Sorry, but I simply don't have time. Should LAs or the government in the UK start referring to it, I now will be able to find an easily accessible copy, but for now it is going unread.
What I am going to comment on, however, is the summary that was written in Harvard Magazine. As that summary quotes and paraphrases Bartholet, I will go through that with my thoughts and opinions. Additionally, I have her words from yesterday to draw on to add context and meaning/intention to the written word.
In the article, Bartholet is calling for a "presumptive ban" on homeschooling because it may stop them from contributing to a democratic society. She asserts that homeschooling violates a child's right to education and their right to freedom from abuse.
Yesterday, historian Milton Gaither stated repeatedly that there is not much difference in outcomes for home schooled and public schooled children in the US. It is, however, environmental factors that make a difference, not limited to the time and input a parent has in the education of their child. [This latter sentence is something that I have heard and read in research before (of course, now I look I cannot find the link. If you reading this have the link handy, please comment below and I'll add it at a later date).] Bartholet, however, countered this, often repeating that only "successful" homeschoolers allowed their children to partake in research, and there are many hidden homeschoolers that nobody knows about. Normally, I would go on to make the point that in the UK, there have been ZERO Serious Case Reviews where home educating has been the sole or primary contributing factor to abuse (as I have stated HERE). However, Bartholet is from the US and from the discussion yesterday there have been cases brought up involving horrific abuse, so I won't claim that what is true in the UK is also true in the US.
Bartholet is concerned about the lack of regulation in some states, that there is no check about the academic qualifications of the parents, nor their ability to teach. Again, this has been addressed in the paragraph above, but if that were not enough - if parents have come out of school without a GED, why should they entrust the education of their children to the state? She is also concerned about the lack of a home schooling register in some states, so I will repeat the link to my response why a home education register is not a good idea.
Bartholet says home education can isolate children, and yesterday commented that some parents choose homeschooling purposely to isolate the kids. Instead, she proposes that each child should have "mandated reporters" to whom the child has to be shown regularly - this reminds me of the Scottish "Named Person" scheme, that many Scottish Home Educators had been against.
However, I do actually think one of Bartholet's ideas is somewhat praiseworthy - that parents should be checked prior to home education for reports of abuse and neglect. Rather than a presumptive ban on homeschooling, or a reactive check on parents, I think this should be a forward acting policy. If someone has a record of abuse or neglect, I think it is right that the court should order (in advance) that these people should have highly visible children and regular encounters with social services. Now, I am going to put some caveats here. Firstly, as Graham Stuart MP said when he was Chair of the Education Select Committee, home educated children are "peculiarly visible", so when I am saying visible, I mean to doctors, social services and EHEOs. Secondly, whereas Bartholet implied yesterday that there is no smoke without fire, and if someone has had accusations of abuse they shouldn't be allowed to home school, I think this preemptive court order to should solely for people who have been through court and proven to have been abusive or neglectful. There are many cases of a spurned partner who reports their Ex to social services maliciously, and just because of this fabricated report, it is not right that this parent should be prevented from home educating their children should they wish to. (Fortunately, social services in the UK are able to see through malicious referrals.)
Bartholet states that up to 90% of homeschoolers in the US make that choice due to conservative Christian beliefs and extreme religious ideologues, including questioning science, female subservience and white supremacy. Again, I'm aware of a huge disparity be the US and the UK, and that is true within Christian circles too. However, wherever you fall on the creation/evolution debate questioning science is never a bad thing - questioning what we know is exactly what causes breakthroughs in knowledge. Science is the collection of knowledge that we currently have, and is constantly expanding, growing and changing as our understanding improves. If you think science cannot or should not be questioned, then indeed that is akin to science being your unquestionable religion. Without having read her 80 page document, I don't know exactly what she means by female subservience, but I'm assuming she is referring to Ephesians 5:22 (from NIV) "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord", having ignored the previous verse 21 which states "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." and verse 28 that says "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." I acknowledge that there may be some branches of "Christianity" that take these verses out of context and to extreme, but there is nothing inconsistent between calling yourself a Christian and a Feminist. Finally, white supremacy is antithetical to the teachings of Christ.
An interesting follow-up to this was a question that was asked yesterday: Should children who are public schooled be mandated to visit religious or other private schools? Bartholet replied that no they shouldn't, because parents who wish to can teach religion at home. To me, this is clearly double standards, and suggests to me that Bartholet is an atheist (I have no idea whether she has a faith or not). If the parents of a child at a state school are atheists, when can that child encounter religion or faith in order to widen their education and have opportunity to encounter new ideas (given the separation of state and religion in the US)? The fact that Bartholet doesn't see anything amiss here, demonstrates to me that she does not see any value in faith nor for children being exposed to it.
Fortunately, in the UK there is not this separation. My Home Educated children are free to explore their own faith (or lack of faith in the case of DD1), having me being a Christian, friends who are atheists, friends who are Muslims and visiting a Sikh Temple. I would like to also visit a Synagogue and a Hindu Temple, but that will have to wait until Coronavirus has passed.
Yesterday there was also a discussion and question about whether homeschooling can produce civic-minded and well-rounded children/adults. Bartholet says in her article "But it’s also important that children grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints" but I'm not sure she gives the same exposure to schooled children, nor the same tolerance of home educating families.
When talking about the power and influence parents can have over their children, Bartholet says
Bartholet states that up to 90% of homeschoolers in the US make that choice due to conservative Christian beliefs and extreme religious ideologues, including questioning science, female subservience and white supremacy. Again, I'm aware of a huge disparity be the US and the UK, and that is true within Christian circles too. However, wherever you fall on the creation/evolution debate questioning science is never a bad thing - questioning what we know is exactly what causes breakthroughs in knowledge. Science is the collection of knowledge that we currently have, and is constantly expanding, growing and changing as our understanding improves. If you think science cannot or should not be questioned, then indeed that is akin to science being your unquestionable religion. Without having read her 80 page document, I don't know exactly what she means by female subservience, but I'm assuming she is referring to Ephesians 5:22 (from NIV) "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord", having ignored the previous verse 21 which states "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." and verse 28 that says "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." I acknowledge that there may be some branches of "Christianity" that take these verses out of context and to extreme, but there is nothing inconsistent between calling yourself a Christian and a Feminist. Finally, white supremacy is antithetical to the teachings of Christ.
An interesting follow-up to this was a question that was asked yesterday: Should children who are public schooled be mandated to visit religious or other private schools? Bartholet replied that no they shouldn't, because parents who wish to can teach religion at home. To me, this is clearly double standards, and suggests to me that Bartholet is an atheist (I have no idea whether she has a faith or not). If the parents of a child at a state school are atheists, when can that child encounter religion or faith in order to widen their education and have opportunity to encounter new ideas (given the separation of state and religion in the US)? The fact that Bartholet doesn't see anything amiss here, demonstrates to me that she does not see any value in faith nor for children being exposed to it.
Fortunately, in the UK there is not this separation. My Home Educated children are free to explore their own faith (or lack of faith in the case of DD1), having me being a Christian, friends who are atheists, friends who are Muslims and visiting a Sikh Temple. I would like to also visit a Synagogue and a Hindu Temple, but that will have to wait until Coronavirus has passed.
Yesterday there was also a discussion and question about whether homeschooling can produce civic-minded and well-rounded children/adults. Bartholet says in her article "But it’s also important that children grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints" but I'm not sure she gives the same exposure to schooled children, nor the same tolerance of home educating families.
When talking about the power and influence parents can have over their children, Bartholet says
"The issue is, do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18? I think that’s dangerous... I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority."I know other commentators and bloggers have already commented on the fact that the government is run by powerful people who are in charge of the powerless (us). Additionally, given the recent race relations and examples of police brutality that have come to light, I would want to question Bartholet whether she is in favour of defunding the police?, though I expect not.
Finally, though Bartholet concedes that some parents may be able to educate their children effectively and efficiently, she thinks parents should need to continuously prove that their case is justified in being able to provide a better education than at a state school. In short, she thinks that rather than innocent until proven guilty, parents need to be assumed to be guilty of abuse and neglect and only allowed to homeschool if the parents can prove otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment