Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on August 07, 2015, 01:38:56 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a Science Daily article (2013) about modern parenting and its consequences.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130107110538.htm
**************************************************************************
Social practices and cultural beliefs of modern life are preventing healthy brain and emotional development in children, according to an interdisciplinary body of research presented recently at a symposium at the University of Notre Dame.
"Life outcomes for American youth are worsening, especially in comparison to 50 years ago," says Darcia Narvaez, Notre Dame professor of psychology who specializes in moral development in children and how early life experiences can influence brain development.
"Ill-advised practices and beliefs have become commonplace in our culture, such as the use of infant formula, the isolation of infants in their own rooms or the belief that responding too quickly to a fussing baby will 'spoil' it," Narvaez says.
"Breast-feeding infants, responsiveness to crying, almost constant touch and having multiple adult caregivers are some of the nurturing ancestral parenting practices that are shown to positively impact the developing brain, which not only shapes personality, but also helps physical health and moral development," says Narvaez.
*************************************************************************
Any views?
Sriram
-
Yes, the 'cultural practices' described haven't been the norm for thirty years or more, at least here in the UK. Not picking up a crying baby in case it gets 'spoiled' (like off milk presumably) was something our mothers were told and it has rightly been consigned to the parenting dustbin. Most mothers I know breastfed and those that didn't had to stop for medical reasons, I don't know anyone who put their babies in a 'nursery' bedroom under the age of six months (my children moved to their own rooms between 18 months and 2, although all three will still make their way into my room occasionally even now) and 'baby wearing' (carrying a baby in a sling most of the time) is becoming more popular.
-
I agree with Rhiannon that the sort of parenting you mention is a bit out of date, in some ways more's the pity.
I think many parents are too lenient with their kids these days. Whilst a baby shouldn't be left to cry too long it does no harm to leave it for a few minutes, whilst you attend to other things. Our middle daughter squawked for ten whole awful months, it would have been impossible to pick her up every time she cried, I had another child to look after, and a husband and home which needed my attention too. I also believe a baby should be consigned to the nursery after the first week or two, my husband would certainly not have tolerated a baby in our room for long!
I am a believer in a slap on the hand if kids don't do as they are told having received a warning first. My kids seem to view their childhood with pleasure so I must have done something right. :)
-
There are times when it would have been unsafe for me to attend a baby because I was doing something important with another child. Otherwise I've never left a baby to cry. picking up a crying baby isn't being 'lenient' - a distressed baby isn't being naughty.
One thing I really hate is when someone (often a grandparent) describes a baby as 'good', meaning 'doesn't cry' and 'sleeps a lot'. Like crying babies and wakeful babies are 'bad'. >:(
-
Yes, the 'cultural practices' described haven't been the norm for thirty years or more, at least here in the UK. Not picking up a crying baby in case it gets 'spoiled' (like off milk presumably) was something our mothers were told and it has rightly been consigned to the parenting dustbin.
Not sure that there has ever been any positive evidence for the consigning of this practice to the parenting dustbin.
-
I am a believer in a slap on the hand if kids don't do as they are told having received a warning first. My kids seem to view their childhood with pleasure so I must have done something right. :)
I would agree with you here, Floo.
-
Good discipline begins in the cradle, imo. A baby should not immediately get attention the second it craves it. Obviously if it is in pain, or real distress, then of course immediate attention is called for. Children need the right sort of attention to educate and nurture them. I set aside daily baby time when I would devote my whole attention to them. As they grew older my husband, who was useless, and then some, with small infants, would teach them to play board games of all kinds, and read to them. I remember our eldest thoroughly enjoying the unabridged version of 'Wind in the Willows' at 18 months old. On the occasions my husband gave her breakfast, he would cut up her toast in the shape of a jigsaw, buttered on both sides, to make it harder, and she had to put the jigsaw together before eating it, this was before she was two! ;D
I am a great believer in children adhering to fixed bedtimes, whenever possible. Parents need a kid free time together to regain what passes for sanity. Children shouldn't expect to be the centre of attention 24/7, spoiling a child only causes problems further down the line.
When our children were small they had carefully chosen presents for Christmas and birthdays, but we certainly didn't go mad with a room full of presents, even if we could have afforded it, which some spoilt little brats seem to expect these days! :( Some of their presents are still around and delighting the grandchildren! ;D
Too many parents coddle their kids in an outrageous fashion these days, which does them no favours at all. In an age appropriate way children need to take responsibility for their actions, as people of my age had to do as children. A few cuts and scrapes are normal in childhood.
Obviously in this computer age there are dangers which weren't around heretofore. Parents should know what their kids are getting up to on their computers/phones and check them regularly for any inappropriate activity.
Children require sensible parenting and know that the parents are in ultimate charge. However, a good parent should always apologise to their offspring when they screw up as inevitably happens.
-
I'm enjoying the grandparenting experience at the moment. I'd heard people say it's different to the experience you have with your children, and it's true. When with the wee souls I feel perfectly relaxed and there's no sense of anxiety that can appear sometimes with your own brood. Both sets of parents say the children don't seem to be difficult for either myself or their other grandmother in the same way they can be for them.
Ha,ha..... may have spoken too soon!
-
I sometimes believe that society has this belief that 'modern' equates with 'better'. Not sure that it is always true.
-
What is all so new about this?
Benjamin Spock published The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care in 1946.
I have forgotten the name of the (I think) New Zealander whose regimented approach to child rearing owed more to the behaviourism of J B Watson than to common humanity.
-
Gina Ford, HH.
I don't get this assumption that parents who follow 'modern' parenting methods (eg picking up a crying baby) therefore overindulge their children with no boundaries or proper attention. I realised fairly early on in my eldest's infancy that she thrived on a flexible routine, especially around bedtime. The more kids I had, the more routine became important, so that each child felt secure with special time and group time - reading, messy play, tea parties, water play and free play slotted in around meals, naps and bed time.
Having a child in the same room as its parents has been indicated in reducing cot death. Having known people who have lost a child that way I simply cannot comprehend jettisoning such a tiny vulnerable human being down the hall for my own convenience, let alone the father's, when the science says they are safest close to me.
And to repeat: a baby cannot be spoilt. They are not a slab of meat that goes rotten. Especially just because they are consistently shown love and attachment. It is known through psychological studies that a baby that is consistently empathised with and shown love is more likely to be a secure, empathetic adult.
-
We will have to agree to differ Rhiannon, I believe a baby can be spoilt and should not be picked up the second it cries, unless there is a problem.
-
The crying indicates that there is a problem, Floo. It's the only way a baby can tell you it has one.
-
The crying indicates that there is a problem, Floo. It's the only way a baby can tell you it has one.
It doesn't always indicate a problem, my middle daughter cried for 10 months, there wasn't anything wrong with her. If I had dropped everything every time she cried I would never have got anything else done, my older daughter needed attention too!
-
My younger daughter was the same, I know how exhausting it is. On her part it was mostly frustration and she settled once she was old enough to join a Montessori pre-school. She was a late talker as well, and showed no interest in books until she was seven, even though she could read before she started school. Now she's been indentified as a 'gifted' child and her reading age is 16+.
-
My younger daughter was the same, I know how exhausting it is. On her part it was mostly frustration and she settled once she was old enough to join a Montessori pre-school. She was a late talker as well, and showed no interest in books until she was seven, even though she could read before she started school. Now she's been indentified as a 'gifted' child and her reading age is 16+.
Our middle daughter (now 41) didn't like books much either, unlike her two sisters. She struggled a bit with reading, and we assumed she wasn't quite as bright as her two sisters. It was only when she went to university we discovered she not only has a Mensa level intelligence she is quite severely dyslexic too, WHOOPS! However, when she was young dyslexia wasn't as well known as it is now. Her youngest son (11) was picked up with the problem quite early fortunately, she home schools both her boys and they are doing better than when they were at school.
-
My younger daughter was the same, I know how exhausting it is. On her part it was mostly frustration and she settled once she was old enough to join a Montessori pre-school. She was a late talker as well, and showed no interest in books until she was seven, even though she could read before she started school. Now she's been indentified as a 'gifted' child and her reading age is 16+.
Our middle daughter (now 41) didn't like books much either, unlike her two sisters. She struggled a bit with reading, and we assumed she wasn't quite as bright as her two sisters. It was only when she went to university we discovered she not only has a Mensa level intelligence she is quite severely dyslexic too, WHOOPS! However, when she was young dyslexia wasn't as well known as it is now. Her youngest son (11) was picked up with the problem quite early fortunately, she home schools both her boys and they are doing better than when they were at school.
Does "doing better" extend to the social and sporting life that they must miss out on?
-
My home schooled grandsons don't miss out on anything, including social and sporting activities. The eldest is gradually collecting his karate belts, the younger one is in a trampoline squad and takes part in competitions. As for social activities they always seem to be out and about doing something with other kids. The elder one took part in a play a couple of weeks ago, which was brilliant, as he was very nervous of performing in front of so many people as he suffers from anxiety syndrome as well as Aspergers.
-
My home schooled grandsons don't miss out on anything, including social and sporting activities. The eldest is gradually collecting his karate belts, the younger one is in a trampoline squad and takes part in competitions. As for social activities they always seem to be out and about doing something with other kids. The elder one took part in a play a couple of weeks ago, which was brilliant, as he was very nervous of performing in front of so many people as he suffers from anxiety syndrome as well as Aspergers.
And all the school activities, designed to promote the need to work in a community and share one's experiences with others, what of those? If it was possible to give a fully rounded and complete education, away from the school environment, then we would all be keen to do so. It is not.
-
Their LEA couldn't provide the education either boy required, so home schooling was the only option and not entered into lightly at all. It costs their parents a fortune to ensure both boys have the courses they require, they also attend language classes.
-
As usual BA you haven't a clue what you are talking about! ::) Their LEA couldn't provide the education either boy required, so home schooling was the only option and not entered into lightly at all. It costs their parents a fortune to ensure both boys have the courses they require, they also attend language classes.
As a former teacher, I assure you, I do have, a clue. I don't know what your personal credentials are, but you most certainly don't appreciate the need for children to attend mainstream schools and to receive a fully rounded education.
-
Deleted
-
As usual BA you haven't a clue what you are talking about! ::) Their LEA couldn't provide the education either boy required, so home schooling was the only option and not entered into lightly at all. It costs their parents a fortune to ensure both boys have the courses they require, they also attend language classes.
As a former teacher, I assure you, I do have, a clue. I don't know what your personal credentials are, but you most certainly don't appreciate the need for children to attend mainstream schools and to receive a fully rounded education.
I do wonder what sort of teacher you were! You don't appear to have a clue about a great many things, I hope that didn't hold your former pupils back. ::)
Nasty old Floo trying to get her own back, and simply showing how inadequate and puerile she is. Goodness knows how you could ever have been in any way associated with teaching children at home, in your ignorance and bias.
-
When I home schooled my Down's Syndrome son from 5-16, I called the school inspectors in on a regular basis to check I was doing it right, even though there was no obligation on me to do so! Not wishing to blow my own trumpet, but I must have been doing something right as they told me a school could not provide him with the good standard of education he was getting at home. As my husband was a head teacher, and our eldest girl a primary school teacher whilst he was of primary school age, I had plenty of support and advice!
-
BA is such a sad little creature, one has to feel sorry for him! :( When I home schooled my Down's Syndrome son from 5-16, I called the school inspectors in on a regular basis to check I was doing it right, even though there was no obligation on me to do so! Not wishing to blow my own trumpet, but I must have been doing something right as they told me a school could not provide him with the good standard of education he was getting at home. As my husband was a head teacher, and our eldest girl a primary school teacher whilst he was of primary school age, I had plenty of support and advice!
Not so much of the little!
Why is it the norm for schooling as we have it established now, and what is accepted as such by the vast majority, if home schooling is such a wonderful alternative? Anyway, we only have your, biased, opinion, that what you did was so successful.. A sound, all-round education, in a regular school, is still the nonly effective schooling method.
-
Deleted
-
BA I know you have problems, which is sad, :( but please don't make such a silly fool of yourself as you are doing on this forum. You really aren't doing yourself any favours at all. You call yourself a 'Christian' yet your responses, which are invariably unpleasant, bring the faith you claim to hold dear into disrepute.
They do not bring my faith into disrepute.. You might argue, they bring me into disrepute, but of course I would strenuously deny that. I am standing up for myself in the face of some pretty nasty and vicious comment.
And yes, I do have problems, probably more than anyone on this forum.
-
Deleted
-
BA you need to stop and think about the posts your make. Constantly calling people names and being rude to them is hardly a credit to the Christian faith. You get into a strop when others respond in kind, but it is usually you who started the nastiness in the first place.
If Jesus is all you believe him to be, do you really think you are making him proud? As I have mentioned before, three people whom I invited to join the forum were put off by you and a couple of other 'Christian' posters.
I guess I am wasting my time, I don't suppose you will give any heed to anything I have said.
I ask you to re-read my last post.
-
As a former teacher, I assure you, I do have, a clue. I don't know what your personal credentials are, but you most certainly don't appreciate the need for children to attend mainstream schools and to receive a fully rounded education.
I am also a former teacher.
It is not the case that mainstream schooling is the best thing for everyone.
The decision not to send children to a mainstream school is a big one - whether you choose home schooling or a specialist school. Everyone is aware that it has its downsides, but that doesn't mean it is always the wrong decision.
-
There isn't the funding available in many schools to tackle either dyslexia or Aspergers adequately. That's without the emotional impact of being singled out as 'different'. We moved our daughter because of the cruelty of other children, because they couldn't accept her for who she is.
-
As a former teacher, I assure you, I do have, a clue. I don't know what your personal credentials are, but you most certainly don't appreciate the need for children to attend mainstream schools and to receive a fully rounded education.
I am also a former teacher.
It is not the case that mainstream schooling is the best thing for everyone.
The decision not to send children to a mainstream school is a big one - whether you choose home schooling or a specialist school. Everyone is aware that it has its downsides, but that doesn't mean it is always the wrong decision.
"Since our countries are so large and our people are from so many different kinds of backgrounds (this was said most recently to me by a Canadian) don't we need some kind of social glue to make us stick together, to give us a sense of unity in spite of all our differences, and aren't compulsory public schools the easiest and best places to make this glue?
Children in public schools are able to meet, and get to know, many children very different from themselves. If they didn't go to public school, how would this happen?
How are we going to prevent parents with narrow and bigoted ideas from passing these on to their children?
If you don't send your children to school, how are they going to learn to fit into a mass society?
If you don't send children to school, how are they going to be exposed to any values other than the commercial values of a mass society?
If children are taught at home, won't they miss the valuable social life of the school?
How are we going to prevent children being taught by "unqualified" teachers?
How am I going to teach my child six hours a day?
How are children going to learn what they need to know?
My greatest concern is that I don't want to slant my children's view of life all through "mother-colored " glasses. . .
I also wonder if I can have the thoroughness, the follow-through demanded, the patience, and the continuing enthusiasm for the diversity of interests they will undoubtedly have.
Most unschoolers seem to live on farms growing their own vegetables (which I'd like) or have unique life-styles in urban areas, and heavy father participation in children's education. What about suburbanites with modern-convenienced homes and fathers who work for a company 10 to 12 hours a day away from home? What differences will this make? Will unschooling work as well?
What if the children want to go to school?"
John Holt.
Difficult to gainsay all that, isn't it?
-
Regarding parenting....every parent is different....every child is different ...and circumstances of different families are different. There is no perfect parent of a perfect child.
However, genuine concern and love for the child will get everything sorted out.
-
Regarding parenting....every parent is different....every child is different ...and circumstances of different families are different. There is no perfect parent of a perfect child.
Exactly! That is precisely the situation that evolution has produced, that nothing is 'right' or 'wrong' ... it depends on the circumstances.
However, genuine concern and love for the child will get everything sorted out.
Providing the parents don't over-indulge the child, which many parents tend to do. And the opposite, of course.
Once again, Sriram, we are trying to produce a perfect result with imperfect tools.
-
Regarding parenting....every parent is different....every child is different ...and circumstances of different families are different. There is no perfect parent of a perfect child.
However, genuine concern and love for the child will get everything sorted out.
Exactly, Sriram; and that's why different parents will have their own way of parenting/raising their children. What is good for one child may not be so good for another. For example, flexibility around bedtime was mentioned in this thread but all my three responded better to a regular routine.
Over indulgence regards material possessions seems a common fad nowadays. Children often appear to be given gifts at every opportunity. Few material possessions are required to gain a happy child; it's another form of 'smothering'.
Genuine concern and love for a child includes giving them space to grow, 'spread their wings' and fly.
-
There isn't the funding available in many schools to tackle either dyslexia or Aspergers adequately. That's without the emotional impact of being singled out as 'different'. We moved our daughter because of the cruelty of other children, because they couldn't accept her for who she is.
Some local authorities are very good, whereas others are useless like the one where our daughter and family live. Although our grandson with Aspergers is highly intelligent he found class interaction very hard, due to his state of anxiety. His primary school had only 140 pupils, but the secondary school he was due to attend had about 1,500. When his parents enquired about the help he would receive there they were told he would only get it if he started failing where his schoolwork was concerned! Obviously they couldn't risk that, because if he starts kicking off he is hard to control, hence the decision to home school. His brother, who is also very intelligent, didn't seem to be getting the proper assistance for his quite severe atypical dyslexia, so they decided it would be best to home school him too. Both boys are doing very well and the school inspectors are pleased with their progress. They hope the younger boy will be able to go to a college at the age of 14 which specialises in technical education. The lad would like to be an electrical software engineer like his Dad.
-
Regarding parenting....every parent is different....every child is different ...and circumstances of different families are different. There is no perfect parent of a perfect child.
However, genuine concern and love for the child will get everything sorted out.
Exactly, Sriram; and that's why different parents will have their own way of parenting/raising their children. What is good for one child may not be so good for another. For example, flexibility around bedtime was mentioned in this thread but all my three responded better to a regular routine.
Over indulgence regards material possessions seems a common fad nowadays. Children often appear to be given gifts at every opportunity. Few material possessions are required to gain a happy child; it's another form of 'smothering'.
Genuine concern and love for a child includes giving them space to grow, 'spread their wings' and fly.
Well said Sweetpea. :)
-
With my eldest I rigidly stuck to her bedtime, very often at my own expense - I wouldn't bring her back down again but neither would I leave her to cry. By the time I had my son I had relaxed a lot more about getting it 'right' - if he'd fallen asleep late and wouldn't go down at his normal bedtime I'd bring him back down for a bit so he got tired and I got a chance to have a cup of tea.
Even now I find routine beneficial around bedtime and getting up, even for myself (in adults it's called 'sleep hygiene'). Yes, you can have an hour either way but more than that and things go haywire. It's the holidays at the moment and two of mine aren't sleeping properly.
-
Hi Len and SweetPea.
Yes...I agree. Gifts and even toys don't make much of a difference....as long as the parents or grandparents or someone at home is available to play with them. They don't really care about toys....from what I have seen with my children.
Many children even prefer to play with paper and empty boxes and stuff like that rather than proper toys.
Basically I think its about how much you care on the inside that matters. The child is always able to sense it and feel secure or insecure.
-
My children do care about their toys; they aid their imagination and provide a world of escape. For my eldest it was model horses, my middle one still adores Lego and my son his football and model cars. But they don't need lots of stuff, just a few well-chosen things that reflect their interests and personalities.
I still haven't got over the fact that I produced two girls who both hated playing with dolls. I live in hope for the grandchildren...
-
In general I agree with the idea that children need to be in a school of some kind - my kids are thriving in a school that focuses on friendship building and tolerance, but then it has the resources to do so - and in this white rural area it is also very multicultural due to the high numbers of boarders who attend from abroad. But with Aspergers that doesn't apply and unless a parent has the wherewithal to fight and fight the odds of the state providing specialist education are slim. Dyslexia also slips through the net - at the school where I used to be governor one child was identified as needing help in reception and finally got it in year 5, by which time he was left stranded in comparison to his peers. In these circumstances I don't think anyone can be blamed for homeschooling.
-
I certainly think that school should be the norm for most children, but for those with special needs one has to think outside the box if the help isn't available or suitable.
-
I certainly think that school should be the norm for most children, but for those with special needs one has to think outside the box if the help isn't available or suitable.
And what specialist help were they receiving at home, that they would not have had in the school environment?
-
I certainly think that school should be the norm for most children, but for those with special needs one has to think outside the box if the help isn't available or suitable.
And what specialist help were they receiving at home, that they would not have had in the school environment?
What is the matter with this guy? Is he as stupid as he makes out to be, or just an attention-seeker?
-
I certainly think that school should be the norm for most children, but for those with special needs one has to think outside the box if the help isn't available or suitable.
And what specialist help were they receiving at home, that they would not have had in the school environment?
What is the matter with this guy? Is he as stupid as he makes out to be, or just an attention-seeker?
Don't be absurd, though I realise that is difficult for you. And just what is so "stupid" about my comment? At least I know what I am talking about, with my teaching background, unlike you who seem to have no qualifications in anything.
-
A good teacher needs to treat each child as an individual, not as a part of a group. One size doesn't fit all that is for sure.
-
I certainly think that school should be the norm for most children, but for those with special needs one has to think outside the box if the help isn't available or suitable.
And what specialist help were they receiving at home, that they would not have had in the school environment?
What is the matter with this guy? Is he as stupid as he makes out to be, or just an attention-seeker?
Don't be absurd, though I realise that is difficult for you. And just what is so "stupid" about my comment? At least I know what I am talking about, with my teaching background, unlike you who seem to have no qualifications in anything.
At home they get one to one attention, which cannot happen in a class of 30 or more.
Also the teacher in a school is restricted in what she has time to teach as there is a curriculum, at home you can spend more time if the interest is there.
Plus you can teach based on the attention span of the disabled child rather than having to fit in with the school day.
Just a few things.
My home schooled grandsons don't miss out on anything, because of the effort their parents put into their home schooling environment. Unlike many kids these days they are not cosseted and are expected to take responsibility for their own actions. They have much more freedom than most kids to explore, just as I had as a kid. I wonder how many boys of their age (13&11) can produce a four course meal from scratch, for instance? The eldest has his own bank account and a personal allowance. He is expected to work out his monthly spends and has to buy all his own clothes and shoes. They are being well prepared for adult life.
-
I certainly think that school should be the norm for most children, but for those with special needs one has to think outside the box if the help isn't available or suitable.
And what specialist help were they receiving at home, that they would not have had in the school environment?
What is the matter with this guy? Is he as stupid as he makes out to be, or just an attention-seeker?
Don't be absurd, though I realise that is difficult for you. And just what is so "stupid" about my comment? At least I know what I am talking about, with my teaching background, unlike you who seem to have no qualifications in anything.
BA please don't make yourself look any sillier than necessary. You obviously haven't a clue about Aspergers and dyslexia, or you wouldn't make the very stupid comments you are making. Your teaching background obviously hasn't done much for you, I am so very grateful none of my children or grandchildren were subjected to your brand of 'education'. ::)
A good teacher needs to treat each child as an individual, not as a part of a group. One size doesn't fit all that is for sure. You remind me a bit of some of the teachers I had at my elementary school (4-14), they thought along the same lines as you apparently do, and it was not to the betterment of the poor children. The head and deputy head would have been removed from the teaching register if they had been teachers today, and possibly have ended up behind bars as well! :(
Another ludicrous, ill-informed, post, based only on extremely limited knowledge, and some vitriol. At least it's more than the usual one-line garbage - imo!!
-
I certainly think that school should be the norm for most children, but for those with special needs one has to think outside the box if the help isn't available or suitable.
And what specialist help were they receiving at home, that they would not have had in the school environment?
What is the matter with this guy? Is he as stupid as he makes out to be, or just an attention-seeker?
Don't be absurd, though I realise that is difficult for you. And just what is so "stupid" about my comment? At least I know what I am talking about, with my teaching background, unlike you who seem to have no qualifications in anything.
At home they get one to one attention, which cannot happen in a class of 30 or more.
Also the teacher in a school is restricted in what she has time to teach as there is a curriculum, at home you can spend more time if the interest is there.
Plus you can teach based on the attention span of the disabled child rather than having to fit in with the school day.
Just a few things.
And are those home teachers qualified ? If not, it is a scandal.
-
Deleted
-
I certainly think that school should be the norm for most children, but for those with special needs one has to think outside the box if the help isn't available or suitable.
And what specialist help were they receiving at home, that they would not have had in the school environment?
What is the matter with this guy? Is he as stupid as he makes out to be, or just an attention-seeker?
Don't be absurd, though I realise that is difficult for you. And just what is so "stupid" about my comment? At least I know what I am talking about, with my teaching background, unlike you who seem to have no qualifications in anything.
BA please don't make yourself look any sillier than necessary. You obviously haven't a clue about Aspergers and dyslexia, or you wouldn't make the very stupid comments you are making. Your teaching background obviously hasn't done much for you, I am so very grateful none of my children or grandchildren were subjected to your brand of 'education'. ::)
A good teacher needs to treat each child as an individual, not as a part of a group. One size doesn't fit all that is for sure. You remind me a bit of some of the teachers I had at my elementary school (4-14), they thought along the same lines as you apparently do, and it was not to the betterment of the poor children. The head and deputy head would have been removed from the teaching register if they had been teachers today, and possibly have ended up behind bars as well! :(
Another ludicrous, ill-informed, post, based only on extremely limited knowledge, and some vitriol. At least it's more than the usual one-line garbage - imo!!
You dig yourself an even deeper pit of stupidity every time you post. ::) As for vitriol you have the monopoly on it. If I were you I would spend the time you spend slagging people off on this forum more profitably by polishing up the marbles you still have left. You keep showing yourself up with very unintelligent comments about topics of which you clearly have no grasp!
Were your children taught by qualified teachers, in all subjects, whilst being taught at home? Answer, if you can, and if you can be honest, and if you even understand what qualified means!
-
Moderator:
This is a reminder that we are an open forum and posters have the right to withhold personal information. No poster should feel obliged to give personal information relating to family matters if they do not wish to do so.
-
Only our Down's syndrome son was taught at home! The girls went to school then university. You don't have to be a qualified teacher to teach at home, but of course my husband is qualified, so is our eldest girl. As I said before the school inspectors couldn't fault the education my son was getting, in fact they even went as far as to say a school would not have done better. Our daughter also has the inspectors in to check on her boys education, and they are more than satisfied with what is provided for them.
-
I just thought I would throw this in, its an observation my wife has made;
"We are all experts on bringing up other peoples children".
I like this saying of hers and I often catch myself doing this; guilty as charged.
ippy
-
I certainly think that school should be the norm for most children, but for those with special needs one has to think outside the box if the help isn't available or suitable.
And what specialist help were they receiving at home, that they would not have had in the school environment?
What is the matter with this guy? Is he as stupid as he makes out to be, or just an attention-seeker?
Don't be absurd, though I realise that is difficult for you. And just what is so "stupid" about my comment? At least I know what I am talking about, with my teaching background, unlike you who seem to have no qualifications in anything.
BA please don't make yourself look any sillier than necessary. You obviously haven't a clue about Aspergers and dyslexia, or you wouldn't make the very stupid comments you are making. Your teaching background obviously hasn't done much for you, I am so very grateful none of my children or grandchildren were subjected to your brand of 'education'. ::)
A good teacher needs to treat each child as an individual, not as a part of a group. One size doesn't fit all that is for sure. You remind me a bit of some of the teachers I had at my elementary school (4-14), they thought along the same lines as you apparently do, and it was not to the betterment of the poor children. The head and deputy head would have been removed from the teaching register if they had been teachers today, and possibly have ended up behind bars as well! :(
Another ludicrous, ill-informed, post, based only on extremely limited knowledge, and some vitriol. At least it's more than the usual one-line garbage - imo!!
You dig yourself an even deeper pit of stupidity every time you post. ::) As for vitriol you have the monopoly on it. If I were you I would spend the time you spend slagging people off on this forum more profitably by polishing up the marbles you still have left. You keep showing yourself up with very unintelligent comments about topics of which you clearly have no grasp!
Were your children taught by qualified teachers, in all subjects, whilst being taught at home? Answer, if you can, and if you can be honest, and if you even understand what qualified means!
Are you sure you actually qualified as a teacher? I must admit your posts don't really give the impression of any great learning, unless it is in how to be as insulting as possible! ::) Yes that is a b*tchy comment, I quite agree, but your posts are enough to try the patience of a saint; I have never been a candidate for beatification! ;D
Only our Down's syndrome son was taught at home! The girls went to school then university. You don't have to be a qualified teacher to teach at home, but of course my husband is qualified, so is our eldest girl. As I said before the school inspectors couldn't fault the education my son was getting, in fact they even went as far as to say a school would not have done better. Our daughter also has the inspectors in to check on her boys education, and they are more than satisfied with what is provided for them.
I'll ignore that libelous opening sentence, I think!!
I was asking whether the children received qualified teaching in all the subjects: languages, sport, science, etc, with all the requisite resources and facilities. These questions are germaine to the issue of home schooling, and it matters not what you say, if those requirements are not met, they are not receiving a proper education. Not to mention the requisite hours being put in, and a following of the National Curriculum, and proper.professional monitoring of their progress. Were all these matters adhered to, yes, or no?
-
BA, there is no obligation for home schoolers to follow the National Curriculum. Many home schoolers choose it because they want their children to be fee from its constraints.
https://www.gov.uk/home-education
-
BA, there is no obligation for home schoolers to follow the National Curriculum. Many home schoolers choose it because they want their children to be fee from its constraints.
https://www.gov.uk/home-education
But are parents qualified to make such a judgement about something that highly professional educationalists, spent years deliberating on? Everybody is an expert!! I strongly suspect that there is an element here of parents "hiding their children" because of some issue or other which they perceive is a stigma!
-
The only concern I have about HE is where people opt for it because of a fanatical ideology - creationism is one example. The issues with kids in mainstream education is twofold. One is a lack of funding combined with a lack of will from some schools to have statemented children at all because of the drag on their SATs results and budget. The other is a lack of understanding at best and outright bullying at worst of those deemed to be 'different'. I know many parents with SN children and some use special schools, some mainstream, some dee paying, and some home ed, and what unifies them is a desire to protect their vulnerable youngsters from the cruelty of a system that values them as exam fodder, and from the cruelty of other children, and very often their thoughtless parents.
-
The only concern I have about HE is where people opt for it because of a fanatical ideology - creationism is one example. The issues with kids in mainstream education is twofold. One is a lack of funding combined with a lack of will from some schools to have statemented children at all because of the drag on their SATs results and budget. The other is a lack of understanding at best and outright bullying at worst of those deemed to be 'different'. I know many parents with SN children and some use special schools, some mainstream, some dee paying, and some home ed, and what unifies them is a desire to protect their vulnerable youngsters from the cruelty of a system that values them as exam fodder, and from the cruelty of other children, and very often their thoughtless parents.
I do think you're overstating your point. Certainly, there is always room for more funding in all aspects of education. I don't see that those with special needs are any more targeted than any other group.
That's where I think you over-state your point. There is some element of that, but I think it is not nearly such a broad issue as you say. If all parents segregated their off-spring because of bullying, then half the schools would be empty!
"Pupils with the most acute special educational needs (SEN) spend over a quarter of their week away from their class, teacher and peers, new research from the Institute of Education (IOE), London, shows. This "high degree of separation" means that both their education and their social development suffer, the study concludes."
Rob Webster and Professor Peter Blatchford.
There is lots of information available about SEN and its funding, as well as all other aspects of the problem:
www.specialeducationalneeds.co.uk/faqs-about-sen-funding.html
-
BA, there is no obligation for home schoolers to follow the National Curriculum. Many home schoolers choose it because they want their children to be fee from its constraints.
https://www.gov.uk/home-education
That's because it is impossible to follow it in the home environment, isn't it? And I guess the Government is passing the buck with at least some of these children.
-
The only concern I have about HE is where people opt for it because of a fanatical ideology - creationism is one example. The issues with kids in mainstream education is twofold. One is a lack of funding combined with a lack of will from some schools to have statemented children at all because of the drag on their SATs results and budget. The other is a lack of understanding at best and outright bullying at worst of those deemed to be 'different'. I know many parents with SN children and some use special schools, some mainstream, some dee paying, and some home ed, and what unifies them is a desire to protect their vulnerable youngsters from the cruelty of a system that values them as exam fodder, and from the cruelty of other children, and very often their thoughtless parents.
I do think you're overstating your point. Certainly, there is always room for more funding in all aspects of education. I don't see that those with special needs are any more targeted than any other group.
That's where I think you over-state your point. There is some element of that, but I think it is not nearly such a broad issue as you say. If all parents segregated their off-spring because of bullying, then half the schools would be empty!
"Pupils with the most acute special educational needs (SEN) spend over a quarter of their week away from their class, teacher and peers, new research from the Institute of Education (IOE), London, shows. This "high degree of separation" means that both their education and their social development suffer, the study concludes."
Rob Webster and Professor Peter Blatchford.
There is lots of information available about Sen and its funding, as well as all other aspects of the problem:
www.specialeducationalneeds.co.uk/faqs-about-sen-funding.html
I resigned as a governor in 2012. A child psych coming in for a day from the LEA cost £1500, out of the school budget. A child with learning difficulties or a disability might need one to one support from a TA, wages out of the school's budget. That's without specialist tuition, learning materials etc. as said previously, it took the LEA six years to agree to assess one child in the school. He didn't even know his colours properly.
The school had its budget cut by a third in 2011. It now has further cuts to deal with.
If it is desirable for children with acute needs not to be isolated then there should be more specialist schools. Not all parents want this however, but most have been closed anyway under a policy of 'inclusion' that has left too many vulnerable children without adequate support.
-
The only concern I have about HE is where people opt for it because of a fanatical ideology - creationism is one example. The issues with kids in mainstream education is twofold. One is a lack of funding combined with a lack of will from some schools to have statemented children at all because of the drag on their SATs results and budget. The other is a lack of understanding at best and outright bullying at worst of those deemed to be 'different'. I know many parents with SN children and some use special schools, some mainstream, some dee paying, and some home ed, and what unifies them is a desire to protect their vulnerable youngsters from the cruelty of a system that values them as exam fodder, and from the cruelty of other children, and very often their thoughtless parents.
I agree that those who home school in order to isolate kids from society, for whatever reason, are WRONG. As I have said before it is best if kids can attend school, but if the provision for their needs is not met then home schooling might be best, as in the case of our son and my two grandsons. If home schooling is the chosen option it is vital the parents ensure the children don't miss put on the sort of social interaction they would have got at school.
I think home schooling parents should be subjected to yearly inspections to ensure the children are getting a good education, at present that is not mandatory. However, you can request a visit to check on your kid's progress as I did in the case of my son, and my daughter does for her two lads.
-
I certainly think that school should be the norm for most children, but for those with special needs one has to think outside the box if the help isn't available or suitable.
And what specialist help were they receiving at home, that they would not have had in the school environment?
What is the matter with this guy? Is he as stupid as he makes out to be, or just an attention-seeker?
Don't be absurd, though I realise that is difficult for you. And just what is so "stupid" about my comment? At least I know what I am talking about, with my teaching background, unlike you who seem to have no qualifications in anything.
At home they get one to one attention, which cannot happen in a class of 30 or more.
Also the teacher in a school is restricted in what she has time to teach as there is a curriculum, at home you can spend more time if the interest is there.
Plus you can teach based on the attention span of the disabled child rather than having to fit in with the school day.
Just a few things.
And are those home teachers qualified ? If not, it is a scandal.
not really!
It depends on the age and capability of the child, and most of the disadvantages of home schooling seem to be social ones rather than lack of qualifications. ( most parents seem aware and deal with this)
I think they are looked at individually, for that reason.
Qualifications don't necessarily make a good teacher.
A lot of qualified teachers turn to teaching when they fail to get employment in their chosen field.
Plus many teachers end up teaching subjects they know nothing about.
My friend ended up teaching physics to teenagers, she knows nothing about physics at all, she was qualified to teach "citizenship and social science " for goodness sake.
The physics teacher was on a long sick break.
How qualified to teach physics was she?
And those children were heading for exams and she had to do all her own notes etc.
The idea that teachers teaching the subject they are qualified in teaching is a bit of the fallacy.
That doesn't appear to be what happens, in an ideal world it might.
You may be happy for children to be "taught" by unqualified people. How do they know what they are doing if they have not been trained? How do they teach specialised subjects like science, or languages. It we take your view to its logical conclusion, then it is a waste of time, and huge amounts of money, training teachers at all. What an absurd scenarion!
-
I certainly think that school should be the norm for most children, but for those with special needs one has to think outside the box if the help isn't available or suitable.
And what specialist help were they receiving at home, that they would not have had in the school environment?
What is the matter with this guy? Is he as stupid as he makes out to be, or just an attention-seeker?
Don't be absurd, though I realise that is difficult for you. And just what is so "stupid" about my comment? At least I know what I am talking about, with my teaching background, unlike you who seem to have no qualifications in anything.
At home they get one to one attention, which cannot happen in a class of 30 or more.
Also the teacher in a school is restricted in what she has time to teach as there is a curriculum, at home you can spend more time if the interest is there.
Plus you can teach based on the attention span of the disabled child rather than having to fit in with the school day.
Just a few things.
And are those home teachers qualified ? If not, it is a scandal.
not really!
It depends on the age and capability of the child, and most of the disadvantages of home schooling seem to be social ones rather than lack of qualifications. ( most parents seem aware and deal with this)
I think they are looked at individually, for that reason.
Qualifications don't necessarily make a good teacher.
A lot of qualified teachers turn to teaching when they fail to get employment in their chosen field.
Plus many teachers end up teaching subjects they know nothing about.
My friend ended up teaching physics to teenagers, she knows nothing about physics at all, she was qualified to teach "citizenship and social science " for goodness sake.
The physics teacher was on a long sick break.
How qualified to teach physics was she?
And those children were heading for exams and she had to do all her own notes etc.
The idea that teachers teaching the subject they are qualified in teaching is a bit of the fallacy.
That doesn't appear to be what happens, in an ideal world it might.
You may be happy for children to be "taught" by unqualified people. How do they know what they are doing if they have not been trained? How do they teach specialised subjects like science, or languages. It we take your view to its logical conclusion, then it is a waste of time, and huge amounts of money, training teachers at all. What an absurd scenarion!
That's not what I said, read my post again.
I was pointing out that teachers are often asked to teach subjects they are not qualified in.
Yes, from time to time, but not for a child's entire educational experience!! Goodness knows how much they miss out on!!
-
I certainly think that school should be the norm for most children, but for those with special needs one has to think outside the box if the help isn't available or suitable.
And what specialist help were they receiving at home, that they would not have had in the school environment?
What is the matter with this guy? Is he as stupid as he makes out to be, or just an attention-seeker?
Don't be absurd, though I realise that is difficult for you. And just what is so "stupid" about my comment? At least I know what I am talking about, with my teaching background, unlike you who seem to have no qualifications in anything.
At home they get one to one attention, which cannot happen in a class of 30 or more.
Also the teacher in a school is restricted in what she has time to teach as there is a curriculum, at home you can spend more time if the interest is there.
Plus you can teach based on the attention span of the disabled child rather than having to fit in with the school day.
Just a few things.
And are those home teachers qualified ? If not, it is a scandal.
not really!
It depends on the age and capability of the child, and most of the disadvantages of home schooling seem to be social ones rather than lack of qualifications. ( most parents seem aware and deal with this)
I think they are looked at individually, for that reason.
Qualifications don't necessarily make a good teacher.
A lot of qualified teachers turn to teaching when they fail to get employment in their chosen field.
Plus many teachers end up teaching subjects they know nothing about.
My friend ended up teaching physics to teenagers, she knows nothing about physics at all, she was qualified to teach "citizenship and social science " for goodness sake.
The physics teacher was on a long sick break.
How qualified to teach physics was she?
And those children were heading for exams and she had to do all her own notes etc.
The idea that teachers teaching the subject they are qualified in teaching is a bit of the fallacy.
That doesn't appear to be what happens, in an ideal world it might.
You may be happy for children to be "taught" by unqualified people. How do they know what they are doing if they have not been trained? How do they teach specialised subjects like science, or languages. It we take your view to its logical conclusion, then it is a waste of time, and huge amounts of money, training teachers at all. What an absurd scenarion!
That's not what I said, read my post again.
I was pointing out that teachers are often asked to teach subjects they are not qualified in.
Yes, from time to time, but not for a child's entire educational experience!! Goodness knows how much they miss out on!!
Most of the home schooled children I have known have been home schooled through primary and juniors and then going on to school once exams and more expertise is needed.
They seem to have gone on to do quite well for themselves, and become happy well balanced adults with sufficient oppotunities to take up further study.
Isn't that the point?
And how many do you know? Are they a representative selection of all home-schooled children? If not, the comment is not worth a lot.
-
Quite a few over the years BA.
I've got no reason to think they are not representative, have you?
How many do you know?
I wonder just how many you encountered, and just how much you were able to assess what effect home-schooling had on them. As a life-long teacher, I have encountered a considerable number, and that's the reason I am so sceptical about the whole process.
-
Quite a few over the years BA.
I've got no reason to think they are not representative, have you?
How many do you know?
I wonder just how many you encountered, and just how much you were able to assess what effect home-schooling had on them. As a life-long teacher, I have encountered a considerable number, and that's the reason I am so sceptical about the whole process.
I've also seen the negative effect school itself can have on children, with unreasonably large classes that the teacher is unable to control and the resultant bullying that can ensue or the lack of time there is for the teacher and an assistant has to focus on a special needs child.
I'm sure there is room for both home schooling and mainstream, as children are individuals and age and circumstances have to be taken into account.
I think it would be unreasonable to force all children to attend regardless of their circumstances, and I am glad there is a flexible approach in place to cater for those who find the school environment, a negative one.
You still haven't addressed the issue of qualification.
-
Quite a few over the years BA.
I've got no reason to think they are not representative, have you?
How many do you know?
I wonder just how many you encountered, and just how much you were able to assess what effect home-schooling had on them. As a life-long teacher, I have encountered a considerable number, and that's the reason I am so sceptical about the whole process.
I've also seen the negative effect school itself can have on children, with unreasonably large classes that the teacher is unable to control and the resultant bullying that can ensue or the lack of time there is for the teacher and an assistant has to focus on a special needs child.
I'm sure there is room for both home schooling and mainstream, as children are individuals and age and circumstances have to be taken into account.
I think it would be unreasonable to force all children to attend regardless of their circumstances, and I am glad there is a flexible approach in place to cater for those who find the school environment, a negative one.
You still haven't addressed the issue of qualification.
As far as I'm concerned it isn't an issue, many parents are perfectly capable of teaching their own children, especially young children.
You can always get a qualification on child development, it isn't that hard.
Anyway a degree in physics is wasted on a child with the permanent mental age of five.
Different children need different things and a parent with an autistic child probably has a far better idea how to manage their issues, than your average teacher.
Teachers are able to deal with difficult children because it is part of their training, and there are always specialist teachers to call on. If what you say is true, then why do we bother to have teacher-training courses? Just let anybody do it. Be realistic, Rhiannon, for goodness' sake.
In all my years, working in the education system, I have never encountered a friend, or acquaintance, who has done home-schooling; nor have I known anyone who I would feel confident to do so, dealing as they often have to, with difficult problems.
-
Most schools don't expect its teachers to be qualified in the subjects that they teach. I know three PE teachers, two of which also teach humanities and one who teaches science.
Academies don't require teaching qualifications at all I believe.
You're also assuming that teaching the full curriculum is necessary and desirable. It isn't; according to a head teacher I know it was based on the subjects Ken Baker thought were necessary based on his old prep school education. It baffles me as I love history, geography and RS but many children don't get anything from these subjects and their time in school could be put to better use. Parents who home-ed can allow their children the freedom to use that time to explore tech, construction, cookery, or concentrate on the stuff they really love - fiction writing, archaeology, whatever. If it wasn't for the fact I deem it necessary for my kids (none of whom have SEN) to get in the mix with people and learn the 'rules' of social interaction and friendships, they wouldn't be in school. My heart breaks when I think how much time they spent desperately unhappy in their state primary and that is the norm now due to the pressure of curriculum and testing, not the exception. Even the teachers I know think life is less pressured in secondary school, not more.
-
Quite a few over the years BA.
I've got no reason to think they are not representative, have you?
How many do you know?
I wonder just how many you encountered, and just how much you were able to assess what effect home-schooling had on them. As a life-long teacher, I have encountered a considerable number, and that's the reason I am so sceptical about the whole process.
I've also seen the negative effect school itself can have on children, with unreasonably large classes that the teacher is unable to control and the resultant bullying that can ensue or the lack of time there is for the teacher and an assistant has to focus on a special needs child.
I'm sure there is room for both home schooling and mainstream, as children are individuals and age and circumstances have to be taken into account.
I think it would be unreasonable to force all children to attend regardless of their circumstances, and I am glad there is a flexible approach in place to cater for those who find the school environment, a negative one.
You still haven't addressed the issue of qualification.
As far as I'm concerned it isn't an issue, many parents are perfectly capable of teaching their own children, especially young children.
You can always get a qualification on child development, it isn't that hard.
Anyway a degree in physics is wasted on a child with the permanent mental age of five.
Different children need different things and a parent with an autistic child probably has a far better idea how to manage their issues, than your average teacher.
Teachers are able to deal with difficult children because it is part of their training, and there are always specialist teachers to call on. If what you say is true, then why do we bother to have teacher-training courses? Just let anybody do it. Be realistic, Rhiannon, for goodness' sake.
Rhiannon ?
2 out of 3 for attention, detention for you my lad 😉🌹
I'm not Rhiannon ( should have gone to spec savers ) 😃
Indeed, I should; it's overdue. :)
-
Quite a few over the years BA.
I've got no reason to think they are not representative, have you?
How many do you know?
I wonder just how many you encountered, and just how much you were able to assess what effect home-schooling had on them. As a life-long teacher, I have encountered a considerable number, and that's the reason I am so sceptical about the whole process.
I've also seen the negative effect school itself can have on children, with unreasonably large classes that the teacher is unable to control and the resultant bullying that can ensue or the lack of time there is for the teacher and an assistant has to focus on a special needs child.
I'm sure there is room for both home schooling and mainstream, as children are individuals and age and circumstances have to be taken into account.
I think it would be unreasonable to force all children to attend regardless of their circumstances, and I am glad there is a flexible approach in place to cater for those who find the school environment, a negative one.
You still haven't addressed the issue of qualification.
As far as I'm concerned it isn't an issue, many parents are perfectly capable of teaching their own children, especially young children.
You can always get a qualification on child development, it isn't that hard.
Anyway a degree in physics is wasted on a child with the permanent mental age of five.
Different children need different things and a parent with an autistic child probably has a far better idea how to manage their issues, than your average teacher.
Teachers are able to deal with difficult children because it is part of their training, and there are always specialist teachers to call on. If what you say is true, then why do we bother to have teacher-training courses? Just let anybody do it. Be realistic, Rhiannon, for goodness' sake.
Err...
Anyways, to pick up Rose's point, I don't know how long you've been out of the classroom for but thanks to budget cuts and schools bending the rules it's all too common for classes, including kids with SEN to be left in sole charge of unqualified TAs, and few schools have specialist teachers permanently in site, the exception being the larger ones that sometimes have SEN units attached.
My cousin used to work as a voluntary TA and she was in charge of a class of kids with such bad behavioural issues that she was afraid to turn her back in them.
-
Most schools don't expect its teachers to be qualified in the subjects that they teach. I know three PE teachers, two of which also teach humanities and one who teaches science.
Academies don't require teaching qualifications at all I believe.
You're also assuming that teaching the full curriculum is necessary and desirable. It isn't; according to a head teacher I know it was based on the subjects Ken Baker thought were necessary based on his old prep school education. It baffles me as I love history, geography and RS but many children don't get anything from these subjects and their time in school could be put to better use. Parents who home-ed can allow their children the freedom to use that time to explore tech, construction, cookery, or concentrate on the stuff they really love - fiction writing, archaeology, whatever. If it wasn't for the fact I deem it necessary for my kids (none of whom have SEN) to get in the mix with people and learn the 'rules' of social interaction and friendships, they wouldn't be in school. My heart breaks when I think how much time they spent desperately unhappy in their state primary and that is the norm now due to the pressure of curriculum and testing, not the exception. Even the teachers I know think life is less pressured in secondary school, not more.
That's all very liberal. But it's not the real world. School is the best option for the vast majority, and always will be. I dread to think what might become of children left to the mercies of well-being, but untrained amateurs.
-
Most schools don't expect its teachers to be qualified in the subjects that they teach. I know three PE teachers, two of which also teach humanities and one who teaches science.
Academies don't require teaching qualifications at all I believe.
You're also assuming that teaching the full curriculum is necessary and desirable. It isn't; according to a head teacher I know it was based on the subjects Ken Baker thought were necessary based on his old prep school education. It baffles me as I love history, geography and RS but many children don't get anything from these subjects and their time in school could be put to better use. Parents who home-ed can allow their children the freedom to use that time to explore tech, construction, cookery, or concentrate on the stuff they really love - fiction writing, archaeology, whatever. If it wasn't for the fact I deem it necessary for my kids (none of whom have SEN) to get in the mix with people and learn the 'rules' of social interaction and friendships, they wouldn't be in school. My heart breaks when I think how much time they spent desperately unhappy in their state primary and that is the norm now due to the pressure of curriculum and testing, not the exception. Even the teachers I know think life is less pressured in secondary school, not more.
Some teachers of primary/junior schools regret they don't have time to explore subjects further and are forced to move on as the curriculum doesn't allow them time to explore areas that capture the imagination of the class.
Its a pity there isn't a half way house that allows some children to attend school for some lessons.
I think some could benefit with half and half.
How would you decide what lessons to attend? It would leave the child the option of refusing a certain lesson because he didn't like the teacher, or a certain pupil.
-
Most schools don't expect its teachers to be qualified in the subjects that they teach. I know three PE teachers, two of which also teach humanities and one who teaches science.
Academies don't require teaching qualifications at all I believe.
You're also assuming that teaching the full curriculum is necessary and desirable. It isn't; according to a head teacher I know it was based on the subjects Ken Baker thought were necessary based on his old prep school education. It baffles me as I love history, geography and RS but many children don't get anything from these subjects and their time in school could be put to better use. Parents who home-ed can allow their children the freedom to use that time to explore tech, construction, cookery, or concentrate on the stuff they really love - fiction writing, archaeology, whatever. If it wasn't for the fact I deem it necessary for my kids (none of whom have SEN) to get in the mix with people and learn the 'rules' of social interaction and friendships, they wouldn't be in school. My heart breaks when I think how much time they spent desperately unhappy in their state primary and that is the norm now due to the pressure of curriculum and testing, not the exception. Even the teachers I know think life is less pressured in secondary school, not more.
Some teachers of primary/junior schools regret they don't have time to explore subjects further and are forced to move on as the curriculum doesn't allow them time to explore areas that capture the imagination of the class.
Its a pity there isn't a half way house that allows some children to attend school for some lessons.
I think some could benefit with half and half.
It's possible to request this, but it's rarely approved.
-
Most schools don't expect its teachers to be qualified in the subjects that they teach. I know three PE teachers, two of which also teach humanities and one who teaches science.
Academies don't require teaching qualifications at all I believe.
You're also assuming that teaching the full curriculum is necessary and desirable. It isn't; according to a head teacher I know it was based on the subjects Ken Baker thought were necessary based on his old prep school education. It baffles me as I love history, geography and RS but many children don't get anything from these subjects and their time in school could be put to better use. Parents who home-ed can allow their children the freedom to use that time to explore tech, construction, cookery, or concentrate on the stuff they really love - fiction writing, archaeology, whatever. If it wasn't for the fact I deem it necessary for my kids (none of whom have SEN) to get in the mix with people and learn the 'rules' of social interaction and friendships, they wouldn't be in school. My heart breaks when I think how much time they spent desperately unhappy in their state primary and that is the norm now due to the pressure of curriculum and testing, not the exception. Even the teachers I know think life is less pressured in secondary school, not more.
That's all very liberal. But it's not the real world. School is the best option for the vast majority, and always will be. I dread to think what might become of children left to the mercies of well-being, but untrained amateurs.
Do you dread what becomes of children in rubbish schools with inadequate supervision, being taught to the test, taught subjects that bear no relation to the life they will lead when they leave? Because if you don't, you should.
-
Most schools don't expect its teachers to be qualified in the subjects that they teach. I know three PE teachers, two of which also teach humanities and one who teaches science.
When I was at school back in the good old days before education became a political football, all our PE teachers were qualified for and taught in another subject.
Children are the most precious things we have, to deliberately choose to entrust their education to amateurs seems mind-blowingly stupid to me.
-
Most schools don't expect its teachers to be qualified in the subjects that they teach. I know three PE teachers, two of which also teach humanities and one who teaches science.
When I was at school back in the good old days before education became a political football, all our PE teachers were qualified for and taught in another subject.
Children are the most precious things we have, to deliberately choose to entrust their education to amateurs seems mind-blowingly stupid to me.
We had one who taught history. Otherwise it was PE only.
I like the idea of our children all being entrusted to gifted and enthusiastic teachers, but that isn't the case. I know several women who have gone into teaching because it fits in with their own kids but they don't enjoy it and intend to get out once their kids are older. One tells me they trained alongside grads who didn't even like kids much but for whom it was a secure career once they found a shortage of opportunities in fine art or archaeology or whatever. You know those end of year gifts from kids to teachers? I'm hearing that child-made cards go in the bin - only John Lewis vouchers will do.
-
Most schools don't expect its teachers to be qualified in the subjects that they teach. I know three PE teachers, two of which also teach humanities and one who teaches science.
Academies don't require teaching qualifications at all I believe.
You're also assuming that teaching the full curriculum is necessary and desirable. It isn't; according to a head teacher I know it was based on the subjects Ken Baker thought were necessary based on his old prep school education. It baffles me as I love history, geography and RS but many children don't get anything from these subjects and their time in school could be put to better use. Parents who home-ed can allow their children the freedom to use that time to explore tech, construction, cookery, or concentrate on the stuff they really love - fiction writing, archaeology, whatever. If it wasn't for the fact I deem it necessary for my kids (none of whom have SEN) to get in the mix with people and learn the 'rules' of social interaction and friendships, they wouldn't be in school. My heart breaks when I think how much time they spent desperately unhappy in their state primary and that is the norm now due to the pressure of curriculum and testing, not the exception. Even the teachers I know think life is less pressured in secondary school, not more.
That's all very liberal. But it's not the real world. School is the best option for the vast majority, and always will be. I dread to think what might become of children left to the mercies of well-being, but untrained amateurs.
Do you dread what becomes of children in rubbish schools with inadequate supervision, being taught to the test, taught subjects that bear no relation to the life they will lead when they leave? Because if you don't, you should.
There is Ofsted, you know.
-
Most schools don't expect its teachers to be qualified in the subjects that they teach. I know three PE teachers, two of which also teach humanities and one who teaches science.
Academies don't require teaching qualifications at all I believe.
You're also assuming that teaching the full curriculum is necessary and desirable. It isn't; according to a head teacher I know it was based on the subjects Ken Baker thought were necessary based on his old prep school education. It baffles me as I love history, geography and RS but many children don't get anything from these subjects and their time in school could be put to better use. Parents who home-ed can allow their children the freedom to use that time to explore tech, construction, cookery, or concentrate on the stuff they really love - fiction writing, archaeology, whatever. If it wasn't for the fact I deem it necessary for my kids (none of whom have SEN) to get in the mix with people and learn the 'rules' of social interaction and friendships, they wouldn't be in school. My heart breaks when I think how much time they spent desperately unhappy in their state primary and that is the norm now due to the pressure of curriculum and testing, not the exception. Even the teachers I know think life is less pressured in secondary school, not more.
That's all very liberal. But it's not the real world. School is the best option for the vast majority, and always will be. I dread to think what might become of children left to the mercies of well-being, but untrained amateurs.
Do you dread what becomes of children in rubbish schools with inadequate supervision, being taught to the test, taught subjects that bear no relation to the life they will lead when they leave? Because if you don't, you should.
There is Ofsted, you know.
Seriously?
-
Most schools don't expect its teachers to be qualified in the subjects that they teach. I know three PE teachers, two of which also teach humanities and one who teaches science.
Academies don't require teaching qualifications at all I believe.
You're also assuming that teaching the full curriculum is necessary and desirable. It isn't; according to a head teacher I know it was based on the subjects Ken Baker thought were necessary based on his old prep school education. It baffles me as I love history, geography and RS but many children don't get anything from these subjects and their time in school could be put to better use. Parents who home-ed can allow their children the freedom to use that time to explore tech, construction, cookery, or concentrate on the stuff they really love - fiction writing, archaeology, whatever. If it wasn't for the fact I deem it necessary for my kids (none of whom have SEN) to get in the mix with people and learn the 'rules' of social interaction and friendships, they wouldn't be in school. My heart breaks when I think how much time they spent desperately unhappy in their state primary and that is the norm now due to the pressure of curriculum and testing, not the exception. Even the teachers I know think life is less pressured in secondary school, not more.
That's all very liberal. But it's not the real world. School is the best option for the vast majority, and always will be. I dread to think what might become of children left to the mercies of well-being, but untrained amateurs.
Do you dread what becomes of children in rubbish schools with inadequate supervision, being taught to the test, taught subjects that bear no relation to the life they will lead when they leave? Because if you don't, you should.
There is Ofsted, you know.
Seriously?
I always used to dread Ofsted, they were so thorough.
-
Then you should also know that inspections are reliant on the personal prejudices and preferences of the inspectors. And the absurd hoops that schools make their pupils jump through to show that they are 'aware of their targets'. And that an inadequate school can make itself look better by knowing which boxes to tick.
Or you can just google to see the wealth of criticism of Ofsted inspections from teachers, heads, academics, governors, parents, Michael Rosen...
-
Then you should also know that inspections are reliant on the personal prejudices and preferences of the inspectors. And the absurd hoops that schools make their pupils jump through to show that they are 'aware of their targets'. And that an inadequate school can make itself look better by knowing which boxes to tick.
Or you can just google to see the wealth of criticism of Ofsted inspections from teachers, heads, academics, governors, parents, Michael Rosen...
I'm bewildered. Why are you so ant-education? I have lived with it all my working life, and whilst I would never claim it is perfect, by any means, there is such a lot of really good things going on, and so many gifted and committed teachers - qualified teachers!
-
Then you should also know that inspections are reliant on the personal prejudices and preferences of the inspectors. And the absurd hoops that schools make their pupils jump through to show that they are 'aware of their targets'. And that an inadequate school can make itself look better by knowing which boxes to tick.
Or you can just google to see the wealth of criticism of Ofsted inspections from teachers, heads, academics, governors, parents, Michael Rosen...
I'm bewildered. Why are you so ant-education? I have lived with it all my working life, and whilst I would never claim it is perfect, by any means, there is such a lot of really good things going on, and so many gifted and committed teachers - qualified teachers!
I'm against the things that stifle education - Ofsted being one of them, SATS testing being another.
Of course there are some fabulous teachers out there, and some amazing schools, but there are too many who are indifferent and too many who are poor. A lot of the teachers I know feel that they are so constricted by the curriculum and creating that they aren't given the fredom to be proper teachers any more. Most parents aren't stupid and know when school isn't doing its job. Some are able to move to a better school if a place is available. Some use their purchasing power to buy into a different catchment or into the private sector. Some parents with SEN kids will fight at tribunals for their children to be granted the appropriate education. And some give up on the system altogether and home-ed, buying in help and sharing skills with others where needed.
-
Quite a few over the years BA.
I've got no reason to think they are not representative, have you?
How many do you know?
I wonder just how many you encountered, and just how much you were able to assess what effect home-schooling had on them. As a life-long teacher, I have encountered a considerable number, and that's the reason I am so sceptical about the whole process.
I've also seen the negative effect school itself can have on children, with unreasonably large classes that the teacher is unable to control and the resultant bullying that can ensue or the lack of time there is for the teacher and an assistant has to focus on a special needs child.
I'm sure there is room for both home schooling and mainstream, as children are individuals and age and circumstances have to be taken into account.
I think it would be unreasonable to force all children to attend regardless of their circumstances, and I am glad there is a flexible approach in place to cater for those who find the school environment, a negative one.
You still haven't addressed the issue of qualification.
As far as I'm concerned it isn't an issue, many parents are perfectly capable of teaching their own children, especially young children.
You can always get a qualification on child development, it isn't that hard.
Anyway a degree in physics is wasted on a child with the permanent mental age of five.
Different children need different things and a parent with an autistic child probably has a far better idea how to manage their issues, than your average teacher.
I think you are really belittling the professional aspect of being a teacher.
I will accept that there will be very, very rare circumstances where home schooling may be a preferred option, but for the vast, vast majority of kids being educated by qualified professionals who know what they are doing within a school environment will be the best choice. And this becomes more apparent later when children need to be able to benefit from a breadth of curriculum delivered by experts in that area. Sure a parent home schooling might have a high level knowledge of english, for example - but also maths ... and science ... and history, ... and a modern foreign language ... and PE and music, drama etc, etc.
It really isn't credible that a parent (or even two parents) will have the breadth of knowledge to be able to provide a bespoke education based on the child's interests and aptitudes, and not the parent's preference and skill set.
And that's before you even consider the notion that trained teachers aren't just knowledgable in their chosen subject(s) but are also trained in educational methods etc.
Also the idea that a child with autism is best served by home learning is just bonkers. Sure most teachers won't have encountered too many autistic kids, but they will be a darned sight more experienced than most parents for whom their autistic child may well be the first autistic child they have ever had any dealings with. Most parents of autistic children are totally in the dark and often rely deeply on educational professionals.
As I've mentioned before my wife and I own a nursery for kids aged up to 5, which she runs. It is usually her and her trained team who are the first to recognise there is an issue with the child - and often the parents are in total denial at first. If parents aren't even prepared to accept that their child has special needs how on earth can they be best placed to provide the specialist educational needs of that child.
-
Then you should also know that inspections are reliant on the personal prejudices and preferences of the inspectors. And the absurd hoops that schools make their pupils jump through to show that they are 'aware of their targets'. And that an inadequate school can make itself look better by knowing which boxes to tick.
Or you can just google to see the wealth of criticism of Ofsted inspections from teachers, heads, academics, governors, parents, Michael Rosen...
I'm bewildered. Why are you so ant-education? I have lived with it all my working life, and whilst I would never claim it is perfect, by any means, there is such a lot of really good things going on, and so many gifted and committed teachers - qualified teachers!
I'm against the things that stifle education - Ofsted being one of them, SATS testing being another.
Of course there are some fabulous teachers out there, and some amazing schools, but there are too many who are indifferent and too many who are poor. A lot of the teachers I know feel that they are so constricted by the curriculum and creating that they aren't given the fredom to be proper teachers any more. Most parents aren't stupid and know when school isn't doing its job. Some are able to move to a better school if a place is available. Some use their purchasing power to buy into a different catchment or into the private sector. Some parents with SEN kids will fight at tribunals for their children to be granted the appropriate education. And some give up on the system altogether and home-ed, buying in help and sharing skills with others where needed.
You may be aware that a SEN statement is often referred to as a 'golden ticket' in admissions terms. Effectively it trumps all other admissions criteria so a parent with a child with a SEN statement has the choice of any school they want, regardless of catchment area etc, etc.
-
PD, if parents have their children in nursery from before work til after work - usually bedtime or thereabouts - they won't see enough of their children to spot problems - your wife and her team are doing most of the caring for children in those circumstances. And that's not a criticism, it's just how it is. But other perfectly capable parents are able to be more hands on, and it worries me that parents in both circumstances are dismissed so easily as inadequate.
-
PD, if parents have their children in nursery from before work til after work - usually bedtime or thereabouts - they won't see enough of their children to spot problems - your wife and her team are doing most of the caring for children in those circumstances. And that's not a criticism, it's just how it is. But other perfectly capable parents are able to be more hands on, and it worries me that parents in both circumstances are dismissed so easily as inadequate.
Nope, although our nursery does cater for long hours many of our kids only come for a 3 hour per day session, and in most of the cases I was referring to one of the parents was at home, as the main carer for the child yet they failed to notice any issue (or perhaps were in denial about any issues). You would believe how often we have kids with clear learning problems, well clear to trained professionals, which parents hadn't recognised or flatly refuse to accept.
There then is a (often extended) period where the parents are engaged in dialogue with the nursery to get them first to accept there is a problem and then to recognise that putting in place help and support (including trying to get a statement) is in the best interests of the child. Sadly some parents never come around and seem more committed to living a myth that their child is just like all other kids and has no problems than actually acting in the child's best interests. Where there is a problem, early recognition and early intervention is absolutely key. The longer that is left the more difficult things become.
-
Then you should also know that inspections are reliant on the personal prejudices and preferences of the inspectors. And the absurd hoops that schools make their pupils jump through to show that they are 'aware of their targets'. And that an inadequate school can make itself look better by knowing which boxes to tick.
Or you can just google to see the wealth of criticism of Ofsted inspections from teachers, heads, academics, governors, parents, Michael Rosen...
I'm bewildered. Why are you so ant-education? I have lived with it all my working life, and whilst I would never claim it is perfect, by any means, there is such a lot of really good things going on, and so many gifted and committed teachers - qualified teachers!
I'm against the things that stifle education - Ofsted being one of them, SATS testing being another.
Of course there are some fabulous teachers out there, and some amazing schools, but there are too many who are indifferent and too many who are poor. A lot of the teachers I know feel that they are so constricted by the curriculum and creating that they aren't given the fredom to be proper teachers any more. Most parents aren't stupid and know when school isn't doing its job. Some are able to move to a better school if a place is available. Some use their purchasing power to buy into a different catchment or into the private sector. Some parents with SEN kids will fight at tribunals for their children to be granted the appropriate education. And some give up on the system altogether and home-ed, buying in help and sharing skills with others where needed.
You may be aware that a SEN statement is often referred to as a 'golden ticket' in admissions terms. Effectively it trumps all other admissions criteria so a parent with a child with a SEN statement has the choice of any school they want, regardless of catchment area etc, etc.
Really? I thought that was for children in care or who have a history if the care system.
This is information for parents with autistic children.
http://www.autism.org.uk/living-with-autism/education-and-transition/transition-from-primary-to-secondary-school/primary-to-secondary-transfer-an-overview.aspx
-
PD, if parents have their children in nursery from before work til after work - usually bedtime or thereabouts - they won't see enough of their children to spot problems - your wife and her team are doing most of the caring for children in those circumstances. And that's not a criticism, it's just how it is. But other perfectly capable parents are able to be more hands on, and it worries me that parents in both circumstances are dismissed so easily as inadequate.
Nope, although our nursery does cater for long hours many of our kids only come for a 3 hour per day session, and in most of the cases I was referring to one of the parents was at home, as the main carer for the child yet they failed to notice any issue (or perhaps were in denial about any issues). You would believe how often we have kids with clear learning problems, well clear to trained professionals, which parents hadn't recognised or flatly refuse to accept.
There then is a (often extended) period where the parents are engaged in dialogue with the nursery to get them first to accept there is a problem and then to recognise that putting in place help and support (including trying to get a statement) is in the best interests of the child. Sadly some parents never come around and seem more committed to living a myth that their child is just like all other kids and has no problems than actually acting in the child's best interests. Where there is a problem, early recognition and early intervention is absolutely key. The longer that is left the more difficult things become.
Not all parents are on the ball, sadly. It's also not always easy to get what you need even when you think there is a problem though - I remember battling to get hearing tests for my children. My son struggled to read because of persistent ear infections and in the end I had to sign him up to an on- line programme designed for children with temporary hearing loss to do at home to get him up to speed.
-
Then you should also know that inspections are reliant on the personal prejudices and preferences of the inspectors. And the absurd hoops that schools make their pupils jump through to show that they are 'aware of their targets'. And that an inadequate school can make itself look better by knowing which boxes to tick.
Or you can just google to see the wealth of criticism of Ofsted inspections from teachers, heads, academics, governors, parents, Michael Rosen...
I'm bewildered. Why are you so ant-education? I have lived with it all my working life, and whilst I would never claim it is perfect, by any means, there is such a lot of really good things going on, and so many gifted and committed teachers - qualified teachers!
I'm against the things that stifle education - Ofsted being one of them, SATS testing being another.
Of course there are some fabulous teachers out there, and some amazing schools, but there are too many who are indifferent and too many who are poor. A lot of the teachers I know feel that they are so constricted by the curriculum and creating that they aren't given the fredom to be proper teachers any more. Most parents aren't stupid and know when school isn't doing its job. Some are able to move to a better school if a place is available. Some use their purchasing power to buy into a different catchment or into the private sector. Some parents with SEN kids will fight at tribunals for their children to be granted the appropriate education. And some give up on the system altogether and home-ed, buying in help and sharing skills with others where needed.
You may be aware that a SEN statement is often referred to as a 'golden ticket' in admissions terms. Effectively it trumps all other admissions criteria so a parent with a child with a SEN statement has the choice of any school they want, regardless of catchment area etc, etc.
Really? I thought that was for children in care or who have a history if the care system.
This is information for parents with autistic children.
http://www.autism.org.uk/living-with-autism/education-and-transition/transition-from-primary-to-secondary-school/primary-to-secondary-transfer-an-overview.aspx
Under the Admissions code all children with a statement of SEN must be admitted to a named school.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389388/School_Admissions_Code_2014_-_19_Dec.pdf
This can be a real issue for some schools who have an excellent reputation for SEN provision - effectively they end up having to admit children from way outside their normal catchment area due to the rules, and therefore end up refusing admission to more local kids.
This is an issue in the school where I am a governor.
The other problem is that having a SEN statement is no guarantee that additional funding will flow to the school.
-
Not all parents are on the ball, sadly.
Indeed, and even if they are on the ball they are, at best, well meaning but inexperienced amateurs in dealing with the educational needs of their children, particularly if they have challenging special needs.
-
PD, I'm posting on my phone and the page is distorting, but as I understand it the code says that the school named in the statement of SEN has to offer a place. That may indeed be a Holden ticket to a good school - or it could be the cheapest option (mainstream school with no support). Either way it isn't down to parental choice, and it is parents who have to fight for their child.
Some parents are well-meaning muppets, but many know their child well and know when they are being fobbed off with something inadequate. They know, too, when they are under too much pressure due to SATS and other testing. One child I know was given the impression by a teacher that bad SATS results would mean she wouldn't get a good job.
-
PD, I'm posting on my phone and the page is distorting, but as I understand it the code says that the school named in the statement of SEN has to offer a place. That may indeed be a Holden ticket to a good school - or it could be the cheapest option (mainstream school with no support). Either way it isn't down to parental choice, and it is parents who have to fight for their child.
If a parent wants a particular school all they have to do is ensure that the school is named in the statement (and actually that isn't particularly hard if that school has a good reputation for SEN provision) and Bob's your uncle, there in. In fact even without a school being named a SEN ensures that a child will be offered a place at a school of their choice provided it isn't over-subscribed. No need to be within the catchment area etc.
-
PD, I'm posting on my phone and the page is distorting, but as I understand it the code says that the school named in the statement of SEN has to offer a place. That may indeed be a Holden ticket to a good school - or it could be the cheapest option (mainstream school with no support). Either way it isn't down to parental choice, and it is parents who have to fight for their child.
Some parents are well-meaning muppets, but many know their child well and know when they are being fobbed off with something inadequate. They know, too, when they are under too much pressure due to SATS and other testing. One child I know was given the impression by a teacher that bad SATS results would mean she wouldn't get a good job.
If a parent wants a particular school all they have to do is ensure that the school is named in the statement (and actually that isn't particularly hard if that school has a good reputation for SEN provision) and Bob's your uncle, there in. In fact even without a school being named a SEN ensures that a child will be offered a place at a school of their choice provided it isn't over-subscribed. No need to be within the catchment area etc.
Yeah, well, in what I've seen is anything to go by parents have little say in what goes into a statement, adding they can actually get one (IME by far and away the hardest part).
You actually live in an area where good schools aren't over- subscribed? Here even the moderate ones are at primary level.
-
Some parents are well-meaning muppets, but many know their child well and know when they are being fobbed off with something inadequate.
That may be true in some cases, but that doesn't mean that their ability to home educate is any better. It is a bizarre notion that if you aren't getting the best professional expert support relying on untrained, inexperienced amateurs (however well meaning) will be better.
I presume if you get poor service from the trained professionals in the NHS you decide to self-diagnose and self medicate.
-
PD, I'm posting on my phone and the page is distorting, but as I understand it the code says that the school named in the statement of SEN has to offer a place. That may indeed be a Holden ticket to a good school - or it could be the cheapest option (mainstream school with no support). Either way it isn't down to parental choice, and it is parents who have to fight for their child.
Some parents are well-meaning muppets, but many know their child well and know when they are being fobbed off with something inadequate. They know, too, when they are under too much pressure due to SATS and other testing. One child I know was given the impression by a teacher that bad SATS results would mean she wouldn't get a good job.
If a parent wants a particular school all they have to do is ensure that the school is named in the statement (and actually that isn't particularly hard if that school has a good reputation for SEN provision) and Bob's your uncle, there in. In fact even without a school being named a SEN ensures that a child will be offered a place at a school of their choice provided it isn't over-subscribed. No need to be within the catchment area etc.
Yeah, well, in what I've seen is anything to go by parents have little say in what goes into a statement, adding they can actually get one (IME by far and away the hardest part).
You actually live in an area where good schools aren't over- subscribed? Here even the moderate ones are at primary level.
Sure it may be challenging to get a statement in the first place, but to add a particular school, particularly if that school has a good reputation for SEN, isn't (obviously) that hard - on the basis that the SEN statement is aimed at determining the best approach for that child.
In the school where I am a governor we have about a dozen kids who have been admitted under this rule, some living in the next town, some 5 miles away, when you need to live within half a mile or so to get in normally.
-
I think a lot of the time it is desperation that drives parents to home ed. After all, if parents could walk into the school of their choice there would be no need for the tribunal system anyway. I don't think we can divorce the fact that children with SEN are often bullied (my daughter doesn't but 'you've got special needs' was a favourite taunt). For a child with autism for example, that can be terrifying as there is no way they can read the situation properly. When we talk about children learning social skills that isn't always a possibility for all children and if parents cannot get access to a specialist school then home ed is a better option than seeing a child suffer.
-
PD, I'm posting on my phone and the page is distorting, but as I understand it the code says that the school named in the statement of SEN has to offer a place. That may indeed be a Holden ticket to a good school - or it could be the cheapest option (mainstream school with no support). Either way it isn't down to parental choice, and it is parents who have to fight for their child.
Some parents are well-meaning muppets, but many know their child well and know when they are being fobbed off with something inadequate. They know, too, when they are under too much pressure due to SATS and other testing. One child I know was given the impression by a teacher that bad SATS results would mean she wouldn't get a good job.
If a parent wants a particular school all they have to do is ensure that the school is named in the statement (and actually that isn't particularly hard if that school has a good reputation for SEN provision) and Bob's your uncle, there in. In fact even without a school being named a SEN ensures that a child will be offered a place at a school of their choice provided it isn't over-subscribed. No need to be within the catchment area etc.
Yeah, well, in what I've seen is anything to go by parents have little say in what goes into a statement, adding they can actually get one (IME by far and away the hardest part).
You actually live in an area where good schools aren't over- subscribed? Here even the moderate ones are at primary level.
Sure it may be challenging to get a statement in the first place, but to add a particular school, particularly if that school has a good reputation for SEN, isn't (obviously) that hard - on the basis that the SEN statement is aimed at determining the best approach for that child.
In the school where I am a governor we have about a dozen kids who have been admitted under this rule, some living in the next town, some 5 miles away, when you need to live within half a mile or so to get in normally.
That still doesn't sound like a parental decision. It sounds like the LEA doing its job if it is sending kids with SEN to schools with the best facilities for SEN.
-
I think a lot of the time it is desperation. After all, if parents could walk into the school of their choice there would be no need for the tribunal system anyway. I don't think we can divorce the fact that children with SEN are often bullied (my daughter doesn't but 'you've got special needs') was a favourite taunt and no matter what the school did the bullying continued. For a child with autism for example, that can be terrifying as there is no way they can read the situation properly. When we talk about children learning social skills that isn't always a possibility for all children and if parents cannot get access to a specialist school then home ed is a better option than seeing a child suffer.
I wasn't really talking about the challenges of bringing up a child with SEN, including autism - it is clearly very hard. O was merely making the point that the notion that 'doing it yourself' as a well meaning but untrained and inexperienced amateur must be better is non-sense.
And sure some kids are bullied because they are different, but actually kids can also be exceptionally caring and protecting of others too. I can think of several examples of kids with mild to severe SEN (and illness) who have received exceptional levels of care, protection and support from their peers at school. This includes kids with autism, cancer and Down's.
And finally I am not sure that sheltering kids with SEN from interactions with others of their own age for fear of bullying is a good idea. Eventually these kids will need to interact with others in the great, unmanaged and unmanageable real world.
-
PD, I'm posting on my phone and the page is distorting, but as I understand it the code says that the school named in the statement of SEN has to offer a place. That may indeed be a Holden ticket to a good school - or it could be the cheapest option (mainstream school with no support). Either way it isn't down to parental choice, and it is parents who have to fight for their child.
Some parents are well-meaning muppets, but many know their child well and know when they are being fobbed off with something inadequate. They know, too, when they are under too much pressure due to SATS and other testing. One child I know was given the impression by a teacher that bad SATS results would mean she wouldn't get a good job.
If a parent wants a particular school all they have to do is ensure that the school is named in the statement (and actually that isn't particularly hard if that school has a good reputation for SEN provision) and Bob's your uncle, there in. In fact even without a school being named a SEN ensures that a child will be offered a place at a school of their choice provided it isn't over-subscribed. No need to be within the catchment area etc.
Yeah, well, in what I've seen is anything to go by parents have little say in what goes into a statement, adding they can actually get one (IME by far and away the hardest part).
You actually live in an area where good schools aren't over- subscribed? Here even the moderate ones are at primary level.
Sure it may be challenging to get a statement in the first place, but to add a particular school, particularly if that school has a good reputation for SEN, isn't (obviously) that hard - on the basis that the SEN statement is aimed at determining the best approach for that child.
In the school where I am a governor we have about a dozen kids who have been admitted under this rule, some living in the next town, some 5 miles away, when you need to live within half a mile or so to get in normally.
That still doesn't sound like a parental decision. It sounds like the LEA doing its job if it is sending kids with SEN to schools with the best facilities for SEN.
Nothing to do with the LEA (indeed I doubt very much that the LEA would accept that my school is better than others on SEN provision),- totally down to the parents deciding a particular school based on a 'reputation' and ensuring their child's statement names their chosen school.
-
if parents cannot get access to a specialist school then home ed is a better option than seeing a child suffer.
Again this isn't my experience at all. It is often the parents who are deeply resistant to their child going to a special school, even if this really is in the child's best interests. To do so would be to accept the magnitude of the problem.
This is why there is often a big hit on funding for severe SEN by primary schools, which means virtually no funding goes to secondaries. Effectively parents sending their kids to mainstream primaries, despite this being inappropriate and only finally admitting that the child needs to be in a special school when they are at the age to transfer to secondary school.
-
I'm impressed with what I see in my kids' current school with the way the pupils care for each other - they have higher than average numbers of children with SEN. In their last school there was a chd with global development delay who was treated almost like a doll by some of the older girls, but being 'different' in some way singled a child out. Thinking if the behaviour if some of the parents, I think there was something toxic about the mix in the school at the time - in a school of less than 100 pupils I think that can happen.
Some children are never going to be interacting with the big bad world. But otherwise I agree. No matter how hard it was, how frustrated I got with the teaching to the test and the favouritism of some of the staff which held them back, I kept my girls at their old school because they needed to learn how to make friendships and put up with idiots.
-
if parents cannot get access to a specialist school then home ed is a better option than seeing a child suffer.
Again this isn't my experience at all. It is often the parents who are deeply resistant to their child going to a special school, even if this really is in the child's best interests. To do so would be to accept the magnitude of the problem.
This is why there is often a big hit on funding for severe SEN by primary schools, which means virtually no funding goes to secondaries. Effectively parents sending their kids to mainstream primaries, despite this being inappropriate and only finally admitting that the child needs to be in a special school when they are at the age to transfer to secondary school.
Maybe it's a demographic thing? Most parents I know with children with severe SEN want their kids in specialist schools. The child I mentioned earlier got moved to a specialist school once her parents pushed for it.
-
Anyways, I'm off for the night. Thanks for the discussion. :)
-
if parents cannot get access to a specialist school then home ed is a better option than seeing a child suffer.
Again this isn't my experience at all. It is often the parents who are deeply resistant to their child going to a special school, even if this really is in the child's best interests. To do so would be to accept the magnitude of the problem.
This is why there is often a big hit on funding for severe SEN by primary schools, which means virtually no funding goes to secondaries. Effectively parents sending their kids to mainstream primaries, despite this being inappropriate and only finally admitting that the child needs to be in a special school when they are at the age to transfer to secondary school.
Maybe it's a demographic thing? Most parents I know with children with severe SEN want their kids in specialist schools. The child I mentioned earlier got moved to a specialist school once her parents pushed for it.
You seem to be arguing against yourself Rhi (or maybe with me) - so you seem to also be implying that once the parents accept the need for a special school they get it. Which is kind of what I am saying - the 'rate limiting' step being getting the parents to accept that a special school is necessary rather than the availability of special school places.
-
if parents cannot get access to a specialist school then home ed is a better option than seeing a child suffer.
Again this isn't my experience at all. It is often the parents who are deeply resistant to their child going to a special school, even if this really is in the child's best interests. To do so would be to accept the magnitude of the problem.
This is why there is often a big hit on funding for severe SEN by primary schools, which means virtually no funding goes to secondaries. Effectively parents sending their kids to mainstream primaries, despite this being inappropriate and only finally admitting that the child needs to be in a special school when they are at the age to transfer to secondary school.
Maybe it's a demographic thing? Most parents I know with children with severe SEN want their kids in specialist schools. The child I mentioned earlier got moved to a specialist school once her parents pushed for it.
You seem to be arguing against yourself Rhi (or maybe with me) - so you seem to also be implying that once the parents accept the need for a special school they get it. Which is kind of what I am saying - the 'rate limiting' step being getting the parents to accept that a special school is necessary rather than the availability of special school places.
No, because in this case the parents wanted the specialist school from the outset, but had to start in mainstream school. Eventually the LEA had a rethink - the parents had the support of the school as they couldn't meet the child's needs.
-
if parents cannot get access to a specialist school then home ed is a better option than seeing a child suffer.
Again this isn't my experience at all. It is often the parents who are deeply resistant to their child going to a special school, even if this really is in the child's best interests. To do so would be to accept the magnitude of the problem.
This is why there is often a big hit on funding for severe SEN by primary schools, which means virtually no funding goes to secondaries. Effectively parents sending their kids to mainstream primaries, despite this being inappropriate and only finally admitting that the child needs to be in a special school when they are at the age to transfer to secondary school.
Maybe it's a demographic thing? Most parents I know with children with severe SEN want their kids in specialist schools. The child I mentioned earlier got moved to a specialist school once her parents pushed for it.
You seem to be arguing against yourself Rhi (or maybe with me) - so you seem to also be implying that once the parents accept the need for a special school they get it. Which is kind of what I am saying - the 'rate limiting' step being getting the parents to accept that a special school is necessary rather than the availability of special school places.
No, because in this case the parents wanted the specialist school from the outset, but had to start in mainstream school. Eventually the LEA had a rethink - the parents had the support of the school as they couldn't meet the child's needs.
One case perhaps, but in my experience (and perhaps this is an age thing) in my nursery the biggest challenge is usually to get the parents to accept that their child actually has special educational needs. This may be because due to the age of the kids we are the first place to recognise that educational development is not progressing as anticipated. And this isn't just a single case but dozens over the 13 years we have been running the place.
Sometimes it is really frustrating as what the child really needs is some early intervention and actually to be trying to get a statement that will help them greatly as they move into infant school and beyond. But unless the parents are willing to work with you on this there is really very little you can do as an educational professional.
-
if parents cannot get access to a specialist school then home ed is a better option than seeing a child suffer.
Again this isn't my experience at all. It is often the parents who are deeply resistant to their child going to a special school, even if this really is in the child's best interests. To do so would be to accept the magnitude of the problem.
This is why there is often a big hit on funding for severe SEN by primary schools, which means virtually no funding goes to secondaries. Effectively parents sending their kids to mainstream primaries, despite this being inappropriate and only finally admitting that the child needs to be in a special school when they are at the age to transfer to secondary school.
Maybe it's a demographic thing? Most parents I know with children with severe SEN want their kids in specialist schools. The child I mentioned earlier got moved to a specialist school once her parents pushed for it.
You seem to be arguing against yourself Rhi (or maybe with me) - so you seem to also be implying that once the parents accept the need for a special school they get it. Which is kind of what I am saying - the 'rate limiting' step being getting the parents to accept that a special school is necessary rather than the availability of special school places.
No, because in this case the parents wanted the specialist school from the outset, but had to start in mainstream school. Eventually the LEA had a rethink - the parents had the support of the school as they couldn't meet the child's needs.
One case perhaps, but in my experience (and perhaps this is an age thing) in my nursery the biggest challenge is usually to get the parents to accept that their child actually has special educational needs. This may be because due to the age of the kids we are the first place to recognise that educational development is not progressing as anticipated. And this isn't just a single case but dozens over the 13 years we have been running the place.
Sometimes it is really frustrating as what the child really needs is some early intervention and actually to be trying to get a statement that will help them greatly as they move into infant school and beyond. But unless the parents are willing to work with you on this there is really very little you can do as an educational professional.
My daughter wanted a statement for her son with Asperger's, trying to get one from her LEA was well nigh impossible because he is extremely intelligent, but suffers from acute anxiety syndrome!
-
if parents cannot get access to a specialist school then home ed is a better option than seeing a child suffer.
Again this isn't my experience at all. It is often the parents who are deeply resistant to their child going to a special school, even if this really is in the child's best interests. To do so would be to accept the magnitude of the problem.
This is why there is often a big hit on funding for severe SEN by primary schools, which means virtually no funding goes to secondaries. Effectively parents sending their kids to mainstream primaries, despite this being inappropriate and only finally admitting that the child needs to be in a special school when they are at the age to transfer to secondary school.
Maybe it's a demographic thing? Most parents I know with children with severe SEN want their kids in specialist schools. The child I mentioned earlier got moved to a specialist school once her parents pushed for it.
You seem to be arguing against yourself Rhi (or maybe with me) - so you seem to also be implying that once the parents accept the need for a special school they get it. Which is kind of what I am saying - the 'rate limiting' step being getting the parents to accept that a special school is necessary rather than the availability of special school places.
No, because in this case the parents wanted the specialist school from the outset, but had to start in mainstream school. Eventually the LEA had a rethink - the parents had the support of the school as they couldn't meet the child's needs.
One case perhaps, but in my experience (and perhaps this is an age thing) in my nursery the biggest challenge is usually to get the parents to accept that their child actually has special educational needs. This may be because due to the age of the kids we are the first place to recognise that educational development is not progressing as anticipated. And this isn't just a single case but dozens over the 13 years we have been running the place.
Sometimes it is really frustrating as what the child really needs is some early intervention and actually to be trying to get a statement that will help them greatly as they move into infant school and beyond. But unless the parents are willing to work with you on this there is really very little you can do as an educational professional.
Is it that the policy of 'inclusion' has been sold to parents as the ideal, when it was/is as much about closing special schools? Three closed in the borough where I used to live and the sites sold for housing.
I do wonder about the demographics of where you and I live also. I've never come across parents who were unwilling for their child to be statemented - I've even got a couple of friends who paid for private assessments because they suspected dyslexia/dyspraxia. I wonder if there is still a fear that a child will be stigmatised, whereas the reality is that children with SEN can fulfil their potential better if they get early intervention, going on to university where appropriate, as my friend's dyslexic son is about to do? Perhaps it is down to a lack of awareness and education. :-\
-
if parents cannot get access to a specialist school then home ed is a better option than seeing a child suffer.
Again this isn't my experience at all. It is often the parents who are deeply resistant to their child going to a special school, even if this really is in the child's best interests. To do so would be to accept the magnitude of the problem.
This is why there is often a big hit on funding for severe SEN by primary schools, which means virtually no funding goes to secondaries. Effectively parents sending their kids to mainstream primaries, despite this being inappropriate and only finally admitting that the child needs to be in a special school when they are at the age to transfer to secondary school.
Maybe it's a demographic thing? Most parents I know with children with severe SEN want their kids in specialist schools. The child I mentioned earlier got moved to a specialist school once her parents pushed for it.
You seem to be arguing against yourself Rhi (or maybe with me) - so you seem to also be implying that once the parents accept the need for a special school they get it. Which is kind of what I am saying - the 'rate limiting' step being getting the parents to accept that a special school is necessary rather than the availability of special school places.
No, because in this case the parents wanted the specialist school from the outset, but had to start in mainstream school. Eventually the LEA had a rethink - the parents had the support of the school as they couldn't meet the child's needs.
One case perhaps, but in my experience (and perhaps this is an age thing) in my nursery the biggest challenge is usually to get the parents to accept that their child actually has special educational needs. This may be because due to the age of the kids we are the first place to recognise that educational development is not progressing as anticipated. And this isn't just a single case but dozens over the 13 years we have been running the place.
Sometimes it is really frustrating as what the child really needs is some early intervention and actually to be trying to get a statement that will help them greatly as they move into infant school and beyond. But unless the parents are willing to work with you on this there is really very little you can do as an educational professional.
Is it that the policy of 'inclusion' has been sold to parents as the ideal, when it was/is as much about closing special schools? Three closed in the borough where I used to live and the sites sold for housing.
I do wonder about the demographics of where you and I live also. I've never come across parents who were unwilling for their child to be statemented - I've even got a couple of friends who paid for private assessments because they suspected dyslexia/dyspraxia. I wonder if there is still a fear that a child will be stigmatised, whereas the reality is that children with SEN can fulfil their potential better if they get early intervention, going on to university where appropriate, as my friend's dyslexic son is about to do? Perhaps it is down to a lack of awareness and education. :-\
I don't think this is necessarily down to demographics, but possible down to the age of the child.
Remember at our nursery we are talking about children perhaps just 2-3 years old, so at the very earliest point where developmental educational needs may be being identified that could lead to a statement. This is the age at which you very typically get reluctance from parents to even countenance the possibility that their child may have SEN.
-
Possibly. Most people I know started asking for intervention in reception, but then when my kids were nursery age many families used the village pre-school, whose staff were generally unqualified mums earning some pocket money.
-
My kids attended play groups as they were in those days. The girls got very bored of them pretty quickly!
-
Possibly. Most people I know started asking for intervention in reception, but then when my kids were nursery age many families used the village pre-school, whose staff were generally unqualified mums earning some pocket money.
Which may the reason for the difference in our experience.
Sure it is very unlikely that an unqualified and inexperienced mum working in a pre-school (sounds more like a play group if there weren't qualified people) would pick up on developmental educational issues at the age of 2 or 3, so they'd only be picked up when their kids were exposed to the trained professionals in reception class.
But that isn't what our nursery is like. All staff are qualified (to differing degrees) and the nursery is lead by two fully qualified and highly experienced teachers with early years specialism. So it isn't surprising that we pick up issues that your more ad hoc pre-school wouldn't.
-
My kids attended play groups as they were in those days. The girls got very bored of them pretty quickly!
There is a world of difference between a play group and a proper pre-school nursery.
-
Is it that the policy of 'inclusion' has been sold to parents as the ideal, when it was/is as much about closing special schools? Three closed in the borough where I used to live and the sites sold for housing.
I have mixed feelings about this, mainly because it's difficult to get to the root of what the real purpose is/was.
We have two children on the autistic spectrum, both were offered mainstream places. I can see that there are children whose conditions are limiting who are nonetheless capable academically (and socially) of coping with mainstream school - to exclude them is to segregate them, to make them different, to isolate 'normal' children from the experience of disability, and that's not a good thing.
On the other hand there are children who, with the best will in the world, will not benefit significantly from exposure to mainstream schooling but whose presence would - does, in some instances - jeapordise the education of the children around them.
Mrs. O. works in education and has seen this first-hand, and we know from our own that whilst one of children struggled but came good in mainstream, the other would have wasted everyone's time.
What was needed, I think, in the 'Push for Inclusion' was a firmer stance against schools complaining of the cost/difficulty of adapting to children with (particularly) physical needs, rather than a blanket 'let the parents choose' policy.
As a parent I know the pressure to pretend like nothing's wrong, to hope rather than reason, and that helps no-one. There is a place for professional assessment, but there is also a place for professional support mechanisms.
Learning Support Assistants in schools are, generally, wonderful people, but they got into the work to help small groups of kids catch up: they didn't sign up to be care assistants, and they sure as hell aren't paid anything like a going rate for that sort of work, but that's increasingly what they end up doing.
O.
-
My kids attended play groups as they were in those days. The girls got very bored of them pretty quickly!
There is a world of difference between a play group and a proper pre-school nursery.
My dear I am quite well aware of that! There weren't pre school nurseries around so much in the 70s and 80s when my kids were young.
-
My kids attended play groups as they were in those days. The girls got very bored of them pretty quickly!
There is a world of difference between a play group and a proper pre-school nursery.
My dear I am quite well aware of that! There weren't pre school nurseries around so much in the 70s and 80s when my kids were young.
Indeed, and if there were perhaps your daughter would have loved it and wouldn't have been bored for a second!
-
My kids attended play groups as they were in those days. The girls got very bored of them pretty quickly!
There is a world of difference between a play group and a proper pre-school nursery.
My dear I am quite well aware of that! There weren't pre school nurseries around so much in the 70s and 80s when my kids were young.
Indeed, and if there were perhaps your daughter would have loved it and wouldn't have been bored for a second!
I am sure they would have done, but as there wasn't and the school starting age in the UK was five in those days, the two older girls went to my island home when they were four, which was the school starting age there. They both had a great time, and then went to UK primary schools when they were five.
-
Is it that the policy of 'inclusion' has been sold to parents as the ideal, when it was/is as much about closing special schools? Three closed in the borough where I used to live and the sites sold for housing.
I have mixed feelings about this, mainly because it's difficult to get to the root of what the real purpose is/was.
We have two children on the autistic spectrum, both were offered mainstream places. I can see that there are children whose conditions are limiting who are nonetheless capable academically (and socially) of coping with mainstream school - to exclude them is to segregate them, to make them different, to isolate 'normal' children from the experience of disability, and that's not a good thing.
On the other hand there are children who, with the best will in the world, will not benefit significantly from exposure to mainstream schooling but whose presence would - does, in some instances - jeapordise the education of the children around them.
Mrs. O. works in education and has seen this first-hand, and we know from our own that whilst one of children struggled but came good in mainstream, the other would have wasted everyone's time.
What was needed, I think, in the 'Push for Inclusion' was a firmer stance against schools complaining of the cost/difficulty of adapting to children with (particularly) physical needs, rather than a blanket 'let the parents choose' policy.
As a parent I know the pressure to pretend like nothing's wrong, to hope rather than reason, and that helps no-one. There is a place for professional assessment, but there is also a place for professional support mechanisms.
Learning Support Assistants in schools are, generally, wonderful people, but they got into the work to help small groups of kids catch up: they didn't sign up to be care assistants, and they sure as hell aren't paid anything like a going rate for that sort of work, but that's increasingly what they end up doing.
O.
I'd agree with pretty well everything there.
I do think that there should be a presumption toward trying to educate within mainstream schools, and only to consider special schooling if this is clearly not appropriate or demonstrated not to be working.
Interesting about resources. This is a big issue for schools. So the approach where I am is that funding is based on a 'predicted' number of kids with SEN rather than actual numbers. And that prediction is based on demographics etc. So a school that (for whatever reason) has a reputation of providing good SEN provision may end up with significantly more SEN kids (as parents use their 'golden ticket') yet get absolutely no more resource. The flip side being a school that makes it pretty clear that they aren't really interested in SEN who therefore get very few but may have the same resource.
If schools are to be able to support SEN kids and be encouraged to try to do their best for them then funding must follow the actual SEN kids, not hypothetical ones.