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.

as I sain in my first post on this thread, I really have no issue with people who home ed. FWIW I ofetn post helpful sites for home edders.

the '4 legs good 2 legs bad' side of it gets on my tits.

Good and bad in all. just like the rest of life

I think this thread of madness has been about questioning your assumptions that they are disadvantages hasn't it?

Glad we've got that cleared up then emmaagain!

I think fwiw we as parents don't like it when other people critisise our parenting decisions, so topics like this touch a raw nerve. Most parents want to hope they are doing what they feel is best for their children, and threads like this can make some parents feel very guilty about the decisions they have made. BUT we don't live in an ideal world do we? There is not always a simple solution.

I don't feel guilty!

I think HEing is interesting, and I agree the them and us aspect is a bore, but I can understand why it exists.

I suppose everyone feels the need to shore up their own beliefs with rhetoric and generalisations. Them and us.

I don't think libertarianism is a good parenting technique personally

a child is incapable of consenting to anything with long-term effects without strong guidance from a parent

children choose weird things

they cannot comprehend the good of society, nor a decision of theirs creating harm for others

this is why we do not hold them morally or legally responsible for their actions until a certain age

so it's rather odd to me as an explanation for anything to do with childcare

Emmaagain-I can't believe you started this thread!! I can only think you are getting your own back for people daring to question HE!!!
I agree with MartinBishop all the way. My main bugbear on the other thread is is the view that all HE is excellent and all schools are toxic. Both have the whole range.
I agree with you Twiglett-if fact I would like to shout it-I get so mad!
I LOVED SCHOOL. If my parents had kept me at home with my brothers I would be furious with them to this day. I didn't want my children to miss the experience. (If they had been miserable I would consider HE, but they have all been happy and are caring,well balanced,articulate boys that would be a pleasure for anyone to meet).
An enthusiasic teacher with a great knowledge of their subject and good communication skills is a pearl beyoind price! If I wanted to know about Physics, I would like to be taught the subject by a physics graduate not have my mother facilitate me finding the information!
Now I am quite happy for HE do what they think best-but don't tell me that schools are like prisons!

MB that last post of yours gives us a clear advantage of school over non-school (at least, secondary school):

"In school you can guarantee that you get both expertise and facilitation in the same person"

So far it'd be a question of weighing up that advantage against the disadvantages for any family (well, we can collect some more advantages too, but yours is the first I've seen which is guaranteed to be an advantage of school at some point for almost any child)

At what age do you think the advantage becomes really acute? I'm guessing A'level, which is the moment HE children sometimes seem to start going to college for one or more A levels, so maybe they are engaging directly with that issue.

"I think this thread of madness has been about questioning your assumptions that they are disadvantages hasn't it?"

Yes, ahundredtimes I just had no idea more than about three people would be interested, or that it would go beyond about 8 posts in a week or two, yk?

OMDB Why would me writing words make anyone feel guilty?

If I'm wrong about these inherent disadvantages of compulsory schooling then just put me down as a nutter and guilt is the last thing on anyone's mind.

If I'm right, then people should be thinking about whether their children want to be in school. IF they do, then carry on, it's not a problem. No need for guilt. If the children don't want to be in school, and the parents recognise that the causes are fundamental to the institution, then they should be thinking about what they should do about it, surely, rather than feeling guilty?

There are some things that worry me about schools. Fingerprinting, lock-down during school hours, talk of frisking for weapons and possibly using sniffer dogs to locate hidden drugs. I wonder why I would want to put my child into that environment.

I don't mean 'recognise' as in "finally realise that emmaagain is a genius and has been pointing out what we all should know and bow down to"

I mean 'recognise' as in, if someone is persuaded by my theory, which might be totally wrong (but I'm still waiting to hear how)

Oh forgot one - cctv on every corridor. There might be some more.

"Fingerprinting, lock-down during school hours, talk of frisking for weapons and possibly using sniffer dogs to locate hidden drugs." you're kidding juule

None of that really happends does it?

Nope - local secondary school.

schools are great for kids who want to be there. home -ed is great for kids who want to be home educated.

forcing a child to home-ed when they want to go to school would be wrong.

but forcing a child to go to school, (if home-ed is a viable option), can be equally as wrong.

lots of people seem to be saying things along the lines of 'i loved school, i would have been miserable if i had been home educated.' thing is most people who i have talked to who home ed would be happy to let their children go to school if that's what they wanted to do. it's about giving the children the choice.

'At what age do you think the advantage becomes really acute? I'm guessing A'level, which is the moment HE children sometimes seem to start going to college for one or more A levels, so maybe they are engaging directly with that issue. '

For sure at A level. Speaking from my own stand point of a biology teacher, it is a very rare child who can sort out the whole sylabus unaided. Even the very brightest, most well motivated students, need some help for at least some of the course. I've had to explan the dd bit to at least one , very highly thought of professor of psychology.

And remember that those people who deduced the subject material from the begining took years and years to do so! It would be a pointless exercise, in biological terms ,for a student to re-deduce the structure of DNA from the basic material, to start from scratch.

Good educators do facilitate, but sometimes we also have to explain.

Bright children would probably be able to cope with most of the GCSE science curriculum from textbooks. They wouldn't have as much fun, but they could probably manage.

Middle of the road kids would probably need some specialist help at GCSE, unless the parents had a grounding in the sciences.

Motivated , reasonably bright adults, could probably cope with the KS3 curriculum, but again the kids would miss out on stuff that parenst can't do at home, due to H and S contraints. Hard to explode potassium in the bath tub, for example!

They would also miss out on lots of group work.

In all cases having expert guidance makes learning easier, since teachers can see the pit falls, and understand a range of ways of getting the kids out of the hole they have found themselves in.

emmaagain because some people feel guilty that they are not doing the right thing that is all. Not everyone is as confident in their parenting and the choices they make as others. Yes most people who post on these threads won't feel guilty, but many people who read them might.

Guilt is a common feeling for insecure people.

'There are some things that worry me about schools. Fingerprinting, lock-down during school hours, talk of frisking for weapons and possibly using sniffer dogs to locate hidden drugs. I wonder why I would want to put my child into that environment'

Not in the school I work in, not in any of the other schools in the LEA I work in. Not even the very worst ones!

well that only holds true if we're talking about teenagers or people who are capable of making reasoned choices.

a 4 year old is just incapable of making that kind of choice which is why they have legal guardians so that the parents / carers make the choice for them to the best of their ability

if you wish to HE and you feel that's right for you then fine .. but it is yours (ie the adult's) choice ...

Twig - you'll think everything I write is lunacy then. That's ok. As you were. (unless you want to discuss TCS, but I'd recommend we take that elsewhere, like maybe the Frog Pond Activeboard forum, because it would be a serious thread derail here)

"Emmaagain-I can't believe you started this thread!! I can only think you are getting your own back for people daring to question HE!!!" No, honestly AbbeyA I am totally gobsmacked at this being tonight's hot thread on the netz. I just thought we'd got so far away from the question of whether someone can work and HE that I brought it to a different thread.

"none of that really happens does it?"

www.arch-ed.org/issues.htm
archrights.wordpress.com/
www.databasemasterclass.blogspot.com/

Emm, most life-long friends are formed at school.

How are your children going to cope without long-standing friendships in adulthood? Jeez, sometimes they're the only friends you have left!!

Isn't Building Schools for the Future wonderful?
MB Then you would agree that I have every right to be concerned?
And there's me thinking I was being awkward by going against the flow. Lots of pacifying words being thrown my way and other parents positively embracing the 'new technology'. Pah.