Thursday 22 July 2010

Resistance to change

The British are in general a conservative nation. They tend often to oppose change almost as a matter of principle, without weighing the merits of new proposals. This is particularly noticeable with the educational system. When universal, compulsory education was suggested in the nineteenth century it was widely opposed as being 'un-English'. The Newcastle Report in 1861 looked at the state of educational provision in Britain. The authors concluded that:

Any universal compulsory system appears to us neither attainable nor
desirable. An attempt to replace an independent system of education by
a compulsory system, managed by the government, would be met by
objections, both religious and political...

Oddly similar to the sort of things some people were saying about home education in the wake of the Badman Report! When universal compulsory schooling was introduced a few years later, there was an enormous outcry, which took the form of widespread civil disobedience. In the decade after the passing of the 1880 Education Act, prosecutions for the non-attendance of children at school were running at over a hundred thousand a year. It was the commonest offence in Britain, with the exception of drunkenness. Every attempted change to the educational system has encountered the same mulish obstinacy and insistence that the existing system is the best possible and that any change could only be for the worse. The introduction of free schooling, the raising of the school leaving age to twelve, the introduction of GCSEs, the abolition of GCSEs, the introduction of comprehensives, the raising of the school leaving age to sixteen, the abolition of the 11 plus: all were assumed by many to be bad ideas simply because they were new ideas. This reactionary attitude is not limited to schooling; home educators too are always antagonistic to any change in the existing arrangements. Any new idea is met with shouts of anger and claims that this will mean the end of home education. In some European countries, they are a little more amenable to new ways of doing things. Take France for instance.

In 1998, a law was passed in France which introduced compulsory registration for home educators. The following year, another law was passed which set out what children educated at home should be studying. It also declared that home educated children should be at roughly the same academic standard by the age of sixteen as those who had been taught at school. The subjects studied must include the French language, knowledge of French literature, history and geography, mathematics, science and technology, sport and art. In addition to this, home educated children must be able to demonstrate that they can ask questions, make deductions, be able to reason, evaluate risks and us computers. When this law was passed, many predicted the end of home education in France. In fact numbers of home educators have risen slightly since then and nobody claims that the law is oppressive or infringes upon their human rights. It is still perfectly legal to home educate in France; the government have simply introduced new safeguards to ensure that home educated children are receiving as good an education as those at school.

It is interesting to contrast the situation in France with that in this country when much milder changes in the law were being debated. Of course if you really believe that everything to do with home education in this country is absolutely perfect and incapable on any improvement whatsoever, then there is no more to be said on the subject. Clearly under those circumstances, any change would be a change for the worse. It is hard to imagine how such a perfect setup could have arisen for home education. It depends after all on odd rulings, some of them a century old, along with a few random sentences in educationa acts, none of which specifically mention home education. A miracle indeed that a perfect legal position should thus have been created by accident!

I can quite understand why so many parents are against any change; I feel exactly the same way myself about a lot of things and the older I grow, the less I like any sort of change. I can understand perfectly why people did not like to see the end of the Corn Laws or the dangerous innovation of votes for women. However, I can see why it might not be a bad thing if home education were acknowledged in law for the first time and conditions for its practice set out. Its present, somewhat precarious, position has become established by chance events and was fine when only a few dozen people were doing it. With scores of thousands now involved, it really makes sense to put the thing on a more businesslike and clearly defined footing, unappetising as this might sound to the more reactionary parents.

12 comments:

  1. People generally object to change, not because it's change, but because by definition it increases their workload. Much of the school refusal in the late 19th century was because school attendance reduced family income and because the treatment of children in school was sometimes appalling.

    And, unless I am much mistaken, the French education system - indeed French legislation itself - has always been significantly more prescriptive and centralist than in the UK. A legacy from a much lengthier occupation by the Romans. The UK has long prided itself on its legislative tradition and needs to take care that this safeguard is not lost.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Much of the school refusal in the late 19th century was because school attendance reduced family income "

    This is true. During the eighteen eighties, parents were hit by a double whammy; they lost the child's income and also had to pay for the school.

    "treatment of children in school was sometimes appalling."

    Probably not as bad as being in a factory or mill, though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Some children do want to work and support their family. I read a report from a charity working in the third world recently. The children there wanted to continue earning a living and to be educated in the evening. They found work and earning money fulfilling and were proud of their contribution to their family. The charity provided an education in the evening and everyone was happy - except 'human rights' activists who decided that the children could not work and must be educated during the day and refused funding unless the children and the charity obeyed. The charity had to give in, many children continued to work and lost access to an education as a result. Don't you think it's arrogant to assume we know better than children or other peoples and inflict our values onto them?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think I'm right in saying that initially state education incurred a fee, and the low take-up was assumed to be because of cost. When education became compulsory in 1880 it was free. The ptb underestimated the reluctance to lose income/helpers for poorer families.

    In fact, many families sent their children to small local private schools and paid the fees, because the children could come and go as they pleased. So it was possible to work during the day and go to school in the evening, or they could come home to mind the baby or run errands etc.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Probably not as bad as being in a factory or mill, though."

    Would depend on the factory or mill. At least you got paid.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "When education became compulsory in 1880 it was free."

    I have a suspicion that the board schools were not free until 1891. The 1870 England and Wales Education Act did not make education compulsory; this did not happen until 1880. So for just over a decade parents lost the wages of their children and also had to pay for the board schools. I'm pretty sure that this was the case, but am interested if anybody can show me that I am wrong!

    ReplyDelete
  7. " Don't you think it's arrogant to assume we know better than children or other peoples and inflict our values onto them?"

    Depends upon the values, I suppose.

    " The children there wanted to continue earning a living and to be educated in the evening. They found work and earning money fulfilling and were proud of their contribution to their family."

    What country was this and what charity? It would be interesting to know who was translating the wishes of the children and whether the parents were present when this was being said. If you give us more details, I shall look at this.


    "the third world"

    Unfortunate turn of phrase! Suggests coming third in race behind Europe and North America; subtext reads, "Africa and South Asia are losers". More commonly known today as the less economically developed countries or LEDCs for short. Even that sounds a little patronising and some prefer under-developed nations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I found a website which claims that HE has only been legal in France since 1998. Can't find any other source to verify this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "What country was this and what charity? It would be interesting to know who was translating the wishes of the children and whether the parents were present when this was being said. If you give us more details, I shall look at this."

    Unfortunately I didn't bookmark the page, I passed through it whilst reading up on children's rights and can't think of search terms that would find that particular page. The report said that the charity asked the children what they wanted, provided what they asked for and the children took advantage of the education on offer. It didn't say if their parents were there or not. If the children are independent enough to be working out of the home there is every chance that they were alone, but even if they replied according to their parents wishes, it doesn't change the fact that the children lost their evening education and many did not take up the day time alternative that replaced it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I found a website which claims that HE has only been legal in France since 1998. Can't find any other source to verify this."

    I've seen this as well, but it isn't true. It was in 1998 that a law was specifically introduced to regulate home education; before that people just did it as they pleased. Amanda Petrie wrote about the European situation in 1995 and if you can track down her stuff on this it will tell you all about the situation in France before 1998. Basically, parents could do as they pleased and the only restriction was that their children were monitored at the ages of 8, 10 and 12. The Loi No. 98-1865 established compulsory registration. See Taylor & Petrie (2000) Home Education Regulations in Europe, from the Peabody Jouranl and also Beck (2002) Home Education in Northern Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I have a suspicion that the board schools were not free until 1891."

    You're right about the date. But it still didn't ensure universal take-up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "But it still didn't ensure universal take-up."

    No, but I think that those hundred thousand prosecutions a year might have encourage the tak-up a little!

    ReplyDelete