Home Schooling

[Mince]

Some time ago I read a Guardian article about someone who home schools (or unschools) her children. In the comment sections was a lively disagreement between two people, one who home educates his children and another who believes such home educators should agree to regular visits from the Local Education Authorities. Though I copied only the responses from the home educator, they are enough to give an idea of the disagreement. I am putting them here because they made me chuckle on reading them again.


Because for me to home educate my child is my right, not the Local Authority's gift. I set the hours, the content, the style, the curriculum and everything else; all enshrined in Law. If the Local Authority have a problem with home education then they should seek to get the Law changed. If they, or anyone else, have concerns about a child's welfare then they should express them through the correct channels.

In response to 'If schools are inspected then it seems perfectly reasonable for home schooling to be inspected too. Or do these people consider themselves too elite to be part of the system?": If restaurant kitchens are inspected then it seems perfectly reasonable for your kitchen to be inspected too. Or do you consider yourself too elite to be part of the system?

For you to conflate the idea of home education with 'keeping a child from wider society' demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you seriously, seriously believe that I'd lock my kids in the house 24/7? It's every bit as likely that home educated children have more contact with 'wider society' than those attending a local school.

When someone in Authority exceeds their authority then the virtuous thing to do is to tell them to fuck off, not pander to them or walk on eggshells. You have totally failed to realise that Local Education officials attempting to involve themselves in home education are not 'doing their job' because they have no Legal right to do so (except, of course, in cases where there is evidence that a child is not, in fact, receiving education, and rightly so). I don't know what you do for a living, and I agree that if someone spoke to you that way for merely doing it you'd be right to feel aggrieved, but if you exceeded the boundaries then you'd get what you deserved.

When you exceed your authority as a teacher it's not for you pick and choose how the person you've offended against responds to you; I can readily believe that you'd prefer them to offer 'constructive advice and suggestions' but it's their prerogative to do otherwise if they so choose. Including telling you to fuck off.

Your argument that a visit (one hour a year) would somehow pick up on cases of abuse of the system beggars belief. And, for the n'th time, the LEA have no right whatsoever to visit homes where children are receiving home education; can you please, please stop referring to this as 'people doing their job'.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

These are all yours. aren't they?

[Mince]

I wish they were.

Why is there an errant full stop in your sentence?

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

The boring reason is that I typed it on my phone in haste, without my glasses, and of course it should have been a comma. But I’d rather it was because I’m an outrageous rebel.

I also think the kitchen analogy is completely bogus.

[Mince]

I also think the kitchen analogy is completely bogus.

I believe the point being made is that there is no law giving anyone the right to inspect either your kitchen or your home education, and so any reasons anyone might have for either kind of inspection are irrelevant opinion. It's okay to hold the opinion that parents who home educate should be inspected, but keep in mind that their right to do so without inspection is enshrined in law.

That some people consider that cartoonists work places should be inspected on a regular basis after having caused offence by drawing Mohammed as a terrorist and Serena Williams in a racist ape-like pose still does not give anyone the right to overstep their authority and attempt to do so, and I'm sure you would feel equally disposed to tell anyone attempting to do so to fuck off.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

Again, very different things. We're talking about the welfare of small children who are unlikely to be the ones making the decisions here. People eating in an unhygienic restaurant will probably choose not to return if they have any sense. The children of people eminently unqualified to tutor them at home (I'm talking generally here - I have absolutely no problem with you and Mrs Mince on that or any score) are a particular worry, as are those who may be experiencing domestic abuse that might be less likely to be detected than if that child attends school. Worst case scenarios for sure, but certainly not beyond possibility. Whether or not inspections would detect these things may be moot, but surely anyone confident that they were doing the job properly should have no objection to the potential safe-guarding that may occur from such visits?

I do believe that commercial kitchens can be (and often are) closed down by the authorities after health inspections. And rightly so.

As for your two examples, if I could have inspected the offices and studios of the Danish cartoonists and prohibited them from drawing their gratuitously offensive and entirely misdirected cartoons of Mohammed, I'd have done so in a heartbeat. Their arrogance (along with that of their publishers) and their actions led to many deaths. I've never defended them, and never will. Idiots, all.

The Serena cartoon, on the other hand, was possibly the biggest storm in a teacup in cartoon history - a point hammered home by the authorities within the past few hours.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-47352854

[Mince]

those who may be experiencing domestic abuse that might be less likely to be detected than if that child attends school

Why are you not also asking for safe-guarding visits for the parents of all children under four, since they also do not attend school? Or how about all school children under 16 anyway, since a few school children are abused at home where they spend the majority of their time? Why are only home-schoolers treated as guilty until proven innocent when no other parents are? Do you notice the prejudice here?

people eminently unqualified to tutor them at home

Why do you think children cannot learn without being tutored? Did someone tutor you in drawing? Did someone tutor you to learn the English language by the age of three? Exactly what must children learn that their parents do not themselves know? Who gets to decide what constitutes an education? How do you ensure that those who visit the home-educated are qualified to evaluate whether a child is receiving an appropriate education for their age?

surely anyone confident that they were doing the job properly should have no objection to the potential safe-guarding that may occur from such visits

Tarks, someone is coming round to inspect your anus to look for concealed drugs. Surely if you've done nothing wrong then you won't object to the search. We must protect children from drugs.

I do believe that commercial kitchens can be (and often are) closed down by the authorities after health inspections. And rightly so.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that the government should have the right to conduct random inspections of everyone's kitchen and the power to close them down?

As for your two examples, if I could have inspected the offices and studios of the Danish cartoonists and prohibited them from drawing their gratuitously offensive and entirely misdirected cartoons of Mohammed, I'd have done so in a heartbeat. Their arrogance (along with that of their publishers) and their actions led to many deaths. I've never defended them, and never will. Idiots, all.

Short of having the ability to see into the future, the only way that this could be achieved is to regularly inspect the offices of ALL innocent cartoonists? Is this what you're suggesting the government should do, and if so, do you think it would work?

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

those who may be experiencing domestic abuse that might be less likely to be detected than if that child attends school

Why are you not also asking for safe-guarding visits for the parents of all children under four, since they also do not attend school. Or how about all school children under 16 anyway, since a few school children are abused at home where they spend the majority of their time. Why are only home-schoolers treated as guilty until proven innocent when no other parents are? Do you notice the prejudice here?

One at a time here, I think.

I'm not asking for anything - just understanding why caution isn't always a bad thing. Anything that helps prevent child abuse is fine by me. Nobody is being treated as guilty, but I sure as Hell want any guilty ones rooted out, home-schooled or not. This wouldn't be the primary objective of inspections anyway, merely a further argument for it. The main reason would be to ensure that the children are getting what they need. If you can tell  me that every single home-schooled child has parents like yours, then I'd argue that there would be no need. But you can't, can you? Stop taking the argument so personally.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

people eminently unqualified to tutor them at home

Why do you think children cannot learn without being tutored? Did someone tutor you in drawing? Did someone tutor you to learn the English language by the age of three? Exactly what must children learn that their parents do not themselves know? Who gets to decide what constitutes an education? How do you ensure that those who visit the home-educated are qualified to evaluate whether a child is receiving an appropriate education for their age?

Much as I'd like to think I know better than everyone else on this planet, I'm afraid I don't. Sometimes I feel it's wise to trust people within institutions that have long experience to know even more than I do about the general well-being of my children. Not always though. I was once chairperson of my daughters' primary school board. I very publicly resigned after a few months declaring the system was wrong, as I couldn't be the only one in that position who really hadn't a clue what I was doing.

[Mince]

If you can tell  me that every single home-schooled child has parents like yours, then I'd argue that there would be no need. But you can't, can you?

No, I can't tell you that every single home-schooled child has parents like us. But there are proper channels to follow for cases of suspected child abuse, and home inspections for those who are not even suspected is not the way to go.

[Mince]

Much as I'd like to think I know better than everyone else on this planet, I'm afraid I don't. Sometimes I feel it's wise to trust people within institutions that have long experience to know even more than I do about the general well-being of my children. Not always though. I was once chairperson of my daughters' primary school board. I very publicly resigned after a few months declaring the system was wrong, as I couldn't be the only one in that position who really hadn't a clue what I was doing.

Then again, why the need for inspections?

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

Much as I'd like to think I know better than everyone else on this planet, I'm afraid I don't. Sometimes I feel it's wise to trust people within institutions that have long experience to know even more than I do about the general well-being of my children. Not always though. I was once chairperson of my daughters' primary school board. I very publicly resigned after a few months declaring the system was wrong, as I couldn't be the only one in that position who really hadn't a clue what I was doing.

Then again, why the need for inspections?

Because education is actually a good thing that not everyone is skilled in imparting, and children deserve a decent education. Schools are inspected too.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

surely anyone confident that they were doing the job properly should have no objection to the potential safe-guarding that may occur from such visits

Tarks, someone is coming round to inspect your anus to look for concealed drugs. Surely if you've done nothing wrong then you won't object to the search. We must protect children from drugs.

And we do our best to do just that. But you're talking hyperbollocks.

By pure coincidence, I have someone coming round to perform a bi-annual inspection on my flat tomorrow. It's a legal requirement for the rental sector. Both he and I know that it is unnecessary in my case (I'm a domestic God), and it will literally only take five minutes, but we both also know that it must be done, so we will be civil and even jovial, and go through the motions. I see no problem with it, and recognise that there is a genuine need in many cases for this to be done.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

I do believe that commercial kitchens can be (and often are) closed down by the authorities after health inspections. And rightly so.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that the government should have the right to conduct random inspections of everyone's kitchen and the power to close them down?

Might not be a bad thing, but no. I'm saying inspections can and do play vital roles sometimes, and when we're dealing with the welfare and wellbeing of children, there is probably no greater importance.

[Mince]

Because education is actually a good thing that not everyone is skilled in imparting, and children deserve a decent education. Schools are inspected too.

Why is 'good education' beyond what the parents know a good thing? And even if it is, why do you assume others need to 'impart' anything for children to get a good education?

Schools are inspected too.

But we're talking about private homes, not public institutions. There is a difference.