10/10/2009 9:10:04 PM #

1) You're either a conformist or you're not, it's part of your inherent make-up. There are non-conformists in school just as much as there are HEd non-conformists, so I think it makes little difference other than the schooled children might be in trouble for it now and then. HE children are also more self-motivated IMO, often getting on with learning about something that interests them rather than waiting to be told what to learn. If you're self-motivated it's easier to knuckle down and do whatever it is you want to do - be it conform to society or anything else.
2) With all due respect, that's just your opinion. There are many different ways for children to learn. Just because it doesn't look similar to what you're used to does not mean it's not working. Besides, we are legally obliged to provide our children with a suitable education.
3) Many of us sacrifice a second wage so that a parent can be at home full-time to HE the children. And even those who do work can manage to fit an awful lot in to a shorter period than the school day as it's one-to-one. Don't forget how much time is 'wasted' (or not, depending on your view) in the school day - assembly, going to and from classes and settling back down, lunchtime, break times...it just goes on. And the little time that's left is far from one-to-one with the teacher. I'd be surprised if most children got more than a few minutes one-to-one attention from their teacher every day.
4) I really think all parents are able, but if they're not then they can swap skills with other HE parents, get a tutor, find someone knowledgeable in the field that they're having problems with...or just learn alongside their child! Enthusiasm can make up for a lot.
5) Really, we're in the real world when we HE. We're out there mixing with people of all ages in the community, that's what socialisation is all about. Why do they only have to socialise with children, that doesn't happen when they're adults and have to go out and make a living? It's the poor kids in school I worry about, having to socialise only with their peer group and adults that hold power over them. It's unnatural.
Besides, the majority of the HE children I know have fantastic social lives. They may not know 100 other children of their own age, but so what?
6) It all depends on what they want to do when they're older. If they work for themselves they won't need exams. And why take 12 GCSEs with all the associated pressure that entails if you're going on to do a higher qualification and don't need them to get on the course you're considering? HE children have secured places at Uni without any exams to their name, because it's recognised that they do well because of their self-motivation.
My eldest is taking 3 GCSEs next year, because that is what she needs to get in to 6th form college. I see no point in putting her through the pressure of more GCSEs when nobody would ever ask her about them again once she has A levels.

June

10/10/2009 9:25:38 PM #

I wrote a whole series of posts answering these types of questions last month. You can find them here in the side bar:
freedomineducationunderthreat.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

Tech

10/10/2009 9:43:01 PM #

1. How does a child not used to conformity conform when they need/want to?
Conform to what? Do we want to create conformists? Would you rather have belonged to the Klu Klux Klan or the freedom movement? Would you rather have supported apartheid or resisted it?
2. What about the regulation of home education - I have seen many cases of "home ed" where it was nothing of the sort.
Are you an LA inspector or someone who works in children’s services? You are obviously not a home educator so it is curious that you have seen many cases of home ed never mind many cases where it did not involve education. Are you sure? Have you studied the subject, do you understand autonomous education and unschooling? If no education is really taking place and I myself cannot see how that could happen if the child is living their life, then the local authority have all the power they need to issue a school attendance order.
3. How can parents can fit quality home education in whilst juggling working life?
Most parents sacrifice the income they could have earned in order to have one parent always available or in two parent families choose careers where they can share the education. They believe the happiness of their children is more important than a particular lifestyle and ownership of things.
4. What happens if parents aren't able?
I am well educated and have a degree as does my husband and then some but I often guiltily feel that I get more educationally from the things we do than does my daughter. In truth we both probably take different things from it. I do not know all the answers to my children’s questions but I can find out and so can they and so can anyone whatever their educational level with access to libraries, tv, computers and other home educating parents and groups.
5. What about socialisation with other children?
Ha this is the one that makes most home educators laugh, I remember six months into our journey thinking we are just going to have to step back and be choosier about what we do. I was overwhelmed with possibilities most days of the week and I live in a small town. School however was a place of bullying and social isolation for my daughter that they couldn’t or wouldn’t address. I do not want my daughter socialised into her place under the boot of the bullies. People can suffer from this in their social and working life as adults and it is not what I choose for my children to become accustomed and resigned to.
6. What about qualifications?
Inspite of a grammar school education I greatly underperformed as a square peg in a round hole, receiving derision and misunderstanding for my efforts. My degree was obtained from the open university at the ripe old age of thirty, an age when I had got over the disinclination to study left by my school experience and lapped up the new information I was being given and delighted in the opportunity to challenge m y presumptions and stretch myself intellectually. The age at which people should engage with higher education is another subject although a particular hobby horse of mine but home educated children can return to school to do qualification, do them independently at a much younger or older age than their schooled peers, join a further education college (are they still called that) or get into university without any qualifications on their own merit. Or they can start their own business or do a job that does not need qualifications.

Maire

10/10/2009 10:08:09 PM #

oops - i blame a lack of sleep for not seeing that!

Tech

10/10/2009 10:11:16 PM #

Tech always blame Badman!

Maire

10/10/2009 10:14:12 PM #

1. How does a child not used to conformity conform when they need/want to?

All conformity is acting. The very word 'conformity' implies it; adapting to the shape of a social situation. By definition, it means not being yourself; changing the way you interact to fit in. Children can act, they act all the time. If you have children, you are aware of this.

2. What about the regulation of home education - I have seen many cases of "home ed" where it was nothing of the sort.

In YOUR opinion it was nothing of the sort. Keep your opinions to yourself, and do what you know to be right, and the world will order itself. As for regulation, there is no regulation, other than that which you choose to obey.

3. How can parents can fit quality home education in whilst juggling working life?

They can do it and many people do. Use the Google to find many americans who do just that.

4. What happens if parents aren't able?

What happens to WHAT and WHO? What does what other people do have to do with YOU, and WHICH parents are you talking about?!

5. What about socialization with other children?

Google 'Socialization Myth' on Google. Socialization problems in Home Education are a total myth.

6. What about qualifications?

You can take any qualifications you like. There are many private exam centres that will accommodate you. All you need to do to sort it out is use your internet connection, your telephone and your wallet.

Its all very simple really!

Alexander de Large

10/11/2009 2:33:41 AM #

Very interesting answers there, and still relevant for this non-parent not having to involve himself in any kind of education. However, home ed is something I've begun to bang a drum for lately - quite a small drum because I'm still finding things out and because not being a parent instantly disqualifies me from having any opinions on the matter in the eyes of many people, all of whom pack their kids of to school, natch. Still, those half dozen questions/criticisms/objections fielded by Lisa and others are the ones usually thrown at me when I defend these crazy people and whackjobs who let their kids stay at home, and I hadn't worked out all the answers myself yet. Others, such as the qualifications issue, are so blindingly obvious that it rarely gets brought up. That may be because here in Australia, or at least this part, the International Baccalaureate seems already recognised as an alternative to Victorian Certificate of Education. However, if I may play Devil's Advocate I'd like to expand on a couple of the others:

1 - The conformity thing. I wonder if the person asking that question was thinking about what happens when a home educated person enters a work environment for the first time. It may well be a situation of conform or be let go before your trial period is up, and it might be argued that those who are already used to the conformity and structure of school will notice little difference other than that they're paid to show up now while for those who've had a 'freestyle' home based it might be a shock to the system.

3 & 4 - I was part of a single parent family from age 7 or so and while I would have loved to have been home educated (adult view of course - at that age I never knew there was an option) and hold a little envy for those who were I really struggle to see how my mother could possibly have managed it. For her school was essential not just for her kids' education but as somewhere we'd be safe (for a given value of 'safe' ) while she went and earned enough - barely - to feed, clothe and keep us all. Mrs Exile's situation was similar. That was at a time when house prices and mortgage repayments far lower and just about manageable on a single modest income. I can easily see how two incomes are necessary where the cost of living is high, and possibly one or both of those incomes may even come from more than one job. Such people are likely to be in the same boat as my mother and school is seen almost as much as a tax funded child care place as an education. I accept that many can home educate who don't, but I think it's worth acknowledging that there will always be some who don't because they genuinely don't have the option.

Okay, Devil's Advocate mode off now. My answers? For the latter I'd say the answer is the obvious one. If it's really not possible then it's not possible. I'd like to live in Toorak but it's too damn expensive there, so it's not going to happen. That makes no judgement about the people who do, it just means we won't be because it's not a viable option. Same thing with home ed. If people have to send their kids to school when ideally they'd like to home ed then that's what they have to do. I think the issue is part of a much broader one of making it easier for more people to make decisions such as, but not limited to, home educating their kids. That's often not the case in high tax, fairly illiberal societies (more or less the industrialised world in other words), and for home ed specifically it's not helped by the [insert preferred adjective here] attitude of some that home ed ≈ hot housing ≈ child abuse, demonstrated in truly annoying style by an Aussie cop show last week. Trust me, probably best that you lot didn't see it

For the former I'd wonder if home educated kids tend to grow up into the sort of people who prefer self employment to working to someone else's rules. If so this is no bad thing in my opinion. I worked for other people for long enough before becoming self employed and almost immediately I wished I'd done it years before. After all those years of having to work like crazy to get things done by the end of the day or end of the week, or alternatively doing pointless make-work crap to kill time till 5.30, suddenly I had the option of simply working harder or longer when I wanted or needed more money or not working at al if I wanted time off. Of course, some home educated kids will end up working regular jobs their whole lives, and those that do so will obviously find a way to make the transition that works for them. Or possibly there's been enough structure in their lives from parenting - not being one I don't know but it seems plausible.

I'd be interested to see what you home ed folks think both about the expanded questions and my thoughts on 'em.

Angry Exile

10/11/2009 2:39:34 AM #

Oh, one other thing. What do home educators think would be the general attitude of society and the weathercocks of Westminster towards it if Harry Potter had been home educated?

Angry Exile

10/11/2009 9:35:40 AM #

Many thanks all for the comments thus far and most of all to @renegadeparent for the blog post. I come from this with an inquisitive mind with the only basis of opinion on my two best friends. They were removed from the general school system due to bullying but the home ed they had was woeful. Reading the blog and the posts has been inspiring.

Simon_G_1

10/11/2009 2:10:50 PM #

My daughters were removed from because they were bullied - lots of bullying incidents are terrible and are a result of 'horizontal violence' because young people cannot lash out at the adults around them who denigrate and deny their spirits, they turn their inadequacies on other children - and my are giving themselves a marvellous education. It's the biggest con in the world that you have to be 'taught' all the time. If you want to learn something at any age, you find a way to learn. It's all about motivation.

Outraged of Swindon

10/11/2009 3:24:57 PM #

Fantastic 101 post. Thanks to @Simon_G_1 for asking the questions and more importantly for being willing to gently listen to the answers

Tess Lowe

10/12/2009 2:11:25 AM #

Although it is late and I have an overdue article, I have succumbed to respond to this invitation Too tempting!

As parents, we have to start somewhere and perhaps I could liken this whole home education journey to that of a prototype (in that it can be improved upon).

i) Compliance and conformity aren't ideals we choose to aspire to. Instead, we do aspire to live principled lives, choosing to make decisions based on principle. Choices for every action may be brought down to the level at which a principled decision may be made. Children are capable of such thought if introduced to it early enough, well before speech. They can take responsibility for their own actions based on a principle, rather than the view that someone told them that was what they has to do. Consideration for others will always matter, for we live in community with other people. I can honestly say that I trust my daughter's decisions even at the age of 12.

ii) No regulation is without fault. Part of the problem is that when regulated, we begin to rely on the regulation as a guide for acceptable minimum standards, frequently falling short. Just look at our banks, social services, schools, expenses claims etc. Back to the principled approach - when parents can see that their decisions are based on sound judgement, they are confident in their parenting. When parents rely on the state (or anyone else) for regulation, they are not being led by principle. So, if you tell parents often enough that they are incapable of educating their own child - they believe it. And, when they have to remove their child from a desperate schooling situation they continue to be led by that belief. They may try school at home, or let their child live a selfish life lacking in consideration for others. How can regulation legislate against such things? Some of these situations are often caused by too much regulation, some laziness and not enough deep thought. Parents who don’t take the concept of home education seriously may not have encouraged their child to achieve their potential through the schooling system either. There is not much (by way of regulation) that schools can do in these situations, other than punish the child by detentions or other punitive treatments.

iii) All parents work, some are paid while others aren’t. I challenge the concept of ‘quality time’ either in home education or otherwise. Time with our children cannot be subjectively quantified by such a concept. Children spell love – T.I.M.E. Any time we spend with them is precious to them, and should show them that they matter. This includes cooking, cleaning, caring for animals, snuggling up when sick, measuring up for a carpet, learning an instrument, multiplication, etc… Our children need to know that no matter what we do for ‘work outside the home’ they will always come first. Self-employed parents tend to have children who learn a trade by default. They watch the parent working, often assisting them and learning on the job. My husband is a professional violinist and resisted ‘teaching’ our daughter until he felt she was old enough – only to find her following him around asking how he did harmonics! She had absorbed so much by watching and listening that my husband readily admits that she is already a far better violinist than he was at her age. She is an accomplished musician at the age of 12, with far more confidence than either of us had at her age.

iv) In all but the most extreme circumstances, when you become a parent, you make a decision to nurture life - no matter what it takes. All parents are either able to home educate or enable it. They are already totally responsible for their child’s education in law. Parents are often under the impression that they cannot possibly empower their child to learn. Where does this belief stem from? Well, generations of schooling have dulled the brain, creating fearfulness and lack of belief in one’s own natural abilities. I say anyone can do it – but not everyone wants to.

v) Socialisation in schools has not stopped this generation from needing anti social behaviour orders to keep the peace, has it? Schools today could not function without the staff on playground duty or midday supervisors. Unless someone has been damaged badly by some unfortunate experience, most people have no serious problems mixing socially. We are a sociable family and our daughter is a sociable person. She takes part in a tremendous mixture of activities, because we are adventurous and take on challenges. She is capable of having conversations with any age group and considers people of all ages as her personal friends. She has home educated and schooled friends around the world. She gets more phone calls than I do!

vi) ‘Qualifications’ - the mantra of the day… many believe that they are failures without them. What is the purpose of these qualifications, other than to appear in the papers on results day? As an adult I have worked for certain qualifications because they are relevant to me, not because they impress anyone. Our daughter has done several music qualifications because she has wanted to. She is now motivated to achieve her grade 8 violin and is working hard at it. Nothing will be impossible or out of her reach! Most importantly though, the attitude she shows others will be more important to us than any qualifications she has gained. We do not place impossible conditions on her achievements, but continually guide and encourage her to move forward.

If this does not make sense to you, it is probably my fault! Home education in this family is work in progress. We’re enjoying the journey ☺

Su

Su

10/12/2009 5:34:13 AM #

Fascinating stuff, especially that last one from Su. However, I'd like to follow up the point about qualifications. I'm inclined to agree that qualifications in the sense of exam grades aren't hugely important in themselves, but people do attach a lot of weight to them sometimes. It's not exactly that without them people are failures but that they have been led to expect that people want candidates to have them, which in turn means most do, which in turn means people think you need even more to stand out, which in turn means employers start looking at the CVs with two degrees, and so on - positive feedback. Here in Australia it's starting to get a little out of hand and you hear people joke that not only do you need a qualification before they let you fart but you need several depending on which way it's going to blow. I get the impression that the two degrees point was reached and passed a few years and now these 2nd time graduates applying for their first full time job are often doing a year or so of 'good things' with an NGO. The area of professional and trade qualifications has caught it too. I don't know if it's an exaggeration but I've been told that in Queensland you need a certificate to wire a plug, which if true strikes me as providing protection in the economic sense rather than the literal one. They're not the only ones because the whole situation benefits the qualification and training industry too - I say this as someone who's spent more than a few bob on it since I moved to Australia, just because I've found that many people assume lack of a qualification ≈ cowboy. I'd rather they just look at what I do and let it stand or fall on its merits, which of course they do naturally anyway, but they want to know you've got a bit of damn paper first (there's even an advertising campaign featuring people literally saying 'here's my bit of paper'). So qualifications can become if not important then perhaps relevant due to the importance given them by people you may need to deal with. The trouble with hanging more and more weight on them is that just like a overloading a picture hook eventually the weight will be too much and it will fail. I'm not sure what will replace it when that happens - extended interviews perhaps, or maybe just winding it all back to where things were a few decades ago - but in the meantime people living in increasingly qualification addicted societies (I feel the UK and Australia are about equally awful in different ways, but I very much doubt they're the only ones) are almost forced to get something before anyone will give them the time of day. Were I hypothetically home educating my hypothetical children I'd strongly encourage them to do something - the International Baccalaureate if they wanted to go to uni, relevant professional qualification if they planning on a career doing something they've grown to love, whatever. Is it essential to have a qualification? No, you can get through life without it. Does it have value in itself? Possibly yes, but also possibly very little. How much do you need it? Annoyingly, in Oz at any rate, nearly as much as you need a driving licence. Sad, but that's the reality.

Angry Exile

10/12/2009 11:14:35 AM #

I am a full-time stay-at home mother to three children, one of whom attends school. You may wonder why I support home educators? My concern stems from my own personal experience of being pressurised to send my children, not only to a day nursery from 3 months old but to school from 3 years old. There is considerable amount of pressure for women to return to work (regardless as to whether there is work to go back to or not) before they feel ‘ready’ to do so, and this well documented. There are around 300,000 under 3s in daycares each year, to the point that it is increasingly becoming the norm to return to work full-time when your child is only 3 months old.

I fear that in the near future, the compulsory school age may be lowered to 3 years old. For example, in my locality, all the state primary schools take in children at 3 years old. If the alternative – home education – is outlawed, this will be that mothers like myself would be affected too. There's already the statutory compulsory EYFS, which is costly and difficult to opt out of.

Therefore, I would like the opportunity to answer those 5 questions with respect to the pre-school age group as it is becoming the norm for children to start school as young as 3 years old. To many, the advantage of starting school at three is that parents have two years less of paying hefty daycare/day nursery fees. To others, like myself, it represents a nightmare, as we are stigmatised and ostracised for bucking a trend that we believe in not in the child’s welfare interest.

There must be a proforma of these questions as I have been asked by state employees!

How does a child not used to conformity conform when they need/want to? Other variations of this question include:
How will your child cope/manage if they have not experienced any sort of pre-school?
How will your child conform to a school environment if they haven’t experienced such environment in their pre-school years?
Others that make me puke include:
How could you deny your child the opportunity to a head start?
The answer:
As others have commented on already, it depends on how you define “conform”. Interestingly, numerous studies have shown that children who have attended daycares/pre-schools for extended time (that is, too many hours, for too long at a too early age) are the worst non-conformers at compulsory school age! Yes, you read correctly. The ones with the most “pre-school” are the ones who find it the most difficult to conform. For the sake of argument, I’ve taken the definition of conformity as being able to comply or abide in accordance with accepted standards, rules or customs.
I’ve actually had your question put to me. At the time, I said: We will see. I suspect that my daughter will fit in well and will have no difficulties in conforming.
What actually happened when my daughter joined reception? My daughter did take some time to adjust initially, but within 1 month she was very happily settled in and very well liked by all her teachers and, in the words of “Every Child Matters”, enjoying and achieving. My daughter runs into school, often leaving me lagging behind.
Unlike some of the daycare kids I’ve witnessed, that still have difficulties from separating from their “carers” at the classroom door. They still cling onto their mums crying! Yes, at 5 years old. You would have thought with all this pre-school preparation and ‘head-start’, these 5 year olds should be able to separate from their carers without tears.

What about the regulation of home education - I have seen many cases of "home ed" where it was nothing of the sort.
With all due respect, what you may have seen is not necessarily the norm, just as my experience of state employees may not be ‘the norm’. You are tarring a whole section of community with the same brush. It’s akin to saying, “because I have seen many cases of dubious home ed, the majority of home ed must be of dubious standard.” I know of many cases of appalling behaviour by health visitors, does that mean all health visitors are appalling? Should I judge a whole group because of my own personal experiences? Of course not.

How can parents can fit quality home education in whilst juggling working life?

This is based on the assumption that all parents and other family memebers are in full-time employment. It may be of interest to you that unemployment rate is currently at 2.9 million! And that’s only counting those who are in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance - a benefit which is quite difficult to be eligible for. The real figure of the unemployed is much higher. So if a parent is not ‘working’ (I assume you mean as in paid employment, because believe me, being a full-time stay at home mother IS HARD WORK), they can easily fit quality home education. It may be of interest to you that the teacher/pupil ratio at home compared to school is very advantageous. A home ratio is typically a maximum of 4 children to 1 parent, compared to 30 children to 1 teacher in a typical state primary school class.
As for quality. It is in the parent’s interest that their child is receiving quality education – why do you think many parents commit fraud in their endeavours to get their children into the “best” state schools? Or that alternatively, others are willing to pay eye-watering private school fees of between £7,500 -£25,000 per year per child?

What happens if parents aren't able?
Most caring parents will acknowledge their limitations. Good parents who, for whatever reason, know that are not able to home educate will send their children to school. However, many parents are capable. By the way, what about incompetent teachers in the state sector? It is widely admitted that it is almost impossible to sack an incompetent teacher in the state sector.

What about socialisation with other children?
Ah, the old chestnut. Unless a child is locked in a home all day (about this later) they will get plenty of socialisation from all age groups during the day, unlike the typical school child who is more often than not, cooped up all day with children of their own age group.
Home educated children socialise with all sorts of adults, whether it be with the postman, milkman, shop keepers, doctors, health visitors and even social workers. As many home educators will testify, their group appear to receive more than their fair share of health and social care home visits. They also socialise with children of their own age group when they attend Brownies, Cubs, Scouts, Guides and many other groups. Many home educators are involved in divers hobbies. The options are endless.
For under 5s, the government has gone out of its way to set up “stay and play” groups, even though in my experience, they are merely day nursery recruitment fairs in disguise. Alternatively, mothers like myself form our own social groups.
If a child is locked all day, then it’s a referral job for the Local Authority’s Safeguarding Children team, not a stick to hit the home educating community. Home education is not about locking up children at home all day.

What about qualifications?
What about them? It is such a wide ranging questions but lets scope it to:
1) The qualifications of the parent
2) The opportunities for the children to obtain qualifications
Many reports have reiterated what many who are involved with under 5s already know about the qualifications of nursery staff: that the very people who have the most interactions with the child are the least qualified. Worst still, it is widely acknowledge that qualifications such as the NVQ level 2 is not worth the paper it’s written on, as it’s award is mainly based through peer assessment and the setting’s leader/manager. In effect, an NVQ Level 2 qualification is an indication that the member of staff “fits in” with the current day nursery environment, and is generally well liked by fellow staff – at least liked enough to be awarded a level 2 qualification.
In fact, things are so bad, that the CWDC (The Children’s Workforce Development Council) is poised to restructure the whole “qualification landscape”. The council intends to replace the estimated 300+ (!!!) Level 3 qualifications that are currently available, with just 1 diploma that would sit within the “Integrated Qualifications Framework”. It is widely acknowledged that at present, there is no guarantee that one nursery staff with a Level 3 qualification, will have comparable skills and abilities as another nursery staff with a similar Level 3 qualification.
So, with such variation of standards even with a “qualification”, does it matter whether a parent is qualified? Incidentally, surveys go on to suggest that many home educating parents have degrees in and/or are former employee is education, health and social care. If they are sufficiently qualified to work in schools, NHS and local government, surely they are sufficiently qualified to teach their own children? Or do home educated children need better qualified staff than at state schools in your estimation?
There are currently no opportunities within the Early Years for children to obtain qualifications, although I notice that in day nurseries, they seem to receive certificates for all sorts of things which I consider to be routine and ‘normal’. For example, certificates for washing their hands after going to the toilet, certificates for eating their meals, certificates for being quiet, certificates for this that and every day events!
With respect to older children: My nearest state comprehensive has a GCSE pass rate of 42%. In other words, the majority of the children attending my local secondary state school DO NOT achieve the recommended minimum of 5 GSCE passes or in your words - qualifications. Of those who do, their passes are, in my opinion, in what I call “hobby” subjects, such as art, sports studies, needlework and such like.
More appallingly, I was not able to acquire some results. Why? Because so few in the school took an exam that identification of the grade could lead to identification of the child, and that would be a breach of confidentiality!
So you see, just because someone is home educated does not necessarily place them at a disadvantage. I have encountered situations whereby employers look at which school a person has attended, and if particular school, the CV is dismissed. Try proving this sort of discrimination – it’s impossible. Why? Because in the current job market, there are so many people chasing so few jobs. Being home educated with no qualifications may place a person at a disadvantage in terms of obtaining employment in the state sector, but mercifully, the private sector is somewhat more flexible.

For example (one of many) In Child Development 74, n.4 (July/August 2003): 976-1005 “Does the amount of time spent in child care predict socioemotional adjustment during transition to kindergarden.”
And I quote: The more time children spent in any variety of nonmaternal care arrangements across the first 4.5 years of life, the more externalizing problems and conflicts with adults they manifest at 54 months of age and in kindergarten, as reported by mothers, caregivers and teachers.
The more time in care not only predicted problem behaviour measured on a continuous scale in dose-response pattern but also predicted at-risk (though not clinical) levels of problem behaviour, as well as assertiveness, disobedience and aggression.
As Jay Belsky, one of the lead researchers explained elsewhere, the criteria for these problem behaviours were specific.
Aggression meant: cruelty to others, destroys own things, gets in many fights, threatens to hit and hits others”.
Noncompliance/disobedience meant “defiant, uncooperative, fails to carry out assigned tasks, temper tantrums, and disrupts class discipline”.
Jay Belsky stressed that this was true for only a “modest” number of children – that is, not the majority. But as he pointed out that when “more and more children are spending more and more time in nonmaternal care than ever before, a small effect on lots of children can have a large impact on a given setting – such as school.”
He continued, “consider the consequences of being a teacher in a kindergarten classroom in which many children have a lot of early extensive and continuous child-care experience versus a teacher in a classroom in which fewer children have extensive child-care experience. “
Given these findings, in which classroom would you rather teach? A room full of looked-after-in-the-family-home children or former daycare children?

Due to space considerations, I cannot put all the references. If you would like them, please e-mail Renegadeparent, and if Lisa does not object, she can forward your e-mail onto me.

Laura

10/12/2009 4:57:26 PM #

Yes, it's weird about qualifications. I read somewhere that you learn to do a job when you are doing the job. If you want qualifications enough, you will get them. Lots of children at school go through the motions and come out with no qualifications. Presumably the ones on offer didn't float their boat. I have umpteen qualifications in various areas but don't need them.

It seems an odd thing to me to expect young children or teens to have decided on a career by the age of 12-16 while having had no experience of careers or life generally. Youth should be the time when you experiment, live and have fun (without hurting anyone else). Why should they be buckling down to graft to make money for other people who are probably obscenely wealthy already? Time enough for that when they are older.

It's all mad.

I took a GCSE in Law a few years back (just for interest) and met a young chap, Dave, who joined the course late. He knew a lot about the law - I could tell from his comments in class. I got talking to him and he said he was wanting to get into the air force but they wouldn't take him until he passed another GCSE. He had been half way through a law course, obviously miles ahead of a GCSE level. But they wouldn't take him until he got another GCSE. It seems to me that that sort of robotic thinking is ruining countries. Shame.

Outraged of Swindon