". You're meaning it in a derogatory sense, I assume? So, not celebrating diversity and non-conformity?

'But, actually, the more I read on here about HE, (despite loads of great posts) the more off-putting I find the attitude, of 'us against them' and 'school is a bad terrible place' and HE is better because...this that the other.'

Christmaspixie-this is why I am posting. I got onto it by accident. I always loved school so would never have considered denying it to my children.I was quite open minded about HE and not too worried about the socialisation which is the main worry people have. I have seen good examples but the attitude of the HE I find so narrow and entrenched. If it is great -fine get on with it-people will join you if it suits them but it is not better. I am giving good examples of school to counteract it but fully admit that some schools are dreadful but I can't get one HE person to admit that any HE can be bad! If I was thinking about it I would be completely put off. Any argument is counteracted. GCSEs were slated (I can't remember the exact phrase but Noddy came into it) and the syllabus not worth doing, when I say that it is wonderful for those that are not academic, suddenly 100s of HE children study for it and it is no problem. They can get apprenticeships with no connections and no qualifications because employers think there CV is wonderful! Not one person at college on my son's apprenticeship was HEd. My husband wouldn't employ anyone with a CV like that-I haven't even told him I am involved in a thread like this! Julienoshoes was right about it is like herding cats! I make a statement someone contradicts it. I am told over and over that HE is not about workbooks, I make a comment saying they are ghastly (assuming this is safe ground)and immediately offend someone who uses workbooks!
I agree with your whole post Christmaspixie. Even my friend who does HE says that she feels sorry for some of the children in her group! Some she admires.

'Certainly many teachers I have met, even close family, see our decision as a personal criticism of their life's work. '

No, what I see as an insult are the offhand, stereotypical comments about the low standard of teaching in schools. I am also insulted by the often repeated comment that HE' facilitate' and that schools 'just' teach, the assumption being that for some reason we don't do the former because we are trapped in an authoritarian, bullying environment from the late 60s, yearly 70s.

I am also faintly insulted by the coment that anyone can teach. Anyone can teach badly, but teaching well is a skill. I have met teachers who can't teach. I'm putting next months salary on the fact that out there there are Hedders who can't teach either. But that is somehow a sacred cow that cannot be challenged. the idea on HE threads is always 'Go for it, you will be fantastic'

And for many people that will be true. But not everyone.

Crap teacher trainees fail, but what about the HE? If their kids are no doing well the answer often seems to be 'They are being 'de schooled', that is why they are watching TV all day, it will all sort itself out' Not sure that the LEA would give me the same amount of slack somehow.

emmaagain

I work somewhere that really celebrates and encourages diversity and difference. By 'wierd' I mean in their outlook and self-awareness. They often just seem uncomfortable with their peers and are unable to sit and chat about the things teenagers often chat about (music/clothes/going out etc). Maybe it's a generalisation but most of the HE kids I've met just seem like fish out of water. Eventually, they have to rejoin society and its' rather a good thing if they can get on with people from all walks of life.

Also I'd love to meet the parent who feels comfortable teaching GCSE physics, English, music, dance, Latin etc to a decent standard. Bloody impressive if they can

So you can teach physics and history to an A* standard, as well as various other diverse subjects. Well all I can say is well done you. I wish I had your confidence and ability

I can honestly say that while I can teach physics to GCSE standard, and Chemistry to A level standard, I know that I teach Biology best, because I understand the subject to a much greater depth. And that this is a benefit to my students.

Am I deluded in this? Am I imagining the lessons where I can see wherer they are going to go wrong, and head them off at the pss, becfore they get into a muddle? am I mistaken when I feel that being able to put a topic into a greater context makes the learning experience richer?

Am I wrong in thinking that undestaning learning styles isn't important?

Serious questions these, do people just not think it is important?

Gillaz - I've got your list of subjects covered except the dance, but I've got a good friend who's a flamenco teacher, so am I allowed to use her as a get-out-of-jail-free card? this is assuming anyone wanted me to teach those subjects to them.

and my last post to you said all I have to say about the fish-out-of-water thing. Some people won't thrive socially anywhere, some people won't thrive socially in school. I'd have thought it's just as likely to be antisocial-therefore-HEed as it is to be HEed-therefore-antisocial, woudn't you?

Abbey "I can't get one HE person to admit that any HE can be bad!"
Not fair. I have, at least twice in conversation with you, on this thread and on another.

martianbishop where are those comments? Do I have to say for the 20th time that I think there are many good teachers? In the last post, I think I used the word "vocation". Doesn't that give you a glow?

BTW, there's a slight cross purpose. No, not everyone can teach well, and not all HE families can teach well. But at least some of those HE parents are not trying to teach their children, they are instead autonomously educating them, which is a completely different kettle of fish philosophically and practically. So it's apples and oranges. That might be why HEers say "you don't need to be able to teach", because from an autonomous education perspective, you don't. we can argue about whether or not autonomous education is a valid path to take, but do you think we could start a new thread for it?

Oh dear, that sounded a bit rude. Didn't mean to.

In fairness the HE kids I have come across have been lovely, polite and get on brilliantly with adults. I just sometimes watch them interact with their peers and feel really sorry for them trying desperately to fit in but not quite managing it. I guess the parents just have to ensure that they get to mix and interact with other children outside of an educational setting.

They have cropped up on severeal threads in the past. I've been on MN since Adam was Home Educated, so I've seen these threads come and go!

Many of the threads predated the HE part of the board. I really am that old

I know a fair bit, about quite a lot of things. I also know, I think, enough about teaching to know what I can really teach well.