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.

x-post .. Julie .. just interested I suppose .. I think it's probably a more theoretical decision if your child has never been to school and more experiential of specific schools if they have

I'm going to miss stuff I wanted to respond to, I just know it.

I don't say all school children are bullied. I am saying that schools are inherently places where bullying occurs. Am I wrong? IS there a school where no bullying ever happens?

I also say very strongly that if children want to be in school, THAT'S WHERE THEY SHOULD BE. (yes, that was strong. see the capitals) But if the inherent disadvantages of the institution are working against them -educationally or socially - then yes, I think they should be give the choice and I think the parents should be moving heaven and earth to help their children.

I'm not saying all teachers are little Hitlers at all, but they are, by definition, figures of authority - as I said, they have to be, and some are very benevolent. libertarian alert If I go to an evening class, I'll be on the teacher's syllabus and timetable because that's what I signed up for, and that's what I consented to. They are an authority figure with my consent. When did our children consent to the authority figures of school?

beautriful days I shared your concerns but at ds2's school they aren't all learning the same things at the same time. I was pleasantly surprised at how creative his reception year was.

I think HE works for some, and schools work for others. I don't want to get in some evangelical fight with you about it.

My main reservation about HEing is that the children can't escape from their mothers. And it is OK - indeed desirable - to not be with your mother who is your educator or facilatator etc as well as your mother. It's too in your face, 'I'm everything, I'm amazing' for me.

You know it might also be okay to live in a world where your needs and desires are not uppermost too. It might, but I'm not 100% on that.

Yurt .. I'm assuming, magnaminously, there was a straw somewhere that broke this particular camels back

I am trying to take a deep breath rather than be filled with indignation, and whilst doing so am empathising

(please count all the big words and be suitably impressed )

beautiful days you wrote 'forcing all 4-5 yr olds to sit in a classroom and all learn the same things at the same times, just seems very mis-guided and in no way catering for each child's individual needs'. Well, this doesn't actually happen in every reception class you know. It is largely based on play at this stage. DS is in a mixed R and YR1 class, apart from sharing story time at the end of the day and registration at the begining, they don't all learn the same things at the same time, lots of activities are set up in that they rotate on, with lots of free play also thrown in. 4 is young though, you don't have to send him obviously

Twiglett good post.

twiglet says "I think the OP is railing against the way society as a whole questions her motivations in HE"

actually, OP was continuing a conversation with someone from a quiet little HE-related thread where we'd gone so OT I thought we were best to take it elseewhere. I wasn't expecting this avalanche of contributions, and I appreciate the conversation

What I was wanting to do was... er... summarise my philosophical objections to the institution of school, which is where the conversation had got. The impacts of those disadvantages to a particular child might be small enough that school is worth it for that child. But are my theoretical objections valid? Or are there counter arguments? Bring them on.

I have no intention of being patronising to anyone, nor of guilt tripping them, I want to refine and maybe revise my ideas.

Agree ahundred. I also think it's good for boys to get away from their mothers and have male teachers (doesn't happen enough in primary schools which I think is a shame), and it's good for parents to get away from their children and not always have the pressure on them to be everything all the time.

Yes, well, they need some space and they need their own world too I think. It's not easy, and there's lots about HEing which is very attractive.

Sometimes being lost in a mass can be a good thing. For a bit. A bit like how being bored is good for your imagination.

I think the most important aspect is that we all know our children best, and want to do what is right for them.

School was not a place that contained inherent bullying for DS1. But it didn't support his dyslexia. He was bimbling on though, mostly happily, and we would have left him in school as he was developing coping strategies for the literacy elements of his schooling. He wasn't reaching his full potential, but he was happy, he was average, and he was doing OK.

DS2 started self-harming at the age of 5 because he hated school so much. He was bullied, his behaviour was dreadful, and every day was a nightmare. To have left him in school would have been negligent of us as parents.

So we HEd him for six months, and then sent both boys to a new school.

Which was wonderful, caring, and DS2 was welcomed with open arms, and the support he needed and deserved.

But the damage from the first school was just too deep. He couldn't read or write. He thought he was stupid. He cried himself to sleep every night because everyone else was ahead of him. He had nightmares about the old school.

So after a year we took him out and HE'd him again. And his brother joined us six months later.

We can't afford it - I had to give up my business - and sometimes I am plagued by self-doubt.

And if there was a school that could properly support their dyslexia, without shoving them in a special needs unit, I would be sorely tempted to check it out with them.

But there isn't.

So we're doing our best.

I don't have any strong political feelings about HE, tbh. I don't think all schools are inherently bad places - even though DS2 was bullied.

But I do know that my children were badly let down by the system, and I can't trust anyone else to make decisions about my children's education after what has happened in the past.

I think people who have children who are happy at school, and who are getting on well academically are very lucky.

so emma, if you have philosophical objections to the institution of school (which I agree with in theory) do you also have objections to all the other institutions of our society? Because school is just the first step to a lifetime of institutionalised living. Even your HEing is still 'institutuinalised' to some degree. You cannot live in this society and be free of all institutionalisation.

When I worked as a sister in a SCBU it seemed to me that almost every baby was born preterm-because that was my normality-and when I was pregnant i had my bags packed at 22 weeks, just in case, because of that.

Now I home educate and organise a local HE group and run the local HE support group and website, I constantly hear dreadful stories about children in schools. Truly heart breaking. The reality I hear of every day is very different to that of many of yours.

However I believe passionately that parents should be given accurate information about all of the choices for education so that they can make an informed decision as to what is right for their families at that time.
My two step children presently send their children to school as that is what is right for them right now.
I have to respect and support their choices.

Doesn't change what i think of the institution that is schools though.
yes it must suit some children but there are a hell of a lot of children who would choose never to go again if they could-at least those who beg me to adopt them do

can you all stop chatting here now as I am not very well and need to sleep but don't want to miss anything!

OMDB yes i know reception classes aren't all about all the kids doing the same stuff all the time

however schools have a curriculum and every year there are targets that each child is suppost to meet. by the time they go into yr 1 they should all know their phonics etc. it is the same throughout school there are targets, and those targets don't take into account whether the individual child is ready or capable of learning those things yet.

it just seems logical to me that children will learn best when they are interested and want to learn. forcing children to learn just doesn't work - you only have to look at this country's gcse results to see that.

those who succeed at school are generally those who want to learn, who are motivated and interested in waht they are learning.

i can see how home-educating can enable a child to learn more naturally at a pace that is right for them, learning things that interest and motivate them. i am not saying schools are bad, just that they cannot possibly cater for the individual learning needs of every child that goes there.

Poor ds2 HC. You are quite right, it would have negligent of you to leave him.

'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. '

while the numbers would back you up on this in the OP, I would add a rider.

Unless you actually understand a topic it is often very hard to help a child understand it, to facilitate their learning.

So while your child gets a better 'facilitator/ facilitatee' ratio, and my school kids do not, My kids get someone who undetstands the subject, and can help them unpick common misunderstandings (rosalind Drivers work if anyone is interested in the background) Many parents will not be able to do this, because they may well share the same misunderstandings.

at olive

I have been CALM

I have also been unsucessfully fighting my MN addiction but have now given up.

The daft thing is beautifuldays, no child does ALL their learning in school do they? None of my children have been put off learning by school - they are all enthusiastic, interested people - they do some boring things in school, some interesting and lots of self-generated learning outside of school.

it's like the HE argument about being with children of different ages. Of course schooled children see lots of different children - friends, brother's friends, cousins etc.

Institutions one consents to are no problem.

[I work in an institutional setting. But I can leave any time I want. Well, with sufficient notice, but I consented to that stipulation too

A HEed child joins an institution every time they sign up for a 10 week term of ballet classes or whatever they are into. They are consenting to those 10 weeks]

It comes down to consent, and I'm a total weirdo because I think don't children should be forced to do things against their will, starting with weaning and sleeping alone, and continuing through childhood. I'm a libertarian. My objections to school are pretty much all on libertarian grounds (starting with freedom of association)

martian "My kids get someone who undetstands the subject, and can help them unpick common misunderstandings (rosalind Drivers work if anyone is interested in the background) Many parents will not be able to do this, because they may well share the same misunderstandings."

Thank you. That's a good point. HEers rely on the facilitate model as children get older, whereas schoolteachers combine teach and facilitate. What it means, of course, is that there comes a stage with any interest where the parent's ability to teach is gorn gorn gorn and they have to play the facilitate role, whether that's helping to provide resources, or hiring a tutor, or helping child sign up to a college course or OU course, or finding a friend or relative who DOES knowthat subject. The nice thing is that with the current burgeoning HE community, the chances are that a family will find someone else in the area with enough knowledge of that subject and keen to do some sort of swopsie.

well with regards to consent I am totally with you emma, as I have said before, my DS has chosen to go to school , he likes it and thrives there. If he didn't want to go, ho wouldn't. Same with anything that affects him, he always has a say in the matter, I'm a libertarian too .

But your OP was about your objections to school, rather than your objections to children going to school without consent, assuming all parents who send their children to school do so against the child's will.

and my DS can leave school anytime he wants too, so it's an institution with consent as far as I can see

many home ededders seem to ignore the fact tha teacher facilitate.

Repeatedly, on MN.

So the children I work with have my facilitation and my expertise.

My OP was about what I see to be the inherent disadvantages in the institution of compulsory school. If a child, like yours, OMDB is sufficiently unaffected by those disadvantages that, actually, they are having a lovely time, then they of course they should be in school.

If a child is negatively affected by those inherent disadvantages, then I would argue that their parents should find an alternative for them.

If a family can't be doing with engaging with an institution with those disadvantages, then they shouldn't start school in the first place

If those disadvantages are theoretically wrong, tell me, but I don't think I've read any criticism of them so far (have I missed something in this thread-of-madness? Tell me it ain't so)

It's because they see it as too black and white MB. Too us and them.