Just curious. How were you homeschooled? Or why I should say. Was it based on religion ? I'm very new to homeschooling and I've enjoyed watching your vidoes. Thank you for caring.
@belle0074 I was autonomously educated. My family eschewed coercion so that I and my siblings could direct our learning, play, etc. My mother was influenced by the philosophies Taking Children Seriously and Unschooling. TCS stresses the importance of trial and error and finding mutually satisfactory solutions rather than unsatisfactory compromise. Unschooling opposes the rigid hierarchy of total institutions like schools.
@belle0074 When we started home-educating my mother was a priest in the Church of England, although the decision was motivated primarily by the inadequacy of the school learning system and bullying. Religion was an important part of our lives, but we were never sectarian or illiberal in the way that the media likes to portray Christian home-educators. Later on my family separated itself from the church and converted to atheism.
Thank you for your question, I hope this is helpful :)
It's just horrific beyond words - thanks for being a voice for this at least. Needless to say I hope it won't happen, and am glad to read your words, "the situation is a lot less dire than it was when I posted this video" It's just got to be.
Yes, it does; people have a remarkable ability to stand up for their rights and in this case it seems to have been effective. Thank you for commenting.
You're a wonderful example of the benefits of home education. Do you feel any of the political parties would support home education more if they were voted in at the next election? In the meantime we need to put pressure on the government to rethink this.
Thank you; that is very kind of you to say. The conservatives have promised to scrap any of this dreadful anti-home-education legislation. Although I have other reasons for not voting for them I appreciate the motives of the many home-educators that most definitely will and that this is at least one thing to look forward to from a Tory victory. In general the situation is a lot less dire than it was when I posted this video, but things are still uncomfortably uncertain.
I homeschooled/unschooled in New York State in the US, which has the almost the worst homeschooling laws in the US.
The most ridiculous was that we had to send in attendance forms : ) That didn't really turn out to interfere with much.
However, standardized testing requirements and requirements that children "make an academic years progress" and the *requirement* to send in not only proposed curriculum but a curriculum divided into set
Well, we all got the hang of how to do it, and it was hardly time consuming (and the working class parents did OK with it too),
but
although it did not preclude unschooling--we would write up things like "community activities" as curriculum..it did force this awkward furtiveness, and some compromise. Nevertheless, even under these less than awesome circumstances the kids were much happier, inquisitive, sociable etc. than the schooled.
@givebirthathome I hope your new English requirements are not too much more draconian than our undesirable but survivable NYS laws. If they are, hopefully you can organize to have them modified. How sad these abuse arguments are being made. School itself IS abuse per se, and then there is all the rape, bullying and even murder that go on in schools.
Indeed; in the UK (according to the BBC) 71% of pupils admit to bullying and government advisors warn of a bullying epidemic. The word 'bullying' has become a euphemism for all abuse pupils direct against one another. And when you have an environment that is so abusive the majority of children are becoming abusers you know something is horrifically wrong. To then fabricate charges against innocent home-educators is so repugnant I find myself stunned. TBC
I have heard about the poor laws in NYS, it is reassuring that many of you manage to home-educate irrespective of this oppression. I recall watching a documentary on NYC in which it was shown that the social services there were supporting tests using experimental drugs on orphans with HIV. If possible it seems to be one of the few places in the developed world worse at protecting children than the UK. TBC
Youth rights certainly have a long way to go. It is always comforting to encounter someone else who believes that children deserve a genuine chance to be happy, protected and free. Thank-you very much for your comments.
A psychologist who has a very interesting and practically useful viewpoint on one facet of child freedom is Aletha Soulter. Recommended!
Btw, imperfect as it is, mostly I believe family freedom is child freedom. Parents are going to care more about their kids (whether competently or not) than a bunch of bureaucrats. Think about the completely schooled characters in Brave New World for example.
The orphan HIV story was horrific. I came across it on the net about a year before it broke anywhere, the whistleblower was begging for help getting the story published. So not only was the social service and judicial system not working (they'd actually take custody of the children for "child abuse" if their
guardians refused or revoked consent after seeing the awful side effects) the press wasn't working either.
I think there is a saying to the effect that exceptional cases make bad laws. Along those lines..there is an argument to be made against allowing much interference in homeschooling to stop exceptional cases of abuse.
Homeschooler Mary Pride has some interesting things to say in her book, "the Child Abuse Industry". If you haven't already.. see cases of Logan Marrs (killed by CPS), Lisa Steinberg (killed by parents, teachers didn't notice the abuse) and Andrea Yates(homeschooling mom/killer)
Yes, abusive behavior is not normal. Its very sad people think it is and treat the symptom (trying to come up with policies that suppress bullying) rather than the cause, unhappy and desperate children.
I remember my first homeschool group beach picnic..about 10 families with their different aged kids who didn't know each other. The kids all happily mixed and played with no "supervision" other than knowing we were there ready to share experiences and supply assistance, hugs and food.
I would not completely equate family and child freedom, but I certainly see the need to empower parents against the state to assure that the young can have liberty; particularly in the current social context in which true youth liberation is unlikely to be accepted. Parents serve a vital and moral role; I agree that disrupting this role would be largely harmful. Bureaucratic institutions almost always prove disastrous as proxy parents. TBC
Horrific is an apt word; I could hardly believe the story when I first encountered it and I am usually the last to be surprised by institutional evils. I cannot even imagine the necessary psychology to perpetrate such crimes against the most vulnerable. I can only speculate that people capable of doing dangerous tests on kidnapped children must themselves be victims of some kind of past abuse. It is very worrying. TBC
I have had similar experience in home-educated gatherings; people of all ages and social backgrounds socialising without any trace of prejudice. The only serious problems occur when someone newly out of school joins the groups and even then solutions can be found. It is unfortunate that so many see bullying as an inevitable part of life and not as a solvable problem caused by a broken society. TBC
Very impressed with all your video's, I did watch a couple some months\year\s back but had no idea how to use my account as I am a complete techno phoebe XD
Very articulate and heartfelt, I hope they see this and begin to understand what monsters they are being but don't worry, they haven't won anything yet! And I don't plan on letting them!
That is reassuring. And even conceding that I am currently pessimistic I believe that regardless of what the government (or any other group attacking home-education) tries, as long as some people believe in their rights there is plenty to be hopeful about.
To form what I consider to be a reasonable opinion about home education would require me to research it a bit more but what I can say is that people who want to be home-schooled should be allowed to be home schooled. People who want unschooling should go for that. They shouldn't have a bunch of angry men waving their fingers at them telling them what to do.
Indeed, it's vital to protect plurality in liberal democracies. Research on home-ed is hard and, as it rejects testing, research on unschooling is near impossible; however I'd advise Dr. Paula Rothermel, my father Mike Fortune-Wood and (although I'm unsure if they've done original research) The Fraser Institute's work. Also, the philosophy is important and for that I'd suggest my mother Dr. Jan Fortune-Woods work, TCS and an essay by Hegelian Max Stirner 'The False Principle of our Education'.
OK, thanks Rowan. At the moment I'm looking through your past videos (something I've only done once with my new subscriptions) and I'm extremely impressed.
I think the "concern" over abuse is a red herring. The state schools don't seem to be any more successful spotting abuse in classes of 30+ children. I don't understand the opposition to home schooling. The government doesn't seem to have a problem with faith schools, some of which are state funded - something I find totally unacceptable. Perhaps a different approach is needed. How about promoting the benefits for home schooling? Outline what they are - not just "parents' choice".
Faith schools are still monitored; they exist within the state system. That is why the government allows for the travesty of funding religious agendas, they are afraid of that religious people will opt-out altogether.
This is best understood using Albert O. Hirschman's sociological Exit, Voice and Loyalty model. Home-education Exits from state educational institutions much more radically than private schools and this threatens them - not a lot, but enough to agitate Local Authorities. [con]
I think you are right about promoting the benefits and that is something I will probably do in the future on my channel. However, it is not easy when there is so much misinformation and the government is slowly increasing the level of interference and destroying the advantages of the approach.
It is hard form home-educating families to compete against both the state and media perpetuated ignorance. Still, the internet is a great tool. Thanks for commenting, I appreciate your thoughts on this.
I think my concerns about home schooling would be on the effect it has on the child being home schooled. We've heard all these arguments about how the standard of education suffers, that the children are deprived the social contact of their peers and it stunts them emotionally. These and all sorts of other arguments would be quite valid, were they actually true.
It seems that many people who home school feel very strongly about it - probably most of them because home schooling your children is a significant commitment of resource. There must be sufficient benefits for people to want to home school - we should focus on those and figure out why the state system isn't providing them.
I am of the opinion that the state school system is less about educating than it is a "worker factory". People are given the basic amount of skills they need to function as economic production units.
The desire to learn and question doesn't seem to feature very highly - that's something that I got from my parents, not from school.
You are right vis-à-vis the state school system; despite occasional noise about personalising education and life long learning it is still trapped in a model designed at the outset of the industrial revolution. A model itself built on religious and secular military pre-industrial institutions. A huge part of it is simply to keep children from roaming outside during the day; hence the emphasis on truancy.
I suspect that the state system (although improvable) cannot mirror all the benefits of home-education; the central advantages of which are keeping the child feeling secure and tailoring learning to the individual. A large institution will struggle to take a child centred approach because they are too preoccupied with crowd management and bullying will likely become endemic in any top-down system.
Those kinds of criticisms of home-education are indeed important. However, fortunately they are not even purely speculative, but actually contradicted by research such as that of the Fraser Institute and Dr. Paula Rothermel. The difficulty is not the criticisms per se, but the imaginative failure of many of the critics. Some simply will not accept that home-education can work, let alone that it does work.
Well said indeed. Furthermore to your point, there are many factors of state education that are patently damaging to its subject's emotional and intellectual development, yet have become so widely accepted as just another part of the experience of "education," they are ignored. I refer specifically to the ignorance and repression of creative potential or alternative opinion, the crushing emphasis that is placed on conformity and obedience, the micro-cosmic tribalism of the playground...
...the constant imposition of personal preferences and prejudices from so called teachers, etc etc. This is before we factor in largely ignored or tolerated problems such as "bullying," etc. Speaking as someone who remembers the experience acutely, I feel that I am not engaging in hyperbole when I say that state education is a sad joke; the antithesis of everything it advertises itself as. Until it can be roundly improved, alternatives such as home education should remain perfectly viable...
And even were state education to be overhauled so that it became an engine of the most pristine educational functionality, alternative options such as home education should still remain entirely viable if only because it forces all possibilities to maintain a particular standard. As it currently stands, it seems that the powers that be wish to subject children in Britain to the lowest possible standards of "education," whilst simultaneously decimating those systems that evidently...
I also experienced considerable and often brutal bullying from kids at school since I was obviously a "poof". The teachers did nothing about it other than tell me to stand up for myself. When I did, I got in trouble for it.
I recall being forced to participate in subjects for which I had no aptitude or inclination - like Religious Knowledge, sport (well, foot ball) and metalwork.
...much more effectively (home educated children routinely out perform their state educated counterparts both academically and in more utilitarian terms (i.e. average income, etc etc).
I wholly agree; as long as the authorities utilise abstract, irrefutable rhetoric they can level any charge they want as justification to any infringement of liberty they can imagine. Thank you for this comment.
Yeah, if I had the choice ( ie copious ammounts of money ) I would leave the country. I really do fail to see how the gov can get away with this. I cant help picturing the gov as The Borg "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile"
The Borg is an apt way to think of this and you bring up a good point about migration, not the easiest solution for many that will be impacted by this. Thanks for commenting.
I would expect that *most* parents in Britain who take the expensive trouble to home-school their children have great intentions. Most parents want their children to be well educated so as to have the best opportunity for a good future.
However, statistics demonstrate that some adults cannot be trusted with children. I am professionally acquainted with the severe damage that a minority of parents inflict.
Minor constraints on the freedom of the majority are better than failing to protect.
I agree that some adults cannot be trusted, I do not agree with the presumption of guilt. The entire way I was educated (autonomously, without tests, formal lessons, etc) will be illegal; the prejudices of local authorities will be given authority over all home-educators and traumatised bullied children will be forced to exhibit themselves or risk returning to a place in which some were suicidal. I do not believe this is minor and I do not believe in sacrificing the few to the alter of the many.
musekiteer, you say that "some adults cannot be trusted with children" so the constraints on freedom are justified.
how about we constraint the education systems freedom to our children because they cannot be trusted.
Mainstream education is an absolute discrace and is failing a scarily big proportion of the children it is responsible for. what about the "severe damage" that is inflicted on some of them?
your argument works more against government intervention than it does for it.
I disagree that protection argues against government regulations.
Your wording is somewhat ambiguous, au. The children cannot be trusted?
If mainstream education is "an absolute discrace", then it is both understandable that responsible parents wish to home-school *and* the school system needs an overhaul.
The problem is that *not all* parents are responsible or even competent. It sounds as though your government is moving towards regulations such as exist in the rest of Europe.
I didnt meen the children cant be trusted. I meant that:
the logic of restricting all parents rights to educate their children because a few cannot be trusted, could also be used to restrict the education systems rights (the LEA's in particular) over education because they have shown that they cannot be trusted.
The exact same logic the gov is using to lessen parents rights, when applied to the mainstream education system, says that the LEA's should start having less not more input.
public opinion on the matter seems to think that parents have to answer to the LEA's, when infact the law is very clear that it is them who must answer to the public.
Its comparible to an man who works (very badly) for alot customers, having intrusion rights over ALL the people who choose not to use his services, simply because SOME of them are even worse than he is.
THEY WORK FOR US. they dont like it, but its the truth.
Is the law clear that the LEAs are answerable to the public at large or to individual members of the public?
I understand your analogy. However, my understanding is that government agencies are responsible to society at large and only to those individuals who need protection.
The mother in the interview (thanks for that) was using the law to argue against the law, which seems paradoxical.
the mother in the interview was pointing out that the new legistation is incompatable with the rights the parents have. to make them compatible the parent rights have to be removed.
if the government wants to bring in the new legistation they should be honest about this fact. Im sure that if this story was been presented by the news as a loss of rights instead of a protective government, it would be much harder for it to be accepted.
The public, although divided on the matter of education, are very united on the matter of having our rghts slowly stolen by the gov.
And i dont agree that public opinion is emotion based. I think public opinion is TV based. most people cant think anythink unless theyre told it first.
And yet the mother was talking of a law that she saw as guaranteeing her rights. Since the Magna Carta, legislation has progressively entrenched rights. Unfortunately, some shutting of barn doors after the escape of horses is necessary because some people cannot be trusted.
I completely agree that most people do not think and are swayed by "spin". I distrust some people and think that protections are necessary, you see this as being about loss of freedoms.
So is being required to have a driving license, or being required to have a license to practice medicine, or any of a number of other legal requirements that involve administration costs. These things were not put into place solely for the purpose of restricting freedoms. They are there for our protection. Unless, that is, you'd prefer that there be no standards for driving or practicing medicine.
It's not that I do not value freedom, or recognize human rights, it is that we need checks.
..........as somebody said on another forum i was reading "home education is the default setting" . Its what used to happen before the schooling system existed. The schooling system was set up as an alternative for parents who didnt want to home school, it should have no influence what so ever on the ones who do.
People need driving licenses because it is not the "default" option.
Did I, or the government, say that this issues is about requiring a license to "raise" kids? I trust that you don't think that I am against home-schooling.
I'm not particularly swayed by arguments that invoke "default" conditions because these run the risk of being forms of argumentum ad antiquitatem or genetic fallacies.
I think that the relevant issues are intention and impact, and I think that the legislation will actually cause little more than a minor administrative inconvenience.
How is it simply going to cause a "minor administrative convenience" ? once on this register the local education authority will have the power to enter families homes uninvited and interview children without their parents permission.
there need be no evidence or even suspicion of abuse for this to happen.
and the people doing the interviewing need not be trained, and will most probably have a biased opinion against the home schooling community. most people do.
If it was just simply a matter of putting your kids name on a list, I would agree with it. But it goes so much deeper.
What happens when one of these interviewers decides that all kids should be in school no matter what and so refuses to accept that any child is recieving suitable education at home?
or when a kid simply has a bad day, and some over zealous guy puts it down as suspected abuse?
would you let somebody into your home to interview your kids without you present? (bearing in mind that no allegation needs to have been made against you.)
having to satisfy the LEA's judgement of what a suitable education is, opens the door for a curriculum being effectively forced upon home educated children by demanding certain test results from them.
what makes it worse is that the interviewers will probably be working towards targets of how many kids they 'help' back to school
5. Based on what you have said, Im guessing that distrust of the product of schools and a desire for freedom would inform that decision.
I would have chosen to be home-schooled by my father because I would not have been bored and held back academically. However, high school in Australian did offer the opportunity for extensive reading under the desk ;)
Grammar school in England was much better because it was more stimulating and not so enabling of slacking.
Yes, our police force can enter our homes without permission WITH A WARREnt,, and to get that warrent they need strong evidence of a crime.
the 'interviewers' forcing themselves into families homes will not need evidence that anything has been done wrong.
and allthough you may not have heard about any scandals surrounding abuses of authority...we in the uk live with them everyday. our gov is unfortunately very good at abusing its authority.
I shall have to take your word on abuse of authority by your government.
However, if your police do require a warrant and "strong evidence of a crime", unwarranted (pun alert) intrusion seems less likely than in countries with notoriously autocratic governments.
I continue to think that, if the legislation includes unwarranted "forcing" into family homes, such a proviso is intended only for cases strongly suspected of being like Eunice Spry (who reportedly kept ahead of the authorities).
2. As I understand it, your police force has the power to enter homes (with warrants). They would also have the power to interview children (with a social worker present) without the parents permission. In reality, police and school authorities very rarely harass the average family in Western nations.
We have home-schooling legislation. I have never heard of scandals about abuses of authority. (Nor by Childrens Aid workers. Their mandate is to investigate suspected child abuse.)
3. The intent of that legislation must be cases like Eunice Spry and not the average family, who have been unmolested all these years. Kids are regularly interviewed at school without parents present. It sounds as though propaganda abounds --- and I distrust biased reporting because it relies upon appeals to emotion rather than logic. I suspect that the home-schoolers are being unduly nervous and distrustful, which might explain why those parents chose to home-school in the first place.
4. You complain about untrained interviewers and yet you object to a curriculum for home-schooled children. I assume that you are not against schools following a curriculum. I should think that the advantage of home-schooling would ideally be the ability to treat a curriculum as a baseline and to go above and beyond. Thats certainly true of autodidacts in university courses.
You say "probably be working towards targets" --- the "probably" indicates that you are assuming this.
4b. I think that the advantage of attending school was exposure to extra-curricular broadening of one's viewpoint. Even the most liberal thinker is less educational than a host of liberals and conservatives (utterly different insights).
In my experience, the least useful teachers and university professors (outside sciences and medicine) take the attitude of regurgitate what I say rather than think about this material. We get this informally from exposure to lots of minds.
I was actually referring to the inconvenience of having yet another function *to* administer. This would involve manpower and costs for the LEAs. Registering would be simple.
Not trained as in a diploma or degree is not required?
I find it interesting that you think that people are biased against home-schooling. Not here, so far as I am aware. Our home-schooled kids are expected to follow a curriculum, so I assume that they are tested when students sit provincial tests.
Are you talking of the days when the children of wealthy parents had governesses and tutors? Education was elitist and decorative.
Scotland made a great leap forward when it was the nation with public schools (usually church-affiliated), and thus a higher literacy rate than other nations. I thought that the school system was not widely introduced (England) until after the Industrial Revolution -- working parents, the need for literate workers, and child labour laws.
Would you have preferred to be home-schooled? If my father had taught me, I would.
Education is education. If the child wishes to get a job or to proceed to a university, then the parent is responsible for adequate preparation. Judging by the numbers, most home-schooled children do well, so I'd say that most parents are performing better than the school system. Is this what you meant by not replacing?
I agree about what she said. The irony is that she wished to use one law to back her emotional position about a law that she did not personally like.
Are you saying that they are not being honest about wanting the new legislation, or not honest about their motivations? Which "they" -- the media or the government? I'll assume the "media" and "motivations".
Sure, spin makes a difference when you are making an emotional sell. However, "spin" is not always fair reporting -- e.g. FUX News.
There are two broad ways of looking at rights -- innate and legislated. I think that we probably agree on the concept of innate rights, but also agree that such concepts are moot in countries with totalitarian attitudes to controlling their citizens. I don't really see Britain as one of those, though I would concede that educational standards within the schools have probably fallen for a variety of reasons. (An interesting topic)
2. I see where you were going regarding LEAs performance. This is actually where I came into this discussion. Our public TV station recently aired a program about British parents frantically preparing their children for the 11+. My impression was that the school system is viewed with more suspicion than is ours (Canada).
When I took the 11+, there was no thought of preparation. I could not attend the top grammar school because of the technicality that my name had not been down from birth.
2b. However, that school was accessible. It has since been switched over to fees and partial scholarships. Quite elitist!
Worry that ones kids could be exposed to a poor social situation would provide a considerable incentive for home-schooling.
However, the question of why LEAs are failing within schools seems a separate issue. Registration and testing basic standards does not seem particularly challenging in comparison to educating children from disadvantaged social backgrounds.
I came to this video because none of the articles on the bbc news site about changes in the home schooling law have a comment section.
and heres my question?
Why in all of the reports and official statements is the reason for the change stated as being basically that the gov wants to make sure that homeschooled children are getting a level of education equivelent to that they would get in school?
It is widely publicised that our government run education system is FAILING.
able kids are getting pulled back, sen kids are being left behind, 1 in 5 teens self harms, 1 in 3 is being bullied.....i could go on and on and on. and most of the time theyre being taught by teachers who dont even want to be there.
year after year after year we in the uk are barraged with news of how PISS POOR our education system is. How dare the government judge parents who decide to take the responsibility for their childs education upon themselves.!
and besides......dont home educated kids do better anyway?
now, i dont have any kids at the moment but i absolutely know that if i do in the future they will be educated at home, if it has become illegal here then ill move abroad to do it.
These are excellent questions. Unfortunately the man controlling this situation, aptly named Graham Badman, has decided that all research showing the comparative benefits of home-education is inadequate. Of course he has not properly engaged with the research and even mischaracterises it, but he has all the power and can do as he wishes. I think your judgement is sound; I too would not have children in this country.
You might be right; I suspect that liberty in the contemporary sense of the word is coming to an end. Out of millennia of oppression we came, to millennia of oppression we go.
I am feeling despair, but ultimately pessimism is a game of compromise and sacrifice. Not my forté.
1a. I still depend on people like yourself for my hope. There have been revolutions before of varying types. I still hope for another of the intellectual revolutions to take another step; It will never end, but there is beauty in the progression. I rely on your staying hopeful. You're young, and your character seems to be forgeable. "They" TRY to do what they want. But "they" know where the danger lies for them; IDEAS. "They" need acceptance. What "they" try to appeal to, I think, is key...
2a. ...Perhaps the "Rumpelstiltskin Society" should ask if "their" name is Rumpelstiltskin. That way, they could break the authorities claim to the children. That story probably has foundation in the same History. Have you heard of "The Comprachicos"? I don't get the impression you're a fan of Objectivism for, perhaps, justifyable reasons. But she did have some interesting, and brilliant, ideas, and...though I don't agree with everything she's said, I owe her a great deal.
I have problems with Rand; her epistemology, her foreign policy ideas, her ethics, but I do sympathise with her distrust of the state and I would side with Objectivists over my current government. I believe the Comprachicos was an idea she took from her favourite novelist Victor Hugo; she used it to describe certain educationalists that warped children's minds? It is an interesting concept.
Yes, you are correct about the origin of the Comprachicos. I don't really think I got a clear idea of her foreign policy ideas. It could be that I didn't like them either. I'm more inclined to favour Gene Rodenberry's idea of the "Prime Directive". Unfortunately we're surrounded by Imperialists with adgenda's of their own. I'm curious about your problems with Rand's epistemology. Is it something easily sumarizable? It gave me a firmer footing than the one prior. You have a broader scope than I.
Good question. It is slightly complex, but essentially Rand was a foundationalist; she believed that epistemology could be grounded in a series of unquestionable basic beliefs, axioms or self-evident claims. I am a more in line with the critical rationalists in that I believe that you cannot justify but only falsify through a process of conjecture and refutation. Justificationism can lead to serious problems, like claims to impossible certainty. And as a fallibilist that worries me a bit.
Thank you so much for that response. I sometimes worry that you're afraid I'll be offended with your responses. I used to be more...militaristic, (there may be a better term to describe it, but I can't think of one off hand), about some of those ideas. Now, I'm trying to expand my understanding via alternatives. I'm glad you brought up the idea of falsification, because I don't think I'm getting it. I'd thought falsification meant it was proven false. eg, if I knock an "unbreakable" dish out...
... someones hand and it breaks, I'd assume that falsifies the claim, and not proving it to be a valid claim. I may have misunderstood something here. Perhaps you could give me some reference I could look up to investigate this idea? I don't have that broad an exposure to philosophy that I couldn't stand a little more insight. I'm a rather slow learner who has to take time off for those plateaus where I try to coalate semantic memory with episodic memory.
Your idea of falsification is correct. The gist is that you cannot justify a claim, hence fallibilism; you can only corroborate through a process of unsuccessful criticism and falsify. The strength of a hypothesis or conjecture is the degree to which it can be falsified or refuted. As Nietzsche says, anticipating Popper, 'It is certainly not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable; it is precisely thereby that it attracts the more subtle minds.'
I get the impression you're in a state of despair at this outcome. I think the concern is justified. A mind is a terrible thing to battle. It would seem that the easiest way to defeat an idea is to abort it before it is born. I think State schooling is quite effective at that. Viva underground unschooling. I fear this forum may be regarded as a threat as well. It's already in the process of being "protected" by Obama's "internet Tsars". I hate the thought of losing ties with this community...
That is very disappointing news. It seems another freedom to think/behave as an individual is being eroded away by this damn nanny-state. It's not as though our schooling system is particularly good either - stifled progression to ensure no-one advances too far beyond the rest of the class.
The only ray of hope is that pro-active parents will still find the time to supplement the mediocre state curriculum and encourage individual growth outside of school.
I too hope that parents manage to prevail against this in whatever little way they can, but my usual optimism is somewhat dampened of late. I appreciate your comment.
The media seem to be presenting the alleged abuse thing in a very weird light..There will now be home visits that will often be invasive and authoritarian...Since you are one of the best read, most knowledgeable young men that I've ever encountered, you are a good example of why home schooling often works.
Is the interview available at BBC's homepage? Could you post a link if it is? So it's a fete accompli?
Sometimes I can't stop myself from posting corrections to my stream-of-consciousness comments, and today seems to be one of those days. Sorry about the pointless verbiage.
Let's just hope that I'll be able to refrain from posting errata to this errata...When that happens, I'll know I've finally gone over the edge. ;0)
Indeed, the consultation was a joke; every concern we expressed was ignored. The modus operandi of all such consultations. I am unable to find the interview; it was on either radio 5 or one of the local stations at about 11am. The BBC gave me mixed information. I got asked about whether I am educated and socialised, but the pertinent questions were directed to a tutor who sometimes works with home-educators and whose answers were disappointing. If I find it I will be sure to share the link.
In germany, kidis are already facing a danger in school as happened in Erfurt or Winnenden. Have there ever been as many cases like this in homeschooling families???
AND: we have to HELP people or children, yes, I'm ok, so let's search for the kids that HAVE problems, and not attack happy homeschooled familys.
Currently these are recommendations, but the state is going to accept them as the consultation was clearly a farce to justify this kind of legislation. Youre right that were relatively lucky when compared to Germany, but the trend seems to be in that direction. I entirely agree with your assessment of schools and home-education; there are far more identifiable cases of abuse in schools than there are even imagined instances amongst home-educators. Thanks for commenting.
Erm, did I get that right and these decisions are already made and there is no way back?
Coming from germany, you seem still to be lucky that there is still a way to homeschool in your country. That doesn't mean that I like this decision.
As if they make the world better in controlling those little homeschooling familys ... look at what is going on in schools! It is there that you find so much abuse, violence etc. from which children have to be protected in a more effective way.
Me too; I worry that this is a global phenomenon pioneered by Nazi Germany, the People's Republic of China and Japan to name a few nation-states quick to illegalise home-education. European countries seem to be following the trend and many US states already have oppressive legislation or have had attempts to impose such legislation that has been prevented by strong home-education communities.
Yes, all the more so because I saw it coming and yet it was still shocking—I thought I would be a bit more stoical about something so inevitable. Thank you for commenting.
i thought people opposed religion because it is forced onto kids....
yet this is exactly what the state does. force certain views onto kids and systematically stamp out any sign of creativity or critical thinking.
so you want to threaten people with violence who choose not to stick their own children in govt reeducation camps where they are humiliated for questioning authority?
Hence your experience of squashed creativity and squelched critical thinking?
Aside from those possibilities, the trouble in the UK -- aside from bullying -- seems to be crime-ridden comprehensive schools, or schools that hold very bright kids back.
The trouble in the US seems to be that many parents are home-schooling to protect their religiously-indoctrinated offspring from subversive truths such as biological evolution and science.
There is an element of truth to your claims, but I would say that this is reductionist. In the UK many start to home-educate for these reasons, but continue for other reasons; like a stance against the methodology of schooling per se. As for the US, I know of many non-religious home-educators from the states that reject the school model because of philosophical or practical reasons. Furthermore, I know of religious home-educators from the US that do not teach anti-science or creationism. [con]
And research suggests that even creationist home-educators outperform the quality of the US school system. I am no fan of creationism, but I do not think it is a good idea to prevent parents from teaching their children their views. Many seem to oppose home-education in the US to eliminate creationism, but it will only be reinforced by draconian anti-family measures. And discrimination against the religious is on the same level as discrimination against the non-religious. [fin]
I too have heard that home-schooled children score better on SATs. I suspect that this probably results from individualized attention, the reduction of irrelevant distractions, and not being held back by the teacher's dilemma of teaching to the middle.
Parents will teach children parental views regardless of mode of schooling.
Would "draconian anti-family measures" be necessary if mandatory testing were introduced?
The teacher-student ratio is likely a factor. I also think it has a lot to do with parent dedication and a good learning environment.
Mandatory testing would be a draconian anti-family measure because it would eliminate child centred anti-testing educational philosophies such as TCS, unschooling and autonomous parenting
I apologise for mischaracterising your views. You did indeed qualify you claims. [con]
My father Mike Fortune-Wood did research in the UK of that nature published in a book called 'The Face of Home-Education: Who Why & How' I am not sure if other research, such as Dr. Paula Rothermel's and the Canadian Fraser Institute's, has also looked at reasons. [fin]
My goodness, I had not thought of mandatory testing would be a draconian anti-family measure. I had assumed that you were referring to more intrusive legislation, such as that which you describe in the video.
I live in Ontario, Canada, which did not have standardized testing of high school graduates until about 10 years ago. This caused the problem that universities could not easily compare the capacities of students, and some students failed because they were lamentably unprepared.
Certainly testing is not the most draconian anti-family measure, but I think any legislation that effectively prevents entire educational philosophies is draconian. In the UK British schools have testing and people are always complaining that the information is ineffective for differentiating between students and that all too many are leaving school unprepared. Furthermore, I do not believe in sacrificing the rights of some for the convenience of many. [con]
See BBC articles "School test results 'useless' say critics", "School leavers 'lack basic skills'", "What can be done to improve literacy?" and probably many others.
I looked for some more details on the actual legislation. It's difficult to find unbiased analysis. Aiui, the government has introduced mandatory registration and some testing to ensure that all HS parents meet reasonable standards.
I think that one's reaction to this is probably dependent on how one views the value and purpose (personal, state) of education. It also depends on whether one trusts *all* parents to provide a decent grounding. I think that the government should have doubts.
Local authorities will define reasonable education and goals in ways that de facto illegalise most home-education. Also, the degree of access to home and child is extreme and ignores the wishes of parents and children. Unless there is specific evidence to the contrary then the government should trust all parents; have we abandoned that great legal principle, 'Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit'? It is the obligation of the state to earn the trust of its subjects, not vice versa.
The national government will empower local authorities to control home-education.
These new policies make no fiscal sense to me.
What qualifies as basic standards and how they are met is a controversial issue. Also, many local authorities have questioned the possibility of good home-education.
Parliament wields power on everyones behalf with disputed legitimacy, whereas parents wield no power over you and are entitled to the same presumption of innocence as every subject.
OK, they are expecting local authorities to administer this.
Questioned the "possibility" of good home-education? The numbers (Rothermel) do indicate otherwise, and I'd assume that they have been informed of this.
Are they not trying to ensure that another Eunice-Spry or Josef-Fritzl-type-case does not occur?
I did not think that the fair-minded had disputed parliamentary "legitimacy" for a considerable time. Would the British prefer anarchy or a return to absolute monarchy?
They dismiss research; it does not reflect their opinions. This is not surprising when they run a consultation that ignores most of the home-educators consulted.
Spry and Fritzl were monitored; social workers failed. And yet they harass innocent home-educators with their prejudices.
We have crude elections to periodically legitimise parliament and checks on parliament (judicial system, independent enquiries, media) because that legitimacy must be carefully watched in the intervening time.
So what exactly do these changes to how home education is done constitute? I've done a google search for news and info and all I can find are some vague reports about annual registrations and progress inspectors.
The changes will give massive power to local authorities to decide who home-educates and how they are allowed to do this; given their general preference for traditionalist, hierarchical educational models this will automatically eliminate autonomous educators. Given that local authorities are full of class prejudice that will likely eliminate working class home-educators. Essentially the law will make it so difficult and pointless that only a few will continue.
absolutely despicable. absolutely fucking despicable. so now the state owns all the kids i suppose?
u should consider moving regardless. hell move to america even, we have a very very slight amount of freedom here. homeschooling is only discouraged, they aren't quite pointing guns at people yet on that matter.
honestly, when stangers come for your kids it's time to shoot the bastards.
I concur; when the state takes control of even your children then the family is dissolved. I am actually considering the US as a possibility. I hear that Arizona has good laws (or rather a good absence of laws) on home-education.
A horrifying turn of events. I long ago lost all faith in the British government and this has only cemented my belief that they have no interest in what is best for the people and only wish to control them. If there is one thing in the world that is truly important it's education and this is a very damaging blow to it.
This is appalling. So essentially, children ascribed as being part of a particular "class" in this country are now condemned to the emotional and intellectual meat grinder that is comprehensive education, and to a very particular form of social conditioning in which all enthusiasm for learning and creative inclination will be systematically bled out of all but the few. I am disgusted, and less inclined than ever before to ever have children of my own.
I share your sentiments; I cannot help but wonder what kind of future children have when they are entirely the property of the state. Parents might soon be fulfilling a mere utilitarian breeding function to provide new citizens for the government to mould. Thank-you for commenting.
Clearly a sad day for you, coming also as it does with the announcement of plans for the possible further regulation, monitoring and inspection of home educating families. I'm sure many will feel that an intrusion by the state. I have no idea whether home education is as successful for others as it clearly has been for you. I guess that is the critic's point. I do think that children who have engaged and motivated parents are at an advantage, regardless of the specific arrangement for education.
You communicate very well.
MrBrian987987 9 months ago
#freeman <3
benjammin420 1 year ago
Just curious. How were you homeschooled? Or why I should say. Was it based on religion ? I'm very new to homeschooling and I've enjoyed watching your vidoes. Thank you for caring.
belle0074 1 year ago
@belle0074 I was autonomously educated. My family eschewed coercion so that I and my siblings could direct our learning, play, etc. My mother was influenced by the philosophies Taking Children Seriously and Unschooling. TCS stresses the importance of trial and error and finding mutually satisfactory solutions rather than unsatisfactory compromise. Unschooling opposes the rigid hierarchy of total institutions like schools.
RowanFortuneWood 1 year ago
@belle0074 When we started home-educating my mother was a priest in the Church of England, although the decision was motivated primarily by the inadequacy of the school learning system and bullying. Religion was an important part of our lives, but we were never sectarian or illiberal in the way that the media likes to portray Christian home-educators. Later on my family separated itself from the church and converted to atheism.
Thank you for your question, I hope this is helpful :)
RowanFortuneWood 1 year ago
It's just horrific beyond words - thanks for being a voice for this at least. Needless to say I hope it won't happen, and am glad to read your words, "the situation is a lot less dire than it was when I posted this video" It's just got to be.
MystyMary 1 year ago
Yes, it does; people have a remarkable ability to stand up for their rights and in this case it seems to have been effective. Thank you for commenting.
RowanFortuneWood 1 year ago
You're a wonderful example of the benefits of home education. Do you feel any of the political parties would support home education more if they were voted in at the next election? In the meantime we need to put pressure on the government to rethink this.
WrittenWordVideos 1 year ago 2
@WrittenWordVideos
Thank you; that is very kind of you to say. The conservatives have promised to scrap any of this dreadful anti-home-education legislation. Although I have other reasons for not voting for them I appreciate the motives of the many home-educators that most definitely will and that this is at least one thing to look forward to from a Tory victory. In general the situation is a lot less dire than it was when I posted this video, but things are still uncomfortably uncertain.
RowanFortuneWood 1 year ago
I homeschooled/unschooled in New York State in the US, which has the almost the worst homeschooling laws in the US.
The most ridiculous was that we had to send in attendance forms : ) That didn't really turn out to interfere with much.
However, standardized testing requirements and requirements that children "make an academic years progress" and the *requirement* to send in not only proposed curriculum but a curriculum divided into set
required subjects...it interfered.
givebirthathome 2 years ago
Well, we all got the hang of how to do it, and it was hardly time consuming (and the working class parents did OK with it too),
but
although it did not preclude unschooling--we would write up things like "community activities" as curriculum..it did force this awkward furtiveness, and some compromise. Nevertheless, even under these less than awesome circumstances the kids were much happier, inquisitive, sociable etc. than the schooled.
givebirthathome 2 years ago
@givebirthathome I hope your new English requirements are not too much more draconian than our undesirable but survivable NYS laws. If they are, hopefully you can organize to have them modified. How sad these abuse arguments are being made. School itself IS abuse per se, and then there is all the rape, bullying and even murder that go on in schools.
givebirthathome 2 years ago
Indeed; in the UK (according to the BBC) 71% of pupils admit to bullying and government advisors warn of a bullying epidemic. The word 'bullying' has become a euphemism for all abuse pupils direct against one another. And when you have an environment that is so abusive the majority of children are becoming abusers you know something is horrifically wrong. To then fabricate charges against innocent home-educators is so repugnant I find myself stunned. TBC
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I have heard about the poor laws in NYS, it is reassuring that many of you manage to home-educate irrespective of this oppression. I recall watching a documentary on NYC in which it was shown that the social services there were supporting tests using experimental drugs on orphans with HIV. If possible it seems to be one of the few places in the developed world worse at protecting children than the UK. TBC
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Youth rights certainly have a long way to go. It is always comforting to encounter someone else who believes that children deserve a genuine chance to be happy, protected and free. Thank-you very much for your comments.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
A psychologist who has a very interesting and practically useful viewpoint on one facet of child freedom is Aletha Soulter. Recommended!
Btw, imperfect as it is, mostly I believe family freedom is child freedom. Parents are going to care more about their kids (whether competently or not) than a bunch of bureaucrats. Think about the completely schooled characters in Brave New World for example.
givebirthathome 2 years ago
The orphan HIV story was horrific. I came across it on the net about a year before it broke anywhere, the whistleblower was begging for help getting the story published. So not only was the social service and judicial system not working (they'd actually take custody of the children for "child abuse" if their
guardians refused or revoked consent after seeing the awful side effects) the press wasn't working either.
givebirthathome 2 years ago
I think there is a saying to the effect that exceptional cases make bad laws. Along those lines..there is an argument to be made against allowing much interference in homeschooling to stop exceptional cases of abuse.
Homeschooler Mary Pride has some interesting things to say in her book, "the Child Abuse Industry". If you haven't already.. see cases of Logan Marrs (killed by CPS), Lisa Steinberg (killed by parents, teachers didn't notice the abuse) and Andrea Yates(homeschooling mom/killer)
givebirthathome 2 years ago
Yes, abusive behavior is not normal. Its very sad people think it is and treat the symptom (trying to come up with policies that suppress bullying) rather than the cause, unhappy and desperate children.
I remember my first homeschool group beach picnic..about 10 families with their different aged kids who didn't know each other. The kids all happily mixed and played with no "supervision" other than knowing we were there ready to share experiences and supply assistance, hugs and food.
givebirthathome 2 years ago
I would not completely equate family and child freedom, but I certainly see the need to empower parents against the state to assure that the young can have liberty; particularly in the current social context in which true youth liberation is unlikely to be accepted. Parents serve a vital and moral role; I agree that disrupting this role would be largely harmful. Bureaucratic institutions almost always prove disastrous as proxy parents. TBC
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Horrific is an apt word; I could hardly believe the story when I first encountered it and I am usually the last to be surprised by institutional evils. I cannot even imagine the necessary psychology to perpetrate such crimes against the most vulnerable. I can only speculate that people capable of doing dangerous tests on kidnapped children must themselves be victims of some kind of past abuse. It is very worrying. TBC
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I have had similar experience in home-educated gatherings; people of all ages and social backgrounds socialising without any trace of prejudice. The only serious problems occur when someone newly out of school joins the groups and even then solutions can be found. It is unfortunate that so many see bullying as an inevitable part of life and not as a solvable problem caused by a broken society. TBC
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Thank you for the recommendations; I will be certain to read these books. And thank you for your comments.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I'm home schooled and don't really mind for my self about the rules cos I am starting school anyway, but they suck for other people.
MissElisePlease 2 years ago
Indeed they do, thanks for your support :)
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Very impressed with all your video's, I did watch a couple some months\year\s back but had no idea how to use my account as I am a complete techno phoebe XD
Very articulate and heartfelt, I hope they see this and begin to understand what monsters they are being but don't worry, they haven't won anything yet! And I don't plan on letting them!
Ebericana 2 years ago
That is reassuring. And even conceding that I am currently pessimistic I believe that regardless of what the government (or any other group attacking home-education) tries, as long as some people believe in their rights there is plenty to be hopeful about.
Thanks for commenting and for the subscription.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
To form what I consider to be a reasonable opinion about home education would require me to research it a bit more but what I can say is that people who want to be home-schooled should be allowed to be home schooled. People who want unschooling should go for that. They shouldn't have a bunch of angry men waving their fingers at them telling them what to do.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Indeed, it's vital to protect plurality in liberal democracies. Research on home-ed is hard and, as it rejects testing, research on unschooling is near impossible; however I'd advise Dr. Paula Rothermel, my father Mike Fortune-Wood and (although I'm unsure if they've done original research) The Fraser Institute's work. Also, the philosophy is important and for that I'd suggest my mother Dr. Jan Fortune-Woods work, TCS and an essay by Hegelian Max Stirner 'The False Principle of our Education'.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
OK, thanks Rowan. At the moment I'm looking through your past videos (something I've only done once with my new subscriptions) and I'm extremely impressed.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Thank you, that is very kind of you to say.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
No problem.
Orygyn 2 years ago
We have't lost, Rowan. We won't be beat (:
SoulxSpectre 2 years ago
I certainly hope you're right :)
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Ever the optimist (:
SoulxSpectre 2 years ago
Home education may be a lost cause, but we should all go down fighting. Take action! freedom for children to grow. org/lobbying.htm
education-otherwise. org/ index.htm
edgehill66 2 years ago 2
I wholeheartedly concur, although I am a little underwhelmed by EO and their overall performance defending the rights/'representing' home-education.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I think the "concern" over abuse is a red herring. The state schools don't seem to be any more successful spotting abuse in classes of 30+ children. I don't understand the opposition to home schooling. The government doesn't seem to have a problem with faith schools, some of which are state funded - something I find totally unacceptable. Perhaps a different approach is needed. How about promoting the benefits for home schooling? Outline what they are - not just "parents' choice".
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
Faith schools are still monitored; they exist within the state system. That is why the government allows for the travesty of funding religious agendas, they are afraid of that religious people will opt-out altogether.
This is best understood using Albert O. Hirschman's sociological Exit, Voice and Loyalty model. Home-education Exits from state educational institutions much more radically than private schools and this threatens them - not a lot, but enough to agitate Local Authorities. [con]
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I think you are right about promoting the benefits and that is something I will probably do in the future on my channel. However, it is not easy when there is so much misinformation and the government is slowly increasing the level of interference and destroying the advantages of the approach.
It is hard form home-educating families to compete against both the state and media perpetuated ignorance. Still, the internet is a great tool. Thanks for commenting, I appreciate your thoughts on this.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I think my concerns about home schooling would be on the effect it has on the child being home schooled. We've heard all these arguments about how the standard of education suffers, that the children are deprived the social contact of their peers and it stunts them emotionally. These and all sorts of other arguments would be quite valid, were they actually true.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
It seems that many people who home school feel very strongly about it - probably most of them because home schooling your children is a significant commitment of resource. There must be sufficient benefits for people to want to home school - we should focus on those and figure out why the state system isn't providing them.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
I am of the opinion that the state school system is less about educating than it is a "worker factory". People are given the basic amount of skills they need to function as economic production units.
The desire to learn and question doesn't seem to feature very highly - that's something that I got from my parents, not from school.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
You are right vis-à-vis the state school system; despite occasional noise about personalising education and life long learning it is still trapped in a model designed at the outset of the industrial revolution. A model itself built on religious and secular military pre-industrial institutions. A huge part of it is simply to keep children from roaming outside during the day; hence the emphasis on truancy.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I suspect that the state system (although improvable) cannot mirror all the benefits of home-education; the central advantages of which are keeping the child feeling secure and tailoring learning to the individual. A large institution will struggle to take a child centred approach because they are too preoccupied with crowd management and bullying will likely become endemic in any top-down system.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Those kinds of criticisms of home-education are indeed important. However, fortunately they are not even purely speculative, but actually contradicted by research such as that of the Fraser Institute and Dr. Paula Rothermel. The difficulty is not the criticisms per se, but the imaginative failure of many of the critics. Some simply will not accept that home-education can work, let alone that it does work.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Well said indeed. Furthermore to your point, there are many factors of state education that are patently damaging to its subject's emotional and intellectual development, yet have become so widely accepted as just another part of the experience of "education," they are ignored. I refer specifically to the ignorance and repression of creative potential or alternative opinion, the crushing emphasis that is placed on conformity and obedience, the micro-cosmic tribalism of the playground...
ExaggeratedElegy 2 years ago
...the constant imposition of personal preferences and prejudices from so called teachers, etc etc. This is before we factor in largely ignored or tolerated problems such as "bullying," etc. Speaking as someone who remembers the experience acutely, I feel that I am not engaging in hyperbole when I say that state education is a sad joke; the antithesis of everything it advertises itself as. Until it can be roundly improved, alternatives such as home education should remain perfectly viable...
ExaggeratedElegy 2 years ago
...options.
George
ExaggeratedElegy 2 years ago
Addendum:
And even were state education to be overhauled so that it became an engine of the most pristine educational functionality, alternative options such as home education should still remain entirely viable if only because it forces all possibilities to maintain a particular standard. As it currently stands, it seems that the powers that be wish to subject children in Britain to the lowest possible standards of "education," whilst simultaneously decimating those systems that evidently...
ExaggeratedElegy 2 years ago
I also experienced considerable and often brutal bullying from kids at school since I was obviously a "poof". The teachers did nothing about it other than tell me to stand up for myself. When I did, I got in trouble for it.
I recall being forced to participate in subjects for which I had no aptitude or inclination - like Religious Knowledge, sport (well, foot ball) and metalwork.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
...much more effectively (home educated children routinely out perform their state educated counterparts both academically and in more utilitarian terms (i.e. average income, etc etc).
George
ExaggeratedElegy 2 years ago
Of course abuse was the charge.
You don't need to prove abuse, since it is so vague and subjective, you only need to suggest deviance and abuse is implied.
Nobody knows how people ought to be used better than large institutions.
Without Magna Carta we are ruled by hearsay, rumors, gossip, social aggression, conformity, and institutionalization.
They are waging a war against truth and "violence."
This is sad
Especially in light of the economic situation.
it breaks my heart.
St37One 2 years ago
I wholly agree; as long as the authorities utilise abstract, irrefutable rhetoric they can level any charge they want as justification to any infringement of liberty they can imagine. Thank you for this comment.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Yeah, if I had the choice ( ie copious ammounts of money ) I would leave the country. I really do fail to see how the gov can get away with this. I cant help picturing the gov as The Borg "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile"
robertplantscrotch 2 years ago
The Borg is an apt way to think of this and you bring up a good point about migration, not the easiest solution for many that will be impacted by this. Thanks for commenting.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Our commiserations.
Has England dispensed with the distinction of "public" and "private" schools?
Going public would at least offer pick of poison.
WetlandsRemediation 2 years ago
Good point, I think Wetlands Remediation Death Camp might be the last bastion of sanity on earth sir.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I would expect that *most* parents in Britain who take the expensive trouble to home-school their children have great intentions. Most parents want their children to be well educated so as to have the best opportunity for a good future.
However, statistics demonstrate that some adults cannot be trusted with children. I am professionally acquainted with the severe damage that a minority of parents inflict.
Minor constraints on the freedom of the majority are better than failing to protect.
musekiteer 2 years ago
I agree that some adults cannot be trusted, I do not agree with the presumption of guilt. The entire way I was educated (autonomously, without tests, formal lessons, etc) will be illegal; the prejudices of local authorities will be given authority over all home-educators and traumatised bullied children will be forced to exhibit themselves or risk returning to a place in which some were suicidal. I do not believe this is minor and I do not believe in sacrificing the few to the alter of the many.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
musekiteer, you say that "some adults cannot be trusted with children" so the constraints on freedom are justified.
how about we constraint the education systems freedom to our children because they cannot be trusted.
Mainstream education is an absolute discrace and is failing a scarily big proportion of the children it is responsible for. what about the "severe damage" that is inflicted on some of them?
your argument works more against government intervention than it does for it.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
I disagree that protection argues against government regulations.
Your wording is somewhat ambiguous, au. The children cannot be trusted?
If mainstream education is "an absolute discrace", then it is both understandable that responsible parents wish to home-school *and* the school system needs an overhaul.
The problem is that *not all* parents are responsible or even competent. It sounds as though your government is moving towards regulations such as exist in the rest of Europe.
musekiteer 2 years ago
I didnt meen the children cant be trusted. I meant that:
the logic of restricting all parents rights to educate their children because a few cannot be trusted, could also be used to restrict the education systems rights (the LEA's in particular) over education because they have shown that they cannot be trusted.
The exact same logic the gov is using to lessen parents rights, when applied to the mainstream education system, says that the LEA's should start having less not more input.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
public opinion on the matter seems to think that parents have to answer to the LEA's, when infact the law is very clear that it is them who must answer to the public.
Its comparible to an man who works (very badly) for alot customers, having intrusion rights over ALL the people who choose not to use his services, simply because SOME of them are even worse than he is.
THEY WORK FOR US. they dont like it, but its the truth.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
watch the video "interview re: home education review on bbc breakfast" from castle coop.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
Public opinion tends to be emotion-based.
Is the law clear that the LEAs are answerable to the public at large or to individual members of the public?
I understand your analogy. However, my understanding is that government agencies are responsible to society at large and only to those individuals who need protection.
The mother in the interview (thanks for that) was using the law to argue against the law, which seems paradoxical.
musekiteer 2 years ago
the mother in the interview was pointing out that the new legistation is incompatable with the rights the parents have. to make them compatible the parent rights have to be removed.
if the government wants to bring in the new legistation they should be honest about this fact. Im sure that if this story was been presented by the news as a loss of rights instead of a protective government, it would be much harder for it to be accepted.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
The public, although divided on the matter of education, are very united on the matter of having our rghts slowly stolen by the gov.
And i dont agree that public opinion is emotion based. I think public opinion is TV based. most people cant think anythink unless theyre told it first.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
And yet the mother was talking of a law that she saw as guaranteeing her rights. Since the Magna Carta, legislation has progressively entrenched rights. Unfortunately, some shutting of barn doors after the escape of horses is necessary because some people cannot be trusted.
I completely agree that most people do not think and are swayed by "spin". I distrust some people and think that protections are necessary, you see this as being about loss of freedoms.
musekiteer 2 years ago
it IS about loss of freedoms
anotherutterance 2 years ago
So is being required to have a driving license, or being required to have a license to practice medicine, or any of a number of other legal requirements that involve administration costs. These things were not put into place solely for the purpose of restricting freedoms. They are there for our protection. Unless, that is, you'd prefer that there be no standards for driving or practicing medicine.
It's not that I do not value freedom, or recognize human rights, it is that we need checks.
musekiteer 2 years ago
thats why we have checks on schools, THEY are the ones providing the service, just like docters are providing a service to patients.
Parents who are teaching their children are not providing a service to them, they are just being parents. ...............
anotherutterance 2 years ago
..........as somebody said on another forum i was reading "home education is the default setting" . Its what used to happen before the schooling system existed. The schooling system was set up as an alternative for parents who didnt want to home school, it should have no influence what so ever on the ones who do.
People need driving licenses because it is not the "default" option.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
..........Saying that you need a licence to look raise your own kids is like saying you would need a license to walk somewhere instead of drive.
In conclusion: We SHOULD NOT NEED PERMISSION TO DO THE THINGS WHICH ARE THE 'DEFAULT' ACTION.
and yes, home education is most definately the default action, even if it has become marginalised in our society.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
Did I, or the government, say that this issues is about requiring a license to "raise" kids? I trust that you don't think that I am against home-schooling.
I'm not particularly swayed by arguments that invoke "default" conditions because these run the risk of being forms of argumentum ad antiquitatem or genetic fallacies.
I think that the relevant issues are intention and impact, and I think that the legislation will actually cause little more than a minor administrative inconvenience.
musekiteer 2 years ago
How is it simply going to cause a "minor administrative convenience" ? once on this register the local education authority will have the power to enter families homes uninvited and interview children without their parents permission.
there need be no evidence or even suspicion of abuse for this to happen.
and the people doing the interviewing need not be trained, and will most probably have a biased opinion against the home schooling community. most people do.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
If it was just simply a matter of putting your kids name on a list, I would agree with it. But it goes so much deeper.
What happens when one of these interviewers decides that all kids should be in school no matter what and so refuses to accept that any child is recieving suitable education at home?
or when a kid simply has a bad day, and some over zealous guy puts it down as suspected abuse?
anotherutterance 2 years ago
would you let somebody into your home to interview your kids without you present? (bearing in mind that no allegation needs to have been made against you.)
having to satisfy the LEA's judgement of what a suitable education is, opens the door for a curriculum being effectively forced upon home educated children by demanding certain test results from them.
what makes it worse is that the interviewers will probably be working towards targets of how many kids they 'help' back to school
anotherutterance 2 years ago
yes i wish i was home schooled, and any children that i have most definately will be.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
5. Based on what you have said, Im guessing that distrust of the product of schools and a desire for freedom would inform that decision.
I would have chosen to be home-schooled by my father because I would not have been bored and held back academically. However, high school in Australian did offer the opportunity for extensive reading under the desk ;)
Grammar school in England was much better because it was more stimulating and not so enabling of slacking.
musekiteer 2 years ago
Yes, our police force can enter our homes without permission WITH A WARREnt,, and to get that warrent they need strong evidence of a crime.
the 'interviewers' forcing themselves into families homes will not need evidence that anything has been done wrong.
and allthough you may not have heard about any scandals surrounding abuses of authority...we in the uk live with them everyday. our gov is unfortunately very good at abusing its authority.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
I shall have to take your word on abuse of authority by your government.
However, if your police do require a warrant and "strong evidence of a crime", unwarranted (pun alert) intrusion seems less likely than in countries with notoriously autocratic governments.
I continue to think that, if the legislation includes unwarranted "forcing" into family homes, such a proviso is intended only for cases strongly suspected of being like Eunice Spry (who reportedly kept ahead of the authorities).
musekiteer 2 years ago
2. As I understand it, your police force has the power to enter homes (with warrants). They would also have the power to interview children (with a social worker present) without the parents permission. In reality, police and school authorities very rarely harass the average family in Western nations.
We have home-schooling legislation. I have never heard of scandals about abuses of authority. (Nor by Childrens Aid workers. Their mandate is to investigate suspected child abuse.)
musekiteer 2 years ago
3. The intent of that legislation must be cases like Eunice Spry and not the average family, who have been unmolested all these years. Kids are regularly interviewed at school without parents present. It sounds as though propaganda abounds --- and I distrust biased reporting because it relies upon appeals to emotion rather than logic. I suspect that the home-schoolers are being unduly nervous and distrustful, which might explain why those parents chose to home-school in the first place.
musekiteer 2 years ago
4. You complain about untrained interviewers and yet you object to a curriculum for home-schooled children. I assume that you are not against schools following a curriculum. I should think that the advantage of home-schooling would ideally be the ability to treat a curriculum as a baseline and to go above and beyond. Thats certainly true of autodidacts in university courses.
You say "probably be working towards targets" --- the "probably" indicates that you are assuming this.
musekiteer 2 years ago
4b. I think that the advantage of attending school was exposure to extra-curricular broadening of one's viewpoint. Even the most liberal thinker is less educational than a host of liberals and conservatives (utterly different insights).
In my experience, the least useful teachers and university professors (outside sciences and medicine) take the attitude of regurgitate what I say rather than think about this material. We get this informally from exposure to lots of minds.
musekiteer 2 years ago
I was actually referring to the inconvenience of having yet another function *to* administer. This would involve manpower and costs for the LEAs. Registering would be simple.
Not trained as in a diploma or degree is not required?
I find it interesting that you think that people are biased against home-schooling. Not here, so far as I am aware. Our home-schooled kids are expected to follow a curriculum, so I assume that they are tested when students sit provincial tests.
musekiteer 2 years ago
Are you talking of the days when the children of wealthy parents had governesses and tutors? Education was elitist and decorative.
Scotland made a great leap forward when it was the nation with public schools (usually church-affiliated), and thus a higher literacy rate than other nations. I thought that the school system was not widely introduced (England) until after the Industrial Revolution -- working parents, the need for literate workers, and child labour laws.
musekiteer 2 years ago
If we were still a hunter-gatherer or early agrarian society, then your second sentence would seem eminently reasonable.
The practical point is that education is a requirement of the state in so far as it prepares a child for the work-force (including academe).
If a parent is providing home-schooling, then that parent is replacing the school system --- and the checks that you concede are reasonable.
I don't have time to respond to all your comments. In the meantime -- were you home-schooled?
musekiteer 2 years ago
no, i wasnt home schooled. i went to a normal state primary and then a state funded grammar school.
the parent is NOT "replacing the school system" ............thats the point.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
Would you have preferred to be home-schooled? If my father had taught me, I would.
Education is education. If the child wishes to get a job or to proceed to a university, then the parent is responsible for adequate preparation. Judging by the numbers, most home-schooled children do well, so I'd say that most parents are performing better than the school system. Is this what you meant by not replacing?
musekiteer 2 years ago
I agree about what she said. The irony is that she wished to use one law to back her emotional position about a law that she did not personally like.
Are you saying that they are not being honest about wanting the new legislation, or not honest about their motivations? Which "they" -- the media or the government? I'll assume the "media" and "motivations".
Sure, spin makes a difference when you are making an emotional sell. However, "spin" is not always fair reporting -- e.g. FUX News.
musekiteer 2 years ago
LEA = Local Educational Authority, I assume.
There are two broad ways of looking at rights -- innate and legislated. I think that we probably agree on the concept of innate rights, but also agree that such concepts are moot in countries with totalitarian attitudes to controlling their citizens. I don't really see Britain as one of those, though I would concede that educational standards within the schools have probably fallen for a variety of reasons. (An interesting topic)
musekiteer 2 years ago
2. I see where you were going regarding LEAs performance. This is actually where I came into this discussion. Our public TV station recently aired a program about British parents frantically preparing their children for the 11+. My impression was that the school system is viewed with more suspicion than is ours (Canada).
When I took the 11+, there was no thought of preparation. I could not attend the top grammar school because of the technicality that my name had not been down from birth.
musekiteer 2 years ago
2b. However, that school was accessible. It has since been switched over to fees and partial scholarships. Quite elitist!
Worry that ones kids could be exposed to a poor social situation would provide a considerable incentive for home-schooling.
However, the question of why LEAs are failing within schools seems a separate issue. Registration and testing basic standards does not seem particularly challenging in comparison to educating children from disadvantaged social backgrounds.
musekiteer 2 years ago
It's quite staggering what levels statists will go to, in order that we all conform to their own bigotry..
I never realised this was on the cards, but like you say, not surprising at all.. :(
xelenty 2 years ago
Staggering is an apt word. And it seems that no matter how much I expect this kind of stuff to happen I am still shocked when it does.
Thanks for commenting.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I came to this video because none of the articles on the bbc news site about changes in the home schooling law have a comment section.
and heres my question?
Why in all of the reports and official statements is the reason for the change stated as being basically that the gov wants to make sure that homeschooled children are getting a level of education equivelent to that they would get in school?
It is widely publicised that our government run education system is FAILING.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
able kids are getting pulled back, sen kids are being left behind, 1 in 5 teens self harms, 1 in 3 is being bullied.....i could go on and on and on. and most of the time theyre being taught by teachers who dont even want to be there.
year after year after year we in the uk are barraged with news of how PISS POOR our education system is. How dare the government judge parents who decide to take the responsibility for their childs education upon themselves.!
anotherutterance 2 years ago
and besides......dont home educated kids do better anyway?
now, i dont have any kids at the moment but i absolutely know that if i do in the future they will be educated at home, if it has become illegal here then ill move abroad to do it.
anotherutterance 2 years ago
These are excellent questions. Unfortunately the man controlling this situation, aptly named Graham Badman, has decided that all research showing the comparative benefits of home-education is inadequate. Of course he has not properly engaged with the research and even mischaracterises it, but he has all the power and can do as he wishes. I think your judgement is sound; I too would not have children in this country.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
...I fear the battle that the American Founding fathers faught against imperialism is steadily being lost.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
You might be right; I suspect that liberty in the contemporary sense of the word is coming to an end. Out of millennia of oppression we came, to millennia of oppression we go.
I am feeling despair, but ultimately pessimism is a game of compromise and sacrifice. Not my forté.
Stay hopeful and thank-you for commenting.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
1a. I still depend on people like yourself for my hope. There have been revolutions before of varying types. I still hope for another of the intellectual revolutions to take another step; It will never end, but there is beauty in the progression. I rely on your staying hopeful. You're young, and your character seems to be forgeable. "They" TRY to do what they want. But "they" know where the danger lies for them; IDEAS. "They" need acceptance. What "they" try to appeal to, I think, is key...
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
2a. ...Perhaps the "Rumpelstiltskin Society" should ask if "their" name is Rumpelstiltskin. That way, they could break the authorities claim to the children. That story probably has foundation in the same History. Have you heard of "The Comprachicos"? I don't get the impression you're a fan of Objectivism for, perhaps, justifyable reasons. But she did have some interesting, and brilliant, ideas, and...though I don't agree with everything she's said, I owe her a great deal.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
I have problems with Rand; her epistemology, her foreign policy ideas, her ethics, but I do sympathise with her distrust of the state and I would side with Objectivists over my current government. I believe the Comprachicos was an idea she took from her favourite novelist Victor Hugo; she used it to describe certain educationalists that warped children's minds? It is an interesting concept.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Yes, you are correct about the origin of the Comprachicos. I don't really think I got a clear idea of her foreign policy ideas. It could be that I didn't like them either. I'm more inclined to favour Gene Rodenberry's idea of the "Prime Directive". Unfortunately we're surrounded by Imperialists with adgenda's of their own. I'm curious about your problems with Rand's epistemology. Is it something easily sumarizable? It gave me a firmer footing than the one prior. You have a broader scope than I.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
Good question. It is slightly complex, but essentially Rand was a foundationalist; she believed that epistemology could be grounded in a series of unquestionable basic beliefs, axioms or self-evident claims. I am a more in line with the critical rationalists in that I believe that you cannot justify but only falsify through a process of conjecture and refutation. Justificationism can lead to serious problems, like claims to impossible certainty. And as a fallibilist that worries me a bit.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Thank you so much for that response. I sometimes worry that you're afraid I'll be offended with your responses. I used to be more...militaristic, (there may be a better term to describe it, but I can't think of one off hand), about some of those ideas. Now, I'm trying to expand my understanding via alternatives. I'm glad you brought up the idea of falsification, because I don't think I'm getting it. I'd thought falsification meant it was proven false. eg, if I knock an "unbreakable" dish out...
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
... someones hand and it breaks, I'd assume that falsifies the claim, and not proving it to be a valid claim. I may have misunderstood something here. Perhaps you could give me some reference I could look up to investigate this idea? I don't have that broad an exposure to philosophy that I couldn't stand a little more insight. I'm a rather slow learner who has to take time off for those plateaus where I try to coalate semantic memory with episodic memory.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
I like your attitude.
Your idea of falsification is correct. The gist is that you cannot justify a claim, hence fallibilism; you can only corroborate through a process of unsuccessful criticism and falsify. The strength of a hypothesis or conjecture is the degree to which it can be falsified or refuted. As Nietzsche says, anticipating Popper, 'It is certainly not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable; it is precisely thereby that it attracts the more subtle minds.'
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I get the impression you're in a state of despair at this outcome. I think the concern is justified. A mind is a terrible thing to battle. It would seem that the easiest way to defeat an idea is to abort it before it is born. I think State schooling is quite effective at that. Viva underground unschooling. I fear this forum may be regarded as a threat as well. It's already in the process of being "protected" by Obama's "internet Tsars". I hate the thought of losing ties with this community...
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
bastards! they only want to fuck over home schooling so they can make an army of public school squars!
i think you make the best example for a home schooled kid.
i my self never went to school at all, and i tought my self how to read.(hence the horrible spelling and grammer lol.) I'm getting better though lol
santiagodevill 2 years ago 2
Thank-you.
I think self-directed learning is the only way to be happy with your education.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
That is very disappointing news. It seems another freedom to think/behave as an individual is being eroded away by this damn nanny-state. It's not as though our schooling system is particularly good either - stifled progression to ensure no-one advances too far beyond the rest of the class.
The only ray of hope is that pro-active parents will still find the time to supplement the mediocre state curriculum and encourage individual growth outside of school.
I feel for you on this one Rowan. :(
IGrazor 2 years ago
Thanks.
I too hope that parents manage to prevail against this in whatever little way they can, but my usual optimism is somewhat dampened of late. I appreciate your comment.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Very very sad day!
longhairred 2 years ago
Indeed, thank you for commenting.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
This sounds awful.
I was aware of these changes might be coming...
The media seem to be presenting the alleged abuse thing in a very weird light..There will now be home visits that will often be invasive and authoritarian...Since you are one of the best read, most knowledgeable young men that I've ever encountered, you are a good example of why home schooling often works.
Is the interview available at BBC's homepage? Could you post a link if it is? So it's a fete accompli?
2bsirius 2 years ago
Oops, errata:
I was aware that these changes might be coming...
Sometimes I can't stop myself from posting corrections to my stream-of-consciousness comments, and today seems to be one of those days. Sorry about the pointless verbiage.
Let's just hope that I'll be able to refrain from posting errata to this errata...When that happens, I'll know I've finally gone over the edge. ;0)
2bsirius 2 years ago
I am forever correcting typos in hasty comments; a kind of chaotic perfectionism ;)
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Indeed, the consultation was a joke; every concern we expressed was ignored. The modus operandi of all such consultations. I am unable to find the interview; it was on either radio 5 or one of the local stations at about 11am. The BBC gave me mixed information. I got asked about whether I am educated and socialised, but the pertinent questions were directed to a tutor who sometimes works with home-educators and whose answers were disappointing. If I find it I will be sure to share the link.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
If you do find the link, I'd love a link.
About the perfectionism...Yes, exactly...My problem is that my perfectionism only appears in retrospect and that is extremely maddening.
2bsirius 2 years ago
one more^^
In germany, kidis are already facing a danger in school as happened in Erfurt or Winnenden. Have there ever been as many cases like this in homeschooling families???
AND: we have to HELP people or children, yes, I'm ok, so let's search for the kids that HAVE problems, and not attack happy homeschooled familys.
jaanalohff 2 years ago
Currently these are recommendations, but the state is going to accept them as the consultation was clearly a farce to justify this kind of legislation. Youre right that were relatively lucky when compared to Germany, but the trend seems to be in that direction. I entirely agree with your assessment of schools and home-education; there are far more identifiable cases of abuse in schools than there are even imagined instances amongst home-educators. Thanks for commenting.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Hello Rowan!
Erm, did I get that right and these decisions are already made and there is no way back?
Coming from germany, you seem still to be lucky that there is still a way to homeschool in your country. That doesn't mean that I like this decision.
As if they make the world better in controlling those little homeschooling familys ... look at what is going on in schools! It is there that you find so much abuse, violence etc. from which children have to be protected in a more effective way.
jaanalohff 2 years ago
That's just sad. It's a shame that it's come to this. Just another sign to me that Western education, among other things, is going down the drain.
AmericanApostate 2 years ago
Indeed, I am also feeling rather pessimistic right now.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
alleged abuse! What a joke? try public school abuse?
1467unschool 2 years ago
Indeed, it is classic psychological projection.
Thanks for the comment.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
mandatory indoctrination -- I'm sorry to see this happening. I suspect the US is not too far away from this as well.
VeritasEtLibertas82 2 years ago
Me too; I worry that this is a global phenomenon pioneered by Nazi Germany, the People's Republic of China and Japan to name a few nation-states quick to illegalise home-education. European countries seem to be following the trend and many US states already have oppressive legislation or have had attempts to impose such legislation that has been prevented by strong home-education communities.
Thanks for commenting.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Man ... That's horrible.
aaron0883 2 years ago
Yes, all the more so because I saw it coming and yet it was still shocking—I thought I would be a bit more stoical about something so inevitable. Thank you for commenting.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Butt-chin! lol.
No worries, I have it too.
I'm sorry for you that you've got to deal with that crap in the UK. I hope nothing like this happens over here.
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
No prob, Im proud of my butt-chin :)-
Thank-you for the kind words, I also hope nothing like this happens where you live.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
well
considering the majority of home schooled are religious people
the pros start to outweigh cons
attempting to minimize the bs education
and maximize the real education
I'm kind of on the fence about it
Shadizar666 2 years ago
So ... the only ideas people are allowed to learn are the "right" ideas that the state endorses? Who decides this?
Where is state education a "real education"? Who decides that?
Why does government have the right to give anyone directions on what they should do?
When someone decides these questions for you and for peoples children ... that is a pretty text book definition of slavery.
You endorse slavery on everyone merely because relgious people have some backwards ideas?
aaron0883 2 years ago 3
i thought people opposed religion because it is forced onto kids....
yet this is exactly what the state does. force certain views onto kids and systematically stamp out any sign of creativity or critical thinking.
so you want to threaten people with violence who choose not to stick their own children in govt reeducation camps where they are humiliated for questioning authority?
that is hypocritical and disgusting.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Out of interest, were you home-schooled or educated in the public school system?
musekiteer 2 years ago
public unfortunately.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Hence your experience of squashed creativity and squelched critical thinking?
Aside from those possibilities, the trouble in the UK -- aside from bullying -- seems to be crime-ridden comprehensive schools, or schools that hold very bright kids back.
The trouble in the US seems to be that many parents are home-schooling to protect their religiously-indoctrinated offspring from subversive truths such as biological evolution and science.
musekiteer 2 years ago
There is an element of truth to your claims, but I would say that this is reductionist. In the UK many start to home-educate for these reasons, but continue for other reasons; like a stance against the methodology of schooling per se. As for the US, I know of many non-religious home-educators from the states that reject the school model because of philosophical or practical reasons. Furthermore, I know of religious home-educators from the US that do not teach anti-science or creationism. [con]
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
And research suggests that even creationist home-educators outperform the quality of the US school system. I am no fan of creationism, but I do not think it is a good idea to prevent parents from teaching their children their views. Many seem to oppose home-education in the US to eliminate creationism, but it will only be reinforced by draconian anti-family measures. And discrimination against the religious is on the same level as discrimination against the non-religious. [fin]
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I too have heard that home-schooled children score better on SATs. I suspect that this probably results from individualized attention, the reduction of irrelevant distractions, and not being held back by the teacher's dilemma of teaching to the middle.
Parents will teach children parental views regardless of mode of schooling.
Would "draconian anti-family measures" be necessary if mandatory testing were introduced?
musekiteer 2 years ago
I agree that the explanation for why people choose to home-school their kids is not simple. That's why I said "trouble seems".
Do you know of statistical studies of motivations for home-schooling, Rowan?
musekiteer 2 years ago
The teacher-student ratio is likely a factor. I also think it has a lot to do with parent dedication and a good learning environment.
Mandatory testing would be a draconian anti-family measure because it would eliminate child centred anti-testing educational philosophies such as TCS, unschooling and autonomous parenting
I apologise for mischaracterising your views. You did indeed qualify you claims. [con]
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
My father Mike Fortune-Wood did research in the UK of that nature published in a book called 'The Face of Home-Education: Who Why & How' I am not sure if other research, such as Dr. Paula Rothermel's and the Canadian Fraser Institute's, has also looked at reasons. [fin]
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Thanks, I'll google it tomorrow. It's way past my bedtime :O
musekiteer 2 years ago
My goodness, I had not thought of mandatory testing would be a draconian anti-family measure. I had assumed that you were referring to more intrusive legislation, such as that which you describe in the video.
I live in Ontario, Canada, which did not have standardized testing of high school graduates until about 10 years ago. This caused the problem that universities could not easily compare the capacities of students, and some students failed because they were lamentably unprepared.
musekiteer 2 years ago
Certainly testing is not the most draconian anti-family measure, but I think any legislation that effectively prevents entire educational philosophies is draconian. In the UK British schools have testing and people are always complaining that the information is ineffective for differentiating between students and that all too many are leaving school unprepared. Furthermore, I do not believe in sacrificing the rights of some for the convenience of many. [con]
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
See BBC articles "School test results 'useless' say critics", "School leavers 'lack basic skills'", "What can be done to improve literacy?" and probably many others.
Bye for now and thanks for this discussion. [fin]
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I looked for some more details on the actual legislation. It's difficult to find unbiased analysis. Aiui, the government has introduced mandatory registration and some testing to ensure that all HS parents meet reasonable standards.
I think that one's reaction to this is probably dependent on how one views the value and purpose (personal, state) of education. It also depends on whether one trusts *all* parents to provide a decent grounding. I think that the government should have doubts.
musekiteer 2 years ago
Local authorities will define reasonable education and goals in ways that de facto illegalise most home-education. Also, the degree of access to home and child is extreme and ignores the wishes of parents and children. Unless there is specific evidence to the contrary then the government should trust all parents; have we abandoned that great legal principle, 'Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit'? It is the obligation of the state to earn the trust of its subjects, not vice versa.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Local authorities? I thought that this was an act of the national government.
Would it not be in the best fiscal interest of national or local authorities to have parents assume the burden of educating children?
Why would the government interfere with content of education beyond ensuring that basic standards are met by all participating parents?
Why would I assume the parliamentary process could not be trusted but that all parents could?
musekiteer 2 years ago
The national government will empower local authorities to control home-education.
These new policies make no fiscal sense to me.
What qualifies as basic standards and how they are met is a controversial issue. Also, many local authorities have questioned the possibility of good home-education.
Parliament wields power on everyones behalf with disputed legitimacy, whereas parents wield no power over you and are entitled to the same presumption of innocence as every subject.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
OK, they are expecting local authorities to administer this.
Questioned the "possibility" of good home-education? The numbers (Rothermel) do indicate otherwise, and I'd assume that they have been informed of this.
Are they not trying to ensure that another Eunice-Spry or Josef-Fritzl-type-case does not occur?
I did not think that the fair-minded had disputed parliamentary "legitimacy" for a considerable time. Would the British prefer anarchy or a return to absolute monarchy?
musekiteer 2 years ago
They dismiss research; it does not reflect their opinions. This is not surprising when they run a consultation that ignores most of the home-educators consulted.
Spry and Fritzl were monitored; social workers failed. And yet they harass innocent home-educators with their prejudices.
We have crude elections to periodically legitimise parliament and checks on parliament (judicial system, independent enquiries, media) because that legitimacy must be carefully watched in the intervening time.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Then they wonder why there are anarchists in this world...
ewops 2 years ago
Indeed, until this morning I was fence-sitting on the issue of anarchy. Now I would certainly describe myself as an anarchist.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
So what exactly do these changes to how home education is done constitute? I've done a google search for news and info and all I can find are some vague reports about annual registrations and progress inspectors.
WizardJim 2 years ago
The changes will give massive power to local authorities to decide who home-educates and how they are allowed to do this; given their general preference for traditionalist, hierarchical educational models this will automatically eliminate autonomous educators. Given that local authorities are full of class prejudice that will likely eliminate working class home-educators. Essentially the law will make it so difficult and pointless that only a few will continue.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
absolutely despicable. absolutely fucking despicable. so now the state owns all the kids i suppose?
u should consider moving regardless. hell move to america even, we have a very very slight amount of freedom here. homeschooling is only discouraged, they aren't quite pointing guns at people yet on that matter.
honestly, when stangers come for your kids it's time to shoot the bastards.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago 4
I concur; when the state takes control of even your children then the family is dissolved. I am actually considering the US as a possibility. I hear that Arizona has good laws (or rather a good absence of laws) on home-education.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
A horrifying turn of events. I long ago lost all faith in the British government and this has only cemented my belief that they have no interest in what is best for the people and only wish to control them. If there is one thing in the world that is truly important it's education and this is a very damaging blow to it.
amhemsley 2 years ago
Horrifying is an apt word. And like you I have also lost all faith in the British government. Thanks for the comment.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
This is appalling. So essentially, children ascribed as being part of a particular "class" in this country are now condemned to the emotional and intellectual meat grinder that is comprehensive education, and to a very particular form of social conditioning in which all enthusiasm for learning and creative inclination will be systematically bled out of all but the few. I am disgusted, and less inclined than ever before to ever have children of my own.
George
ExaggeratedElegy 2 years ago 3
I share your sentiments; I cannot help but wonder what kind of future children have when they are entirely the property of the state. Parents might soon be fulfilling a mere utilitarian breeding function to provide new citizens for the government to mould. Thank-you for commenting.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Clearly a sad day for you, coming also as it does with the announcement of plans for the possible further regulation, monitoring and inspection of home educating families. I'm sure many will feel that an intrusion by the state. I have no idea whether home education is as successful for others as it clearly has been for you. I guess that is the critic's point. I do think that children who have engaged and motivated parents are at an advantage, regardless of the specific arrangement for education.