Chapter 5: Questionnaire Survey Data
Abstract
This chapter reports data from 419
questionnaires. Over 5,000
questionnaires were distributed and over 1000 were returned. A cut-off at 419 was adopted for this
analysis. It was not possible to assess
how many questionnaires reached practising home-educators: the aim was simply
to generate as many completed questionnaires as possible to provide a general
'snapshot' of home-education in the UK.
Analysis of the questionnaires revealed huge disparity between
home-educators with no clear 'types' emerging.
The message emerging from the analysis was that isolation from the wider
community was involuntary and unwelcome; however, it seemed to be the price
families often paid for choosing to educate children at home.
5
Questionnaire
SURVEY Results Overview
This section contains the data gathered from the returned questionnaires. The commentary occasionally contrasts the findings with widely accepted home-education stereotypes. These stereotypes are based, in part, upon anecdotal information from home educators, their critics etc. and so references are not provided. The ideas conveyed by such stereotypes play a crucial role in perceptions about home-education and for that reason, are included in this section.
Percentages
given are derived from the total number of respondents answering any one
question and the number of respondents overall is given in each case as
(n=…). In order to facilitate reading
flow throughout this chapter, a number of tables, graphs etc. have been placed
in the appendices.
5.1
General Biographic
Details
Having
been returned from throughout the United Kingdom (the sampling is described in
Section 4.5.3), 419 questionnaires were analysed. Figure 5.1, below, illustrates the participants' demographic
details. The largest group of questionnaires (7.6%) came from London.
Figure 5. 1:Distribution of Participant families (n=419) [1]
The
questionnaire invited participants to withhold their contact details if they
wished to remain anonymous. Figure 5.1
shows 5.9% retained anonymity.
Tables
5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 provide data about the families in the study, that is, 419
families representing 1099 children.
Appendix 5.1 contains further details relating to the children with
special needs[2]. Grouping the children was complex: some
families had children in various age groups, including pre-school and
post-school aged children in the same family, and children in and out of
school, with special needs and without, and children both at home and with an
estranged partner, either or both, in or out of school; some parents also
described children frequently moving in and out of school. Numbers of children in families ranged from
1 to 9 and the mean number of children per family was 2.44.
Table
5. 1:numerical data relating to the families involved
(total families = 419)
|
Description of Families (not
mutually exclusive groups) |
% of sample |
n |
|
With
children aged 16+ previously home-educated, at least in part. |
9.64 |
394 |
|
With
children in school |
19.81 |
419 |
|
With
pre-schoolers |
39.86 |
419 |
|
Had
used, or were using, nurseries |
3.34 |
419 |
|
With
one or more children at school part time. |
0.74 |
405 |
|
Without
school aged children |
11.85 |
405 |
|
With
a child who had been at school but was now at home |
47.49 |
419 |
|
With
children with special needs (Appendix 5.1) |
22.54 |
417 |
Table
5. 2: data relating to the children's ages (n=1099)
|
Age in years |
Number of
children |
% of sample |
|
0-4 |
226 |
20.56 |
|
5-11 |
475 |
43.22 |
|
12-16 |
193 |
17.56 |
|
5-16 (no precise age data) |
23 |
2.09 |
|
16+ |
182 |
16.56 |
Table
5. 3: current status of the children (n=1099)
|
Description |
Number of children |
% |
|
School
age at home (home-educated) |
581 |
52.87 |
|
School
age at school |
110 |
10.01 |
|
Pre-school
age (< 5 years) |
226 |
20.56 |
|
Post-compulsory
education age (16+) |
182 |
16.56 |
|
Never
in school but of school age |
303 |
27.57 |
|
Was
at school now home ed |
278 |
25.30 |
The number of school aged children
at home was n=581, of which 52% had never been to school. Of the pre-school aged children represented
in a question about parents' plans for them (n=147), 84% said they planned to
home-educate whilst 3% would be opting for a school education. It was interesting to note that almost 20%
of families had children in school at the time of the study.
5.2
Parents' Details
Over
three-quarters (89.73%) of the questionnaires referred to an opposite sex
partner whilst 2.2% mentioned having a partner of the same gender: single
parents accounted for 7.82% of the sample (n=409). In terms of occupation[3],
parents (n=394) came from all walks of life: the largest groups were school
teachers and lecturers (13.45%) and
those working in the arts (11.68%).
Health featured prominently with 4.07% working as nurses and doctors
etc. It appeared that 10.16% of parents
were working in manual jobs, such as machinist, factory worker, labourer
and lorry driver. Curiously, there was one (0.25%) Priestess[4]
(woman), matched by 2.03% pastors and preachers (men and women). A full index is given at Appendix 5.2.
Chart
5.1 suggests that at least one third of parents had been dissatisfied with
their schooling and that over a third had attended comprehensive schools (Chart
5.2).
Chart 5. 1:parents' perceptions of their own schooling (n=838)
Chart 5. 2: breakdown of parents' own schooling (n=838)
Whilst information on the extent of parents' education was
sparse, it was possible to determine, as Chart 5.3 shows, that whilst 15% of
mothers had received no formal education beyond school, almost a half of all
parents had attended university.
Chart 5. 3: parents' education beyond school (n=838)
Chart
5.4 illustrates parents' qualifications defined by the highest level described.
Chart 5. 4: level of parents' education (n=177)
Overall,
at least 40.81% of families
contained one trained teacher (these families only specified one but there may
have been two) and 16.95% two
trained teachers, whilst in 50.84%
of families neither parent was trained to teach (n=419). Table 5.4 provides gender data on the
teacher parents.
Table
5. 4: teacher trained parents by gender
|
Father (n=326) |
Mother (n=331) |
||
|
Teacher Trained |
Not Trained |
Teacher Trained |
Not Trained |
|
17.79% |
82.21% |
28.40% |
71.60% |
Asked whether their teacher training had influenced their approach towards home-education (n=83), 67.46% of parents replied 'Yes' and 28.91% responded, 'No'; a further 3.61% were not sure.
5.3
The Place of Religion
Amongst the Families
Asked if they were religious (n=215) 56.28% said
'yes', 38.14% said 'no' and 5.58% described themselves as 'non-committal'.
Of the families (n=114) who specified their
religion, 24.56% described themselves as 'Christians', with a further 21.93%
specifying 'Church of England' and 4.39% described as 'non-church-going
Christians': 19.30% reported that they were 'Jehovah's Witnesses' and 7.89%
'Catholic'. Other religious
organizations with which participants aligned themselves were Quaker (4.39%), Pagan (3.51%), Buddhist and
Evangelical Christians (2.63%) and Mormon (1.75%). With under 1% representation were Methodist, Jewish,
Brethren, Wicca, Islam, Free Church of Scotland, Christadelphian, and Baptist.
5.4
What Home-educating
Meant To Families and What Had Motivated Them To Home-educate
Answering
the questions, 'What does home-education mean to you?' (n=390) and, 'What
motivated you to home-educate?' (n=412) many parents responded with several
phrases, as Appendices 5.3 and 5.4 demonstrate.
'Freedom', 'Flexibility' and 'We do what we want
when we want' were the most often cited 'meanings' (35.9%). The second most popular notion, proposed by
29.74% of families, was 'Child can learn in his or her own style and can develop
naturally' and 25.13% said that they valued the 'Close relationship' and 'Time
together'. Generally, the responses to
'meaning' were positive, although at the lower end of the spectrum, several
parents cited more negative issues such as, 'Hard work for parent and child'
(4.36%), 'Isolating' (1.79%), 'Pressure' (0.77%) and 'Keep child away from IT
equipment' (0.26%)[5].
Almost
one third of parents (30.77%) reported that 'Disappointment with education’ and
'schools' had motivated them to home-educate, whilst almost as many (29.17%)
said they had 'always intended to'.
Bullying accounted for 25.32% of the families' motivation, with 24.04%
referring to their child's depression and stress caused by having been in school. Perhaps surprisingly, 1.60% of the sample
cited, 'Headlice at school' and 'Spread of illness in school' as, at least in
part, their motivation to home-educate.
Overall,
the motivations could be divided into two groups, those citations relating to
experiences with school and those concerned with family ideology[6]. Whatever type of motivation was reported,
the words and phrases most frequently used to describe home-education were,
'Freedom', 'Ideology', 'Individual', 'Taking responsibility', 'Way of life',
and 'Less stress/pressure'.
5.5
Parenting Styles
Described by parents
A note was made of the types of parenting skills
referred to by parents and the results are listed in Table 5.5. From the data provided here, child-centred
relaxed parenting outnumbered more traditional parenting approaches.
Table
5. 5: parenting styles as described by the parents (n=171).
|
Parenting Style |
% |
|
Relaxed |
26.32% |
|
Fair - strict but
kind, Considerate |
20.47% |
|
Child-Centred,
Nurturing |
16.38% |
|
Loving |
15.20% |
|
Respectful |
9.94% |
|
Traditional |
7.60% |
|
Responsible |
5.26% |
|
We have high ideals
but flounder on the discipline |
4.68% |
|
Scriptural/Christian |
4.90% |
|
Encouraging |
2.92% |
|
Functional, Variable |
2.92% |
|
Responsive |
0.58% |
5.6
Parental Views and the
Practicalities of Home Learning
Asked
if home-education had been as they expected (n=382), 48.69% of families
answered 'no', 36.39% said 'yes' and 9.16% reported that they had not harboured
preconceptions: 5.76% felt it was too early to say.
Appendix
5.5 illustrates some of the reasons given as to why home-education was or was
not as anticipated (n=262). The largest
group, 34.74%, had not imagined it would be so fulfilling and so much fun,
whilst the second group (26.72%), many of whom may well have found the experience
rewarding, stated that home-education was far more demanding and more difficult
than they had imagined. There were
3.82% who had been surprised to find out that their home-educated children had
not turned out as they had expected!
On the whole, it appeared that the learning pattern was negotiated by parents and children together (56.82%) although parents led the way in 11.17% of families and children in 32.01% (n=403).
From the total (n= 403), almost half the families said they 'never' followed a routine instead taking 'each day as it comes' (44.67%). Partial routines for learning were followed by 26.05% of families and set routines by 15.38%, although a further 11.91% said that whilst they attempted to maintain a structure it was often interrupted: 1.49% described a structure organised around the seasons. Others who planned their weeks offered their children a choice on a daily basis (0.50%) so long as the week's work was covered.
Opinions
on routine varied, but many (37.94%) emphasised the need for flexibility: only
5.93% of families maintained school hours, a formal curriculum or a timetable
(n=253).
Learning was most often encouraged by facilitating resources, interests and visits and by following and sharing interests. Parents also believed they encouraged learning by listening to their children, giving them their time and by answering their questions: the importance of 'talk' was also highlighted. Table 5.6 details the means of encouragement parents cited.
Table
5. 6: how parents encouraged their children's learning
(no. citations =397)
|
Means of encouragement |
% |
|
By facilitating resources,
interests, visits |
53.90 |
|
By following sharing
interests |
26.95 |
|
By listening/giving them
time/answer questions |
21.16 |
|
Talking |
16.88 |
|
By suggesting activities |
10.58 |
|
By our interests/by example |
8.06 |
|
Don’t need to, child self
motivated |
6.55 |
|
Praise, encouragement |
5.54 |
|
By making everything seem
like fun/by not encouraging ‘learning’ |
5.54 |
|
Reward system |
1.01 |
|
Fostering imagination |
1.01 |
|
Use Bible guidelines |
.76 |
|
Relate things to music |
.50 |
|
Nag at them, make them study |
.25 |
For most parents with more than one child, mixed aged learning was a reality. Almost two thirds 65.86%, believed this to be generally beneficial to children and adults, even 'essential' and 'excellent'. Many other parents, as Appendix 5.6 shows, identified certain benefits, such as 'better for younger than older children' (1.08%) or, 'good with adult support' (3.49%). Interestingly, 8.33% described it as 'challenging'. Just 1.08% of the sample said it was not a good idea and did not work (n=372).
The
questionnaire provided space for a fairly full answer to the request that a day
of home-education be described. The
phrases illustrated in Table 5.7, sum up parents' accounts. Those families adopting the more
'autonomous'[7] method,
appeared to account for 37.37%, although some of these families may have had
very young children.
Table
5. 7: summary of how
home-educators spend their days(n=388)
|
|
% |
|
AM:
Academic work, PM: creative activities and outings |
28.35 |
|
Playing
& doing, living |
20.62 |
|
Every
day is different |
16.75 |
|
Varies
daily but we cover several areas each day |
14.69 |
|
9am
to 3pm non-academic/academic mix |
13.66 |
|
Between
8 and 9.30am through to between 5 and 6.30pm |
2.58 |
|
Academic
work in the morning with homework |
2.06 |
|
An
academic day keeping school hours, 9am to 3 pm. |
.52 |
|
Part-time
schooling, eg. AM: home and PM: school |
.26 |
|
Tutor
led days |
.26 |
|
4pm-6am
non-academic/academic mix[8] |
.26 |
Thomas
(1998) has suggested that home-educators move from formality towards
informality, the inference being that families relax over time. However, this study found that where a
change in approach was mentioned, 11.72% of families appeared to have moved
towards structure as opposed to only 9.66% who had become increasingly
informal. However, a further 24.83%
said that they had always maintained structure whilst over half 53.79% said
they had always been informal (n=145).
Parents
were asked if they hoped their children would take exams, to which 39.75%
replied that they did: 28.25% said
it was up to the child to decide and
25.75% were unsure. Those parents who did not want their
children to take examinations totalled just 4.75% (n=400).
Opinions
of exams (n=357) varied with the largest proportion (23.53%) of parents seeing
them as 'useful' and 'necessary'.
Others said it depended on the child's vocation (22.69%) and that exams were a 'necessary evil' (18.21%) - a phrase used by very many of the families
who were also religiously affiliated.
There were concerns that examinations created low esteem and were not a
sign of intelligence (11.76%) and
that they did not do much good (3.92%). Some families, under 2% in each case, said
they should be avoided, were 'useful to prove the sceptics wrong' or were not
helpful to children with special needs.
A moderate proportion (17.09%) were indifferent to the issue.
5.7
Resources Used in
Home-education
There
was no question relating to television.
However from the questionnaires mentioning television (n=253), 14.23%
specifically stated that they did not have a television in contrast to the
85.77% who said they did.
Families
used a very wide range of resources, from the more obvious books and
television, to household items, outings, everyday life, discourse, music and
the garden (n=389). Just 9.51% used
published curriculums and 0.77% (3 families) employed full-time 'tutors'. Notably, Teacher's Resource Centres were
used by only 0.51%, possibly a reflection on the limited access that
home-educators have to such centres, as entry requires LEA permission. Overall families tended to make use of
whatever was available to them.
Asked about the use of occasional tutors and
classes (n=401), 56.11% used such tutors whilst 36.41% said they did not. An additional 5.24% said they would use them
at a later stage. Other responses
suggested that grandparents and siblings helped out (2%). In view of the wide church membership
described earlier, it was surprising that only 0.25% of families mentioned the
church, although it was possible that such parents completing the questionnaire
did not think of church groups in this way.
Outings
apparently accounted for much of the children's time, rendering the term
'home-education' somewhat inappropriate (n=360): 50.56% of families believed
that 'any outing' was a learning experience and 35.00% felt that any outing where the children enjoyed
themselves or gained stimulation, was, therefore,
educational[9]. Only 7.77% defined an educational outing as one planned to support a specific area
of study.
Families
were asked how they supported Maths and Science, since these areas are often
said to be difficult for home-educators to cover. Amongst all the responses, no specific problems were mentioned.
Appendix 5.7 lists the resources highlighted.
In Science (n=357) and Maths
(n=370) approximately one third in each case said that they related problems to
concrete life applications and that they used a variety of workbooks and
manipulatives[10]. There was more dependence on television, computer
and purchased kits for science than for maths although in both areas parents
tended to make use of what was readily available to them.
Overall (n=253), at least 76.68% of families said they used a computer, contrasting with 23.32% who did not. Given the number of families who did not use a computer (n=147) it is interesting that only 3.40% said they would make full use of a computer if they could afford one (Appendix 5.8).
The
National Curriculum was not popular with home-educators. Over half (56.09%) of
families said that they did not use it at all, in contrast with just 10.41% who
did. Some families (1.78%) said their
children were too young to use it and 31.73% said they occasionally referred to
it (n=394).
As
Table 5.8 shows, there was a wide range of thought concerning the National
Curriculum.
Table 5. 8: opinions of the english (maintained sector)
national curriculum (n=269)
|
Description |
% of sample |
|
Restrictive,
narrow |
26.39 |
|
Bad,
unnecessary |
17.84 |
|
Prescriptive,
rigid, pressured |
17.10 |
|
OK,
looks sensible, fine for reference |
13.38 |
|
I am
neutral about it |
12.64 |
|
Good,
well thought out, helpful |
9.67 |
|
Bad
for home-education, good for school.
Not for individualised learning |
8.18 |
|
Tells
us what is expected of others |
7.43 |
|
We
follow it because they may return to, or enter, the school system |
4.46 |
|
Too
broad |
1.49 |
|
We do
not like it; each child's needs are
individual |
1.12 |
|
It is
constantly being altered |
1.12 |
|
OK
when I'm feeling insecure |
.74 |
|
It
lowers standards |
.37 |
5.8
Home-educated Children
and Reading
Literature
(eg. Thomas 1998) and anecdotal evidence from home-educators often gives the
impression that home-educated children tend to read later than school children;
the inference is that home-educated children are not under the pressures of
government reading targets and therefore, learn to read in their own time. Parents were asked in the questionnaire to
state the age at which their child learned to read and to explain which methods
they had used. The ages were given by
204 families, relating to 309 children and these are summarised at Table
5.9.
Responding
to the question asking how the children had learned to read (n=217), 164
families made reference to approaches that could be divided into informal such
as 'we read to them often' or 'self taught' (50.70%) and formal, for example,
'reading scheme' or 'look and say' (49.29%).
Table
5. 9: ages at which the home-educated children had
learned to read (n=309).
|
Reading Stage |
Definition of Each Reading Stage |
% |
|
Early |
Less than 4.11 |
41.10 |
|
Average |
Between 5 and 6.11years |
39.48 |
|
Late |
More than 7 years of age |
11.33 |
|
Very Late |
More than 9 years of age |
8.09 |
5.9
The Place of Assessment in Home-education
Informal discussions with home-educators suggest that they prefer not to use assessments to gauge their children's educational progress and indeed, this was supported by the 47.84% of parents who said that they did not assess their children (n=370). Those referring to informal methods such as discussion, observation and continuous review numbered 28.64% whilst 34.85% suggested they were rather more formal. Phrases such as 'Annual review for Education Officer's visit' indicated, however, that some parents felt an obligation to show progress. Overall, asked whether they actively encouraged assessment (n=310) only 22.90% said they did.
5.10
Communication with the
Local Education Authority
Only
206 families with school aged children made it clear whether or not they were
known to their local authority and of these, 30.64% said they were not whilst
69.36% responded that they were.
Participants
were asked if the LEA had offered any assistance or made stipulations about
their home-education (n=389). Here, 53.73% of families responded with a mixture of, 'no',
'not visited', 'uninterested', or 'not known to the LEA'. LEAs were often described as 'OK' but 'not a
help' (21.59%) and rather less often
as, 'helpful' (12.08%), although a
further 3.34% said the LEA had
'occasionally assisted'. LEA initiated
problems were the experience of 6.68%
with another 2.57% of families
complaining that the LEA had, 'insisted on seeing our qualifications[11]'
or 'tried to ensure we follow a curriculum'.
5.11
Socialisation and Meeting up with Other
Home-educators
Whilst
the majority of parents (73.09%) said that they met up with other
home-educators, 26.91% replied that they never got together with home-educating
families (n=405)[12]. As Chart 5.5 shows, of those who did meet up
with others and responded to the question on frequency, over half said they met
at least weekly (n=283).
Chart 5. 5: frequency with which home-educating families meet
up (n=283)
With
regard to socialisation, the most widely expressed view was that school style
socialisation was often negative (39.93%).
Many felt that home-educated children did not miss out (21.65%) although
there was the feeling that children could suffer socially if their parents did
not make an effort (18.98%). Some
parents believed that their children would like more friends (4.87%) although
parents with such views were not advocating that school was necessarily the
place for this: for example, the view was expressed that:
'Children like being part of a group and must
feel some benefit from such, although it is better if this out of school'
Appendix 5.9 details parents' rationalisations of socialisation issues (n=411).
5.12
Home-educators and
School
Of the sample (n=375), 33.07% of parents said
there were no plans for their children to attend school in the future, as
opposed to 13.60% who said they would.
A further 53.33% were open minded, many indicating that it would be the
children's decision.
Where
children might later be in school, respondents
(n=227) said this was either because it would be what the children
wanted (63.44%), or for easier access to exams, university and extra resources
(17.62%); some parents explained that it might be 'best at the time' (14.98%) or because home education became ‘too much of
a struggle’ (2.64%), parents might both need to work full-time (0.88%) or
because it was 'God's will' (0.44%).
Asked,
where relevant, to explain why their children remained or had been through,
school (n=84)[13], over half
said the children were or had been happy and learning (54.76%), or because it
was the child's choice (30.95%) and some believed it worthwhile for the school
social life (7.14%). A small number had
not previously known that home-education was possible (5.95%) whilst some
children lived elsewhere and were in school according to the resident parent's
wishes (4.76%). Other reasons were
(less than 3% in each case) that home-education had been too complicated, the
family wanted the school's SEN facilities, money issues, school discipline was
deemed necessary, exam access, court order and partner pressure.
Verbal
reports amongst home-educators tend to suggest that removal from school is
often followed by a transitional period.
This was referred to by the respondents (n=155), 36.88% of whom said
that it 'took a while to adapt'. A
further 19.38% explained that as a
result of school their child was 'traumatised' and 'hostile to education'
whilst 17.50% described their child as needing to ‘rebuild damaged confidence’
and 6.25% as taking time to ‘understand that it was not necessary to constantly
seek permission’. School was viewed
'positively' by 11.88% of parents who believed it had helped their children to
accept a routine (11.88%) or made
them appreciate home-education (.63%). A few parents said that the child was not in
school long enough for it to have an effect (6.25%) or that there was no such transitional period (1.25%).
5.13
Advantages and
Disadvantages of Home-education and School
The questionnaire asked families what they considered to be learned at home that was not covered at school. Full details are given at Appendix 5.10. The most cited areas were broad categories such as (n=381); 'interpersonal', 'communication', 'social' and 'discussion' skills (29.92%), day to day living, learning and life skills (25.72%), skills in 'caring for people', 'moral and social awareness', 'responsibility' (25.46%), and self esteem, motivation and Independence (14.70%). The outside world featured strongly, for example, nature and conservation (14.44%), environmental issues (11.29%), practical skills 14.17%, physical education (6.82%), astronomy 3.94% and travel (2.62%). The arts were mentioned by 17.59%, and languages by 12.86%. Interestingly, few of the areas mentioned were as specific as those covered by the school curriculum.
The
main advantages of home-education and disadvantages of home-education, as
cited, are shown below in Charts 5.6 and 5.7.
Chart 5. 6 Advantages of home-education (n=378)
From
Chart 5.6 it appears that home-educators are interested in what might be termed
the 'whole child' approach, seeing education as a way of life inseparable from
daily living. As can be seen from Chart
5.7, the main problems were with isolation, having fewer friends and being
shunned by the wider community; thus, most of the comments were concerned with
support issues.
Chart 5. 7 Disadvantages of home-education (n=299)
Respondents
were also asked to list the advantages and disadvantages of school and their
answers appear at Appendix 5.11.
Although 19.11% of the sample (n=314) believed school to have no
advantages whatsoever, 31.85% thought it had the advantage of providing parents
with time for themselves and with less responsibility: however, despite this
latter concept being listed as an advantage, there was negativity in the way
parents often expressed themselves using such phrases as, 'free baby-sitting
service'. Resources (24.84%), social
life (19.43%) and good teachers (13.38%) were amongst the more positive
benefits described.
Some disadvantages of school inherently echoed
the advantages of home-education.
'Conformity' was considered the main drawback (51.66%), along with 'bullying' (27.31), 'peer pressure' (20.66%)
and the 'child/teacher ratio' (16.61%).
Generally, home-educating families saw school as a vehicle for
separating parents and their children and creating ‘boredom’ in an
‘anachronistic’ atmosphere aimed at conditioning pupils.
In
view of the lack of community support that the families believed they suffered,
the families’ descriptions of how other people treated them were interesting
(n=403). 'All very differently' was how
29.28% of home-educators believed they were viewed, 28.54% experienced
curiosity and interest and 18.61% felt that they were treated with negativity
by non home-educators. Families were
also treated 'positively' (17.37%) and 'indifferently' (6.20%), with 0.50%
saying that they were reluctant to tell people they were home-educators. The above percentages relate to the prime
response given in each questionnaire: however, families also listed reactions
such as those in Box 5.1.
Box
5. 1: home-educators' descriptions
of how other people treated them
|
·
'Didn't know it
was possible' |
·
'They feel
threatened' |
|
·
'Is it legal?' |
·
'They think we
are depriving them' |
|
·
'Polite but
distant' |
·
'Narrow minded
ignorance' |
|
·
'Supportive
and understanding' |
·
'Concern for
social integration' |
|
·
'Respect' |
·
'Non-committal' |
|
·
'Hostile' |
·
'Impressed by our
child’s behaviour' |
|
·
'Concern' |
·
'Feel schools are
failing' |
|
·
'Surprise' |
·
'Wouldn't be able
to do it themselves' |
5.14
Overview of Results Section
The results show home-educators to be a diverse community with complex family circumstances that make the compilation of ‘facts’ virtually impossible. The results suggested, in very broad terms and with unlimited variations between families, that the UK home-educating family’s profile was as set out in boxes 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4.
Box
5. 2: profile of a home-educated children in the uk
Children
· Had experienced school at some time
· Followed a child/parent negotiated education
· Could go to school if they wanted to
· Had their progress assessed by their parents, however informally
· Did not follow a firm routine but tended to keep the mornings for any academic pursuits and the afternoons for activities and outings
· Did not follow the National Curriculum
· Read before 7 years of age, learning by exposure to books
· Used a computer
· Experienced a great deal of parental input
Box
5. 3; profile of home-educator parent in the uk
Parents
· In a relationship
· Attended comprehensive school
· Had not enjoyed school
· Probably had a degree
· Were quite likely to have some training in education
· Had either been disappointed with schools or had always planned to home-educate.
· Had a fairly relaxed parenting style
· Hoped their children would take exams
· Were affiliated to a religion either formally or informally
Box
5. 4: profile of home-educating family in the uk
Families:
· 2.45 children
· Urban dwellers
· Enjoyed the freedom and flexibility that comes with home-education
· Met up with other home-educators
· Were more likely to be in contact with the LEA
· Felt that the community did not offer enough support
· Most valued the interpersonal relational skills that were learned at home
Questionnaire Results Endnotes