"Life is tough and children need to learn how to deal with it."

[Bubble99]

We're considering home ed for DS1 when he finishes primary/junior school.

This is one of the comments we've heard against home ed and the more I think about it the more I disagree.

Why should children be subjected to even low-level bullying? Employees don't. Why should children?

I suppose it depends how 'tough' the experience of school is? Children need to learn how to fit in, but not at any cost?

My daughter has just finished her first year at pre-school - she is 3.8.

She has learnt so much about interacting with the wider world in that year, and about formal discipline and behaviour. That provides a great counterbalance to all the permissiveness freedom she gets at home

It is better away from adults even at a young age. Parents can stand there saying 'you must share and let someone else have a turn' but it is much better for the child to realise for themselves that if they would like to be given a turn by others then they have to do the same in return. If they are fighting over a toy an adult can act as policeman and sort it out but far better for the children to work out their own compromise.Children who are unpopular are the 'me,me,me'ones. They have to learn the hard way that it doesn't get them friends.
An immature child will only gain maturity if allowed to work things out for themselves. A parent hovering to make things easy for them is not in their best interests.

I agree to a certain extent but with young children at some point they may need someone to give them an example of how to behave. An observant adult hopefully, would know when and and when not to intervene. Even adults need direction in situations sometimes, hence the requirement by some for life-coaching.

My 5yo has never been to school but I would say that she is quite capable of interacting with the wider world and understands about behaviour in a more formal setting.

I think that children learn from example and I don't think that other children who also don't quite know how to behave/react in some situations are the best examples. I think that adult input is needed and the child can later apply that to other situations.

I agree that example and role-model are great teachers. Seeing other children (peers) modelling behaviour is a fantastic learning tool.

I think it's a fantastic learning tool, too. Even if it's only for an adult to point out what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour.

my youngest ds aged 7 has never been to school every day at 3pm the knocks start i wouldnt exagerate if i said he is friends with every child in our area,he goes to peoples houses to play without me,he goes to a playscheme,youthclub on holiday this year we got so many compliments about him the only fault if you can say that it is a fault is that he doesnt 'do' politics - he doesnt understand nastiness if a child says dont play with jake,ds3 will say why not?? we should all play together.
He plays various games, turntaking group games and imaginative play games and he 'mixes' very very well- if ive been asked once ive been asked 50 times to home school other people children too now why would i choose to put him in an institution whereby 1 person (teacher) determines his popularity, his skill level ,what book he should read,where he should sit even down to wht part in the school play he should get??
school in my opinion is asheltered bubble ds3 meets a rich variety of people many of them not child orientated he learns far more about the world and how it works being home schooled and every day uses his social and language skills to 'mix' his education.

Well, one of the things a good school could show him is how well other children can perform in a school play. Learning to appreciate, enjoy and celebrate other people's talents is also important. Working as part of a team is a useful and pleasurable skill to learn. A good teacher can introduce a child to a writer he hasn't heard of. Setting your own learning pace is good but so is being shown a road. I doubt that I will convince you though.

Nkf - 3 of my home-edded children do drama/singing/dance class locally so are presumably learning most of the things you mention.

I agree nkf but there is nothing in your post which cannot be achieved outside the school system.

Many home ed groups have drama workshops and team involvement.

A parent can also introduce a child to a writer he hasn't heard of, and we can also show them a road.

I didn't think I'd convince you.

We don't need to be convinced about anything really, as we are happy with our choices, as you are with yours

I am afraid any play is going to have someone making the decision of who gets which part.Choosing the seating can be excellent, it gets children to mix with those that they might not even try to get on with and they can find that they have a lot in common.I am very grateful that teachers guided my reading, I had lots of books at home and went to the library once a week as well as the school library so I had ample to time to have my own choice.It is very important to get a child working at their own skill level, however it is not set in stone the DC is the one to determine it. I can assure you that the teacher doesn't determine the popularity of a child!!
You are obviously doing a a great job with your DC windygalestoday but schools do a great job too. School or home is nothing to do with the politics of play-my mother was exactly like your DC as a child-it is a personality thing.
There is a very fine line between bullying and normal rubbing along. When I was a child I lived in a circle of houses and we all played out on a central green.When we were about 7 or 8 there was a group of about 6 of us who used to often play together. One boy was a much indulged only child who was used to getting his own way. He was very domineering and it caused conflict.It generally ended in us not wanting him to spoil a game so he ran in crying that we were not letting him play. At this point his mother used to intervene because we were being horrible to her'little darling'. Being meek children we used to agree to be friends but we were seething at the unfairness of it and it didn't do him any favours in the long run. It wasn't bullying, his mother was doing the bullying by making us accept his unreasonable behaviour. His mother would have done much better to stay out of it and he would have learned to compromise at an earlier age. When he was about 10 he got a baby sister and stopped thinking he was the centre of the universe and was a much nicer person altogether.

I wanted to respond to the OP, or at least to the title

"Life is tough and children need to learn how to deal with it"

I really really hate that sentiment. It's not even so much the "Life is tough" bit because, indeed, life does throw challenges at people and those challenges are sometimes difficult. It's the "Children need to learn" sentiment which has my hackles rising.

Because behind "they have to learn" is an implied "and it's going to hurt them" and somehow the speaker is just RELISHING the fact that they are going to suffer, and that suffering is Good For Them. Whenever I have encountered it, there is an edge to the tone of voice, an entire world view which believes that That Which Does Not Destroy Us Makes Us Stronger, and You Have To Suffer To Be Beautiful. The person saying it subscribes that well known magazine The School of Hard Knocks Weekly.

But I believe that they are wrong. People learn least well through suffering because the brain does not function as well under stress. The things people learn in stressful situations are not necessarily at all what those trying to teach them (parents, teachers, peers, whoever) are trying to teach.

If school is horribly stressful for a child, they'll be better off out of it educationally and socially, long and short term, rather than self-harming or committing suicide or anorexic or waiting to see if the last lot of bruises heals before the next lot arrives or weeping every Sunday night as the new week begins.

We all know that many people had a lovely time at school and their children are having lovely times at school. Splendid. This conversation is not about you.

If you mean me, then you're barkiing up the wrong tree. I said very early on that I disagreed with the statement that life is tough and children have to learn to deal with it. The views on this thread aren't nearly as black and white as you seem to imagine.

Nope. Didn't mean you. I only read about 1/3 of the thread

I was thinking, but didn't put in my post, my belief that not all people who send their children are "Life is Tough and you have to learn to deal" people, and not all HEers are the opposite. I don't actually think the quote in the OP has got anything particularly to do with school vs. HE at all.

The kind of person who says "You have to send your child to school because life is tough blah blah" is just as likely IMO to say "you have to leave your child to scream themself to sleep because life is tough blah blah" or "the rot set in when they stopped national service because life is tough blah blah" or whatever they happen to think you are being too "soft" with your child about. With the OP it happens to be school. If her child was going to school, it would be helping the child make their sandwiches which was not teaching them that "Life is tough", or allowing them to wear a coat on a chilly day even if the clocks have already changed. The problem is with the Life is Tougher, not with whether the OPs children (or anyone else's children) go to school or not.

So if I had bothered to read your earlier post, I would have been saying "yes, indeedy". Apologies for the outrageous thread skimming on my part.

I don't agree with the 'life is tough, deal with it' either; bullying is never acceptable.
Unfortunately OP has never said whether she had good reason to suppose that her DS would be bullied or whether she was taking preventative measures in case he 'might' be bullied-the two are very different.

I'm not sure it's ok to say

"HEing is fine but you are HEing for reason X, and I don't think X is a valid reason for HEing"

because in conversation one has to simplify, and reason X might just be the thing which is uppermost in one's mind at this precise moment

and

because reason X might just have been the thing which incensed the person in their conversation with grumpy old Life is Tough git

and

because you don't HAVE to have a "valid reason" to HE any more than you have to have a valid reason to send your child to school. They are equal before the law in the UK

No-one gets to decide about whether or not a family should or should not be home educating their children except for, ultimately, a court of law. Not me. Not you. Not even an LEA. They can put a case in court if they have good reason to believe that a particular family is failing to educate a child, but it's still up to the court to decide.

"why would i choose to put him in an institution whereby 1 person (teacher) determines his popularity, his skill level ,what book he should read,where he should sit even down to wht part in the school play he should get??"

Well, my kids all go to school or nursery and they would roll around on the floor with mirth at the idea that the teacher chooses their friends, for a start. Where did you get that idea from? And let's face it, someone is going to choose what part in the school play (or any play) they get. even the most boho, free-spirited thesp realises that someone else chooses who gets the part.
There seem to be some really strange ideas about schools amoung some home edders. No wonder some are so terrified of schools!
The thing is, schoolkids go to school AND go to the shops, go on buses, mix with people of all ages etc. The two are not incompatible, esp what with only going to school half the year and for half the day.

I home-ed 4 children and I've 5 who are currently in or have been through the school system. I am not terrified of schools but I have seen that the school system is far from perfect (despite the mostly excellent staff) and is completely unsuitable for some children. Being home-ed by me is far from perfect, too, but I consider it less damaging to the children that I'm home-edding.

Why on earth would anyone think the teacher chooses who is friends with who though? In my experience, the teacher quite often despairs when the naughtiest boys in the school team up!

My ds was separated from his best friend in reception when they moved up a year because they giggled a lot together during class time. He chummed up with someone else in y1 as did his previous best friend. So, I suppose you could say that the teachers did manipulate that friendship.

I keep misreading this thread as 'Life is tough and chickens need to learn how do deal with it'

Thanks for your (many) thoughts.

My OP was a thinking out loud one, really.

We're looking at home-ed as our local secondary school is dire. During our official tour the noise coming from some of the rooms showed that the children were in charge of the classrooms. This wasn't enthusiastic chattering, just mucking about with teachers obviously trying their best to keep control. I can't see how any child can learn in that situation.
I know three families locally whose children are at the school and they (the parents) are unimpressed.

DS1 is one of a year group of 30 at his current school. He was one of the first cohort of children when it opened and, as such, has never been at school with children older than him.

He is a follower and will join in with any mucking about. I'm not underestimating him, I know my child. He will also be wildly impressed by any older norty boys, too (just as his mum was )

We're interested in home-ed as it seems to us to give the best of both worlds. He gets tuition (we're looking at using inter-high)at home but also gets to meet his friends at the clubs and groups he does during some evenings and weekends, plus the regular camps he will be doing with Woodcraft Folk.

So, I'm not necessarily thinking about bullying more of him not having to 'cope' with school in order to get anything out of it.

Does that make sense?