Saturday 30 October 2010

A sad, but not unfamiliar, story

I watched the Channel 4 programme Child Genius on Thursday. As I am sure readers know, it featured somebody who comments regularly here, Mr Williams of Alton. I found the section dealing with his son quite depressing. The reason for this is that the situation with young Peter, who is fourteen, is very familiar to me. There are countless thousands of young people in the same position, although most of them are at school rather than being home educated. Let me explain.

All secondary school teachers have teenagers in their class who are not at all interested in studying for GCSEs. This is often because these pupils will not need GCSEs in their chosen career. They are going to be singers/footballers/DJs/models/dancers/actresses and so formal qualifications will not matter to them. They say, 'What good will knowing about Shakespeare be, Miss? I'm going to be on the stage/in the movies/on the football pitch'. The result is that they neglect their GCSEs, typically leave school with few or no qualifications and then end up wholly reliant upon state benefits. Because for every ten thousand teenagers who know in their heart that they can make it as athletes, pop stars, footballers or DJs, only one or two will actually get there and make a career of it. The rest will have to get jobs and earn a mundane living like the rest of us. The only problem is that they will in many cases have handicapped themselves by not securing any qualifications. This makes it far harder for them to get jobs and a lot of them will remain on the dole.

As I say, this is not really a home education problem, although I observe that quite a few home educating parents seem to go along with this sort of idea; that their children are very talented and will not need the GCSEs that all the boring masses are working for. For home educators, the children's goals are more likely to be computer programmers, novelists or chess champions. The end result is likely to be the same as it is for schoolchildren aspiring to be pop stars or models though; another NEET to add to the statistics.

This problem is not restricted to any particular class and, as I say, is probably even more common among schoolchildren than it is with those who are being educated at home. A career in musical theatre seems to be a popular ambition with middle class children at the moment. We have four friends whose children are aiming for this. They know that a glittering future awaits them on the West End stage! The outlook for these kids is not great. My wife works with young people in their early twenties, many of whom have no qualifications and are living in a half-way house while awaiting a council flat. She cannot get them interested in training courses or enrolling at college. This is because they are still waiting for the big break which will launch them into stardom on the catwalk or as DJs. Why would they want to brush up on their maths skills?

And so to fourteen year old Peter Williams. He hopes to be a chess champion some day. It seems fairly plain that there is no question of his doing any formal academic work or studying for GCSEs. Why would he? Once he is world chess champion, there will be no need for such things! The tragedy comes eventually for all but a handful of those hundreds of thousands of children who have dedicated themselves to making it big in sport, entertainment or chess. They find that they have devoted their lives single-mindedly to one aim and have nothing in reserve to fall back upon. There is nothing at all wrong with ambition; still less with having a dream. However, when everything has been invested in that one idea, then a day of reckoning awaits for the vast majority of such hopefuls. In truth, the market for drummers and guitarists, chess champions and footballers, singers and models is pretty limited. It is ten thousand to one against actually becoming a star and it is wise to make some provision against the day that this realisation dawns. A broad and balanced education culminating in a clutch of GCSEs is probably as good an insurance policy as any!

18 comments:

  1. Well, this will probably enrage Peter (senior) but here goes....

    I too watched the programme with some interest (the 2 maths whizzes are also fairly local to us, although not home educated) and have already commented below. Various things struck me...

    - some of the earlier "geniuses" had matured and "calmed down" - they were less self centred and less irritating about the gifts than previously.

    - much of the programme was slanted to show that schools are "good" - and although some are better able to cope with genius than others, we got the impression that there is always a "school solution" out there to help. (I obviously don't fully agree with this aspect, but I do think that is what the programme was trying to show.)

    - in contrast the life of young Peter seemed to be portrayed as mundane and boring, with little encouragement of the nuturing of his intelligence in any other area than chess.

    Now I fully accept that the programme was slanted to stress these differences (ie the achievements of others versus the life of Peter) - as I said elsewhere, that is what these programmes delight in. Peter (senior) has already said he is unhappy that they left out any filming of Peter at social events etc- but then they didn't deal with that aspect in the others filmed either, so that is fair enough.

    However even allowing for the slant of the programme etc- are you really confident Peter that you are providing your son with the best education you can? If I remember correctly Peter had, when tested at an earlier age, an extremely high IQ, so it isn't just that he is skilled at chess; he should be flourishing in every area intellectually. It isn't just a matter of taking GCSEs, although I can't see why he shouldn't have plenty of time to do so even if he is doing several hours of chess practice a day. Clever children have amazing capacity to learn... yet we didn't get the impression there was much stimulation/widening of opportunities going on. In fact an HE father (not my family) commented they thought based on the programme, that social services ought to be involved.....I wouldn't agree with that, but I do think we all as parents need to have hard look at what we are doing with our children and assess whether we are working in their best interests or ours!

    Simon above makes the point about what should be done about preparing any "gifted" child for a "fall back career" in the future- which I think is a valid point. Statistically the chance of any chess player such as Peter (or in our HE group) a would-be footballer becoming a professional is small; in addition once the child becomes a man the advantage of early promise will evaporate (the artist child was amazing for an 8 year old, but no one will be so interested once he is 28). It isn't just that a fall back plan may be needed economically - it is also vital parents bring up a child in such a way that they don't feel failures if the future isn't so rosy.

    I am hesitant to be so critical of another HE family, but you have chosen, Peter senior, to put your family in the limelight. Other than chess (and the social stuff you mentioned) what does Peter do all day? Are you providing him with a challenging well rounded education to prepare him for a future without chess stardom? If not (and there is nothing tha you have ever said on here or elsewhere to suggest that you are) the think again. You are only in the priviliged postion of parenting a child for a limited number of years - make the most if it.... for his sake.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Judging by some of the comments which Mr Williams has posted here, I would be remarkably surprised if anything approaching a balanced education is taking place for his son. On July 15th he said:

    Who the hell wants to learn about the Tudors? What use is that Webb?

    On July 18th, he said:


    no broad exposure to culture for me lol


    WHO THE HELL WANT TO LEARN ABOUT SHAKESPEARE?


    The impression which I have gained, both from what has been said here and also the television programmes, is that chess is the only thing being studied. If Peter does not make it as a chess champion, then he will have little to fall back upon. This could be a tragedy for a very intelligent child.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Julie says-In fact an HE father (not my family) commented they thought based on the programme, that social services ought to be involved.

    Tell that father to phone social services! or is that just a threat Julie ask him?

    Peter has playes chess for England twice and has an international chess rating of 2178 so he is already a chess star and won an adult chess tournment at age 7 with prefect score of 6 out of 6! have your children ever represented England at anything Julie? and you Webb?

    know all Julie then goes on to say-Are you providing him with a challenging well rounded education to prepare him for a future
    yes we are Peter learnt a lot about how Hampshire LA work its inner thoughts Peter learned how to use freedom of information act to get to the truth finding out that some staff at Hampshire tell lies! how to lobby M.Ps to Peter been invited to the house of commons as well very intersting it was to! His letter writing is now amazing! does that come under English? he quite good at maths to and loves animals and is allowed out of cellar to do tampline club and tawkon-won do where age range from 11 to 50 meets twice a week he also likes going out to eat with his friends and for some reason the film crew did not want to film this! some one once said its amazing you can take peter any where he no trouble at all and he home educated!

    We want that APU for Peter if you dont want yours send it to us we use it for Peter education!

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'for some reason the film crew did not want to film this!'

    The programme did not show the social life of any of the children featured.

    Other than this, I think that Mr Williams has confirmed what many of us suspected about his son's education.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The programme did not show the social life of any of the children featured."

    I didn't see the programme so I don't know if it was appropriate for it in context, but a decent programme about home education should take pains to show that socialisation is not a problem and that home educated children get to meet and play with other children. When we were filmed I did ask that they try to include some footage of group activities because the previous government gave the impression that all home educated children were shut up at home and never got seen in their community.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dave- The programme isn't about HE, but child geniuses; it is entirely tue that nothing of Peter junior's social life was shown, but that wasn't the point of this particular programme - it was about the progress and achievement the children had shown since last filmed. (It is part of a series filmed over several years - last time PW was filmed at Scouts. )

    As I said above, I am sure that this particular programme was trying to show how well the school system could cope with genius (rather a debatable point in general of course, but in the examples given all seemed to be catered for). There was lot of stuff about achievement some of the others were the sort of child who got A* in A level maths at 9, for example, so Peter (who I thik in the orginal tests had the highest IQ) was shown to have less obvious achievements to boast of.

    Dangers of letting yourself be filmed, I suppose, but it didn't seem to do your family any harm!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Peter,

    No my children haven't represented England at anything - although they could boast of few achievements that might be noteworthy - grade 8 violin at 14, 4 A's at A level, a 1st at uni. My 15 year old sang a solo to a full Portsmouth Guildhall a couple of weeks ago. I am very proud of all of them, but you miss the point; I am equally proud of the much more mundane achievements of our children with disabilities too. It isn't the ability (whether at genius level or below) that is credit worthy, it is what you do with that ability.

    Peter's chess ranking at 2178 may be very good in chess terms, I really have no idea, but it doesn't seem a level at which it is possible to predict that Peter will be able to earn an income from his skills in the future. I hope he will, but by only concentrating on chess you are not only limiting him if he fails, but also excluding him from the bigger world which a rich and full education offers. By confining his education to running a campaign against HCC and a few irritating letters (which don't seem very adequate for a proper education to me) Peter has no idea what he is being denied. The programme (and the previous one too) made me feel very sad for your son.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "It is ten thousand to one against actually becoming a star and it is wise to make some provision against the day that this realisation dawns. A broad and balanced education culminating in a clutch of GCSEs is probably as good an insurance policy as any!"

    I didn't see the programme and I don't know Peter, but if his son's IQ is high (as has been mentioned) I suspect he will be able to catch up academically more easily than your daughter can correct her poorly developed motor skills. It's never too late for academics but it may be too late for motor skills. At least Peter has had plenty of opportunity to develop in this way (judging by his father's list of his activities).

    "By confining his education to running a campaign against HCC and a few irritating letters (which don't seem very adequate for a proper education to me) Peter has no idea what he is being denied."

    I hope his education hasn't been confined to this but, even if it has, Peter's future will depend more on how he has been raised as a person and the love and support he has received. He can catch up academically, as long as he has the confidence to try. I think we are 'seeing' too small a proportion of his life to be making such judgements.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Legally Peter's parents were required to provide him an education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude. It sounds as though continued attendance at school would have made this impossible. Rock and a hard place?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'Legally Peter's parents were required to provide him an education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude. It sounds as though continued attendance at school would have made this impossible. Rock and a hard place?'

    I don't know any other fourteen year-old chess players who can't pursue this hobby while being at school.

    Many children have hobbies like chess, riding, music and so on. Why should these hobbies make it impossible for them to go to school?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Many children have hobbies like chess, riding, music and so on. Why should these hobbies make it impossible for them to go to school?"

    If I'm remembering correctly the school would not allow Peter to miss school in order to attend particular competitions or training sessions. If these competitions or training sessions were necessary for Peter's education to be suitable for his abilities and aptitudes, the school were preventing his parent's from fulfilling their legal duties.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'If these competitions or training sessions were necessary for Peter's education to be suitable for his abilities and aptitudes,'

    More research needed as to whether this was the case. Most schools would be reluctant to allow a child a day off each week for stamp collecting or bird watching! The assumption would be that this could just as easily be done after school or at the weekend. I know of no chess competitions which take place Monday to Friday between nine and three. Adults are generally at work during those times and most children are at school. Some junior events take place on weekdays, but only during school holidays.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "More research needed as to whether this was the case."

    Not difficult if you want to do it. I've only read Peter's parent's words on your blog so it's here somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So playing chess for England is a hobby Webb?
    it was needed for Peter to have off site chess education with a private chess grandmaster in the week the grandmaster was only free most times on weekdays and for your information chess tournment aboard are held on weekkdays!

    Julie says - The programme (and the previous one too) made me feel very sad for your son. dont be sad Peter very happy Julie and loves life Peter loves to travel with his chess we just got back from Gurensey Peter had a great time!
    Im sorry your only intersted in the mundane we prefer something more intersting such has playing chess for England!

    ReplyDelete
  15. It all comes down to how you define education, doesn't it? Schools have a list of things that count as education and a list of things that don't. One of the joys of home education is that we don't have to use their list! If your hobby is your passion then why on earth isn't it part of your 'education'? Most hobbies involve a lot of learning.

    I didn't like the programme on "child geniuses" as I think the whole tone of it is a bit like gawping at animals in the zoo - no offence meant to anyone participating, I think it's how most tv documentaries approach people with any sort of 'difference'. Also, of course, I'm not that keen on a parenting style that decides on children's future careers for them. Did the boys who were part of a plan to turn out actuaries get much of a say in that? If one of them discovers a passionate desire to run a surf-school somewhere do you you think their parents will happily support them in that? It's a shame the documentary didn't ask rather more questions of the parents.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes, the whole thing about the two maths whizzes was fascinating in a weird sort of way. What an odd career to have in mind - that must be parental choice and also money motivated (money was clearly a motivating factor in their learning, too)! If they has said "rocket scientist" or something it might have been self motivated, but really...?

    The whole education ( all after school) as a sort of family enterprise was also fascinating, and did show what quite ordinary parents could achieve; it wouldn't be my way of parenting (especially encouraging the fierce competition and rivalry between the boys) but actually I suppose it does show very clearly that home education works- that children can learn huge amoounts at a young age without parents themselves needing to be experts.

    Not my choice though for family life!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Allie says-It's a shame the documentary didn't ask rather more questions of the parent

    it did film and ask loads of questions but for some reason never showed any of that!

    Julie have you told that HE father to phone soical service yet?LOL

    ReplyDelete
  18. Peter grade Julie makes him the 56 best under 14 chess junior in the whole of the world! Pete has already been offered work as a chess coach to other weaker junior and adult chess players!

    ReplyDelete