Modern Parenting

[BashfulAnthony]

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!

[Rhiannon]

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.

[floo]

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.

[ippy]

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 

[BashfulAnthony]

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!

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?

[Rhiannon]

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

[BashfulAnthony]

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!

[Rhiannon]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[floo]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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!

[BashfulAnthony]

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!!

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.   

[Rhiannon]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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. 

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.