But at least their children get a break from them while they're at school, and have a better chance of not turning out like those parents.
Why is it wrong to turn out like your parents? And why does going to school ensure that you don't?
I'm getting a little bored with your constant twisting of my words, but hey ho...
Turning out like your parents is an admirable aim in the majority of cases, but certainly not all. Often (do I really have to cover my every statement by adding 'though not exclusively'?) bigotry, xenophobia, prejudice, ignorance and violence is perpetuated within families, passed down from generation to generation. Attending school does not "ensure" (not what I said) that this changes, but I'd argue that it gives the child a better change of escaping the cycle, by hearing and seeing different and diverse views of the world from others around them, rather than spending most of it's time at home with its parents. Of course (before you insist on turning that into the same kind of blanket statement you have been throwing around throughout this debate), there is also the chance that bigotry, etc., can be
reinforced at school. Nothing's perfect, but both should be open to scrutiny.
But it's okay to be prejudiced against LEAs and their employees?
Yes, I do if they believe they have the right or the ability to check whether an unschooled child is getting a good education.
I disagree, on both counts. I have the right and ability to do that.
I've gone out of my way to stress that I don't think there would be any problem with the vast majority of home-schoolers. Which is more than can be said about your opinion of educational authority employees.
I have only good things to say about LEA employees who don't exceed their authority.
I doubt that very much.
So you don't think some parents might be better equipped to judge this than others?
I don't think an unschooled child's education depends on anything to do with their parents.
Some who radically unschool do not force their children to learn anything they do not wish to, and yet these children manage to read entirely on their own, some before they are 5 and some as late as 11. They do this in exactly the same way they learn to speak their mother tongue by age 3.
Children can learn without having to be taught.
The girl who learned to read by 11 loves that she did this herself, and wrote a book and won poetry competitions before the age of 14.
I wonder whether an LEA inspector who would have condemned her parents as inadequate had they inspected the girl at the age of 10, still unable to read, would equally condemn every school as inadequate had they inspected the children at the age of 14, still unable to write competition-winning poetry or write a book.
So, is it about producing exceptional children who can win competitions, or about giving your child a better education? In Diane's case, it was partly about the practicalities in order to overcome the problem of distance of the alternative that made it necessary, which I would say is probably one of the better reasons for home-schooling, when there is no real practical alternative (though even then, you still need to have the skills to do it - you appear to be arguing that no skills are needed). But what if your decision results in your child not achieving the high standards you talk of (and those are also achieved by children who attend schools, by the way)? Are you going to feel you've failed them? Worse still, is your child going to feel they've failed both themselves and you?
I remember truly enjoying the process (and sense of achievement) of learning to read at school, as well as so many other things, in the company of lots of other children my age, who were
not my siblings (that was important too - and cherished; sometimes it's good to escape your siblings also). In fact, those were the years I
did read books avidly. By the time I'd reached 14...or even 11, I'd abandoned books in favour of sport...and then girls. You may argue that was a poor decision, and I may well have some sympathy with that notion now that I am much older. But you'd have had the mother of all fights with me back then if you'd tried to persuade me to stay indoors and read a book rather than go outside and chase a ball...or a girl. And yet, I still managed to pass all my exams comfortably.
Of
course children teach themselves to some degree. That isn't the issue here. It's about what
some parents might add to that during home schooling, influencing that child's development through either their own ignorance or malicious agenda. And yes, in the worst cases, abusing their children. To say that would go on anyway, regardless of home-schooling, ignores the possible escape route that schools might supply, and the respite from the worst excesses of bad parenting that it certainly
would supply. If you can tell me that there are no bad parents, then fine. But you cannot. The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite, and I have my own first hand knowledge of this, as do many people I've talked to and listened to throughout my life. It's not about how much the child can learn on its own at all - that's a complete red herring. It's about what
some people may choose to 'teach' their children.
These people do exist, Malcolm, and there is a need to protect children from them, not risk exposing them to even more one-on-one time with those parents. Doesn't matter a fig that we're talking about a tiny minority of cases here. One is too many. Inspectors would be there to help (I know you think you don't need it, and perhaps you don't), not hinder. But also to hopefully detect problems that would
certainly be left unchecked without their input. It's those cases, and only those that I'd be concerned about here, but it's those cases that I'd argue are very much worth the occasional inconvenience of all the good home-parenting families when the inspector calls.
