The Idle Parent

[SDeuchars]

idler.co.uk/idleparent/

Have other people read it? I read it last week and think it is great (although I don't really understand why he didn't go the whole hog and home educate).

I have just finished this book today.
I thought idle was more verging on totally lax. I totally believe in many of the concepts of freeing childhood, but some of his "solutions" are just not feasible.

I wonder if he would like us all to go and live in caves - he doesn't seem to see the benefits of progress.

Which solutions did you have in mind, woodchuck?

Which benefits of progress do you think he rejects?

It makes some good points but it is like all things-best taken in moderation.

Well, he rejects toys (except home-made wooden ones) for a start. I am the first to admit my kids have got far too much stuff but they do play with toys, engage with them, use them alone or in combination.

I think he rejects the changing position of children in society which has occurred since the industrial revolution. many changes have occurred to protect children and give them rights and respect.

I didn't like the way he generalized about children, in the same way as rigid parenting methods that he alluded to, do.

And at points I thought his way of doing things was pretty shocking - like throwing a pair of wellies at his youngest son (aged 3 iirc) because he wanted to be carried.

To me the most valid points were the ones about sharing time together, enjoying nature and not buying stuff you don't need. the parenting bits seemed a bit flimsy to me.

I usually love the Idler, but this book did crystalise some of my doubts, mainly with things like his insistance that we all can afford private education, if only we cut down on some frivalous things. I'm sorry, but the £9,000 pa for each of my two kids at the local private school is actually more than our entire income, even if we did grow all our own food (in pots, in our rented yard) and replaced our non-existent car with a horse (?!) and cut down our zero holidays a year. It all just got a bit too smug rich person at that point.

They do have some really good points though. There is a bit in the QI issue that really made my mind up to HE. The Idler needs to stop going on about how wonderful it is to work less and enjoy life more if they are going to assume that everyone can work as journalists from home and get enough to pay the bills. I am all for cutting down, but at the end of the day, I have not yet found a landlord that will take home baked bread and a song as rent.

He does at one point (in the middle of wasing lyrical about how much free time he has even though he has children) mention the au pair, the nanny, his wife and the private schools...I would be more inclined to listen if he was living the good life on a council estate, after a day in a factory.

I do agree with the Idler philosophy though, it is strange how many people work and work at jobs they hate, never see their kids, so they can buy rubbish for their houses and fly off on a plane to somewhere pointless to bicker with the kids they hardly know for two weeks, then get back to the daily grind.

We have the advert for another of his books (How to be free) framed on our mantelpiece though, so I can't dislike his work all that much...

He now sounds like an author that I don't want to read! Does he not realise, when he says that anyone can afford private education, that some people are working to get food on the table and shoes on their DCs-it isn't a question of having a cheaper holiday or doing without a nanny! I wish that people like him could join the real world.

I don't think he does say that anyone can afford private education (see The less school, the better). I do agree that he is coming from a very upper middle, consumerist PoV - that is why he is so extreme.

Part of what informs my thinking is that many people have suggested that it is a luxury to home educate - only independently wealthy people can do it because every family needs two incomes. Or, alternatively, only spongers off the state can do it.

Well, everyone I know home educating is between those two extremes. I know of a very few single parents (usually mothers) on benefits, some of whom would be on benefits anyway because of their own disability. I know of no independently wealthy people although there are a very few extremely rich. Most families are struggling along on one salary of £15--40K. Many are running their own business, including working freelance (not necessarily as journos).

Although not necessarily hippies or people who do not enjoy nice things, many EHEers are at the reuse, make-do-and-mend end of the spectrum out of necessity. We are making the choice to spend our time (and therefore money) on educating our children, so we tend not to be able to afford consumerism.

Oh, I definitely agree that most people who say they couldn't afford to HE are talking rubbish.

I find that most people who moan they are skint (apart from obv the very poor) mean they may have to only have a one week ski holiday. My parents constantly moan how skint they are, yet they threw away pans and pans of food (to the sounds of my protests!) after sunday lunch, without even considering reusing any of it. They put the heating on rather than a jumper, they buy everything ready made and say they don't have time to make anything because they are too busy working to pay for the stuff they buy.

The saddest thing I find with a lot of people is that they see education as a means to getting a well paid job, not as an end in itself.

Saying that, must dash, I work from home and need to actually do some work!

I really don't think that some people know how a lot of people live! They are not only living on a shoe string they are in debt-there is no way they can afford to privately educate.
As a tax payer I do not want to pay benefits to someone who is HEing their DC-I want the DC at school and the mother working and off benefits!

So you would rather I went to a minimum wage job and the state paid for the education and childcare of my children, I got more in benefits (I would get more if I worked more hours due to tax credits), my health suffered, none of us saw each other for most of the day and I took a job off somebody who really is sitting about doing nothing? Oh my, you do like splashing the taxpayers cash about!

On a different slant entirely, I kind of put 'The Idle Parent' in the same bracket as 'The Duggers 20 and Counting', interesting and entertaining to read about but I wouldn't want to live there.

I really liked his chapter on the books he and his kids enjoyed, actually made a list, but other things, like about not telling a child what good and bad is because the longer you keep it from him the more chance he won't find out, is tosh (imho).

I think they did try HE for a bit, but it didn't work out. He doesn't go into any detail, unfortunately.

HE is a very valid choice, but one that you must pay for yourself. I can't see that any tax payer would want to pay for a woman to stay at home educating their own DCs when they are already paying for the schools. I wouldn't actually mind if there is a regulated system and regular inspections so that we knew the money wasn't wasted!

HEers can't have it both ways! I can actually follow the argument that they don't want regulations, and since I don't think that all LEA inspectors are open to different methods, I have some sympathy-however I don't think you can say that you want to do it on benefits and still be secretive! If the tax payer is paying for it they have a right to know if it is worth it and should have a full report.

Perhaps a 2 tier system is the answer. If you are fully independent, then you do it your way. If the state is paying for it then the state regulates it.

"I wouldn't actually mind if there is a regulated system and regular inspections so that we knew the money wasn't wasted!"

I can see why you feel that way. And actually if we do end up HEing I don't object to inspections and the like. But WRT taxpayers' money being wasted - well TBH some state schools are totally failing their pupils aren't they

I should make it clear MathsMadMummy that if people opt out of state education by HEing then that is a private affair (personally I think there should be checks but I can see the arguments against),they are entitled to say 'no thank you very much, we don't like what the state is offering we will do it our way and there is no reason why the state should be involved'.
However if they opt out of state education but can only HE by being at home on benefits i.e expect the state (the workers and tax payers)to fund it then to my mind the state has a right to see what they are paying for!
The system is wrong if people can get more on benefits that working. I think that the under 5's are better off with the mother at home but once they reach 5yrs they have a free school place and if the mother can only get jobs that don't match up to the benefits then she should use the time to go back to college and get some qualifications.
Given the choice I can't see any tax payer wanting to pay benefits for more than 13 yrs so that the mother has the privilege of doing something she can't fund herself-in fact I think there would be a public outcry. If I was funding it I would most certainly want the person doing it to be publically accountable with checks. If the person isn't taking public money they don't need to be accountable to the public.

Lots of people could afford either HE or private schooling if they wore a jumper instead of turned up the heating or used up their leftovers, but many are living below the poverty line and I should think that they could cry with comments like that!

If I'm honest, the reason I went back to umming and aahing about HE (DH is still entirely in favour of it) is that I don't want to be stuck on benefits for another 16 years. I don't know, it makes me quite sad really, if DH had a better paying job (he's the manager of a pharmacy, and is very successful, but the pay is outrageously low) or if I was lucky enough to have a wealthy family background we could do it.

As I say, I agree with the accountability thing - it just upsets me that public-funded schools aren't really accountable to the public, other than league tables and OFSTED reports.

The main reason we wanted to HE is the aforementioned failings of state schools, but we may have to put that to the back of our minds - I'm doing a degree so that at some point I can be a teacher and pay oodles of tax .

However, if we tried school and there was some reason for HEing like major bullying, and DCs would definitely be better off HE, then I'd do it, and would feel no guilt whatsoever at doing the right thing - why should they have to suffer at school just because we're poor.

I think you could say the same about other things e.g. why shouldn't my DCs have a seaside holiday just because we are poor. You have to find ways to do it e.g. a charity, a tent etc.
As a tax payer I wouldn't mind paying for DCs who have been failed by the system, but I certainly don't want to pay for those that have never tried it and have a perfectly good school on the door step. I certainly don't expect the person who is HEing on my money to tell the LEA that they are not allowed to see it in operation!! Not if I am paying.
I think that you need to accept that if you pay you get independence. If the state pays then the state regulates.

you could say the same about other things, but I wouldn't, as having a holiday is totally different to having an education. a holiday is a privilege which we can't afford, I wouldn't dream of complaining about that.

by 'you' need to accept..., do you mean me personally? cos I do!

No-you seem quite reasonable MMM-I mean HEers in general need to accept that if the state pays then the state has the right to regulate how it is done.If the state isn't paying then the state has no right to regulate.

I think that if you are expecting to fund HE through benefits then you at least need to try what is offered free before you seek alternatives.

Well actually I don't think it's fair to only inspect state-funded HE families... a rich family could just as easily do a rubbish job of it surely? I'm in favour of inspection generally, I think I'd feel happier being accountable, to have someone say "you're officially doing ok" IYSWIM?

I gather that's a controversial view round here though?

It is a controversial view! I think that it is another reason for inspecting everyone so as not to discriminate against those that are state funded, but I know I will get flamed for that one! HEers are doing it because they think they do a better job than schools-I don't know why they don't have the confidence to sing it from the rooftops!
However-mustn't waste any more of the day and we have rather hijacked the thread-apologies to OP who wasn't talking about this.