Chapter 1: Introduction to the Thesis

 

1.1                           Structure of the Thesis

This thesis is set out over eleven chapters.  The first four make up the Introduction, Literature Review (2 chapters) and Methodology; Chapters 5 to 9 report the results of the research and Chapters 10 and 11 provide the Discussion and Conclusion.  The research reported is based on a questionnaire to home-educating parents, followed by educational and psychosocial assessments of sub-samples of children.  In addition, interviews were conducted with parents and children, but for reasons of time and space the results were not reported in detail.  However, reference to these interviews is made when relevant to the results of the questionnaires and assessment data.

 

1.2                           Legality of home-education

Learning from home is becoming more popular (Lines 1999).  Increasingly publicised by the press (e.g. Garavelli 2002, Douglas 2002, Curtis 2002) public awareness is also growing.  Section 7 of The Education Act 1996 (England and Wales) reads as follows:

 

The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable­:

(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and

(b) to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular   attendance at school or otherwise.

Section 7 of The Education Act 1996 (England and Wales)

Taylor and Petrie (2000) provide a thorough discussion of the current law.

At present, there is a choice, under the Education Act (1996, s.7) for children to receive their education either at school or 'otherwise' (The Education (Scotland) Act 1980, s.30, makes similar provision); whilst the school option involves formal assessment and inspection, the 'otherwise' alternative involves neither in any legislative form[1].

 

'LEAs, however, have no automatic right of access to the parent’s home. Parents may refuse a meeting in the home, if they can offer an alternative way of demonstrating that they are providing a suitable education, for example, through showing examples of work and agreeing to a meeting at another venue.'

DfEE (1998a, point 4)

 

To home-educate children in the UK, one does not need a teaching qualification or any specialist equipment and whilst some families follow a routine for learning, others do not.  There are families known to their LEA as home-educators and there are others that are not (Muckle 1997).  Currently, families home-educating children in England and Wales who have never been to school, are under no obligation to inform anyone.  The law states that the name of a child at school and who is of compulsory school age is to be removed from the school register, if:     

 

'he has ceased to attend the school and the proprietor has received written notification from the parent that the pupil is receiving education otherwise than at school.'

Regulation 9 (1) (c) Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 1995

(England and Wales)

 

Thus, to deregister a child the parent needs only to inform the proprietor or headteacher that they are withdrawing their child from school for education otherwise than at school.  The school then has a legal obligation, according to Regulation 13 (3) of the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 1995, to inform the local authority of any child that is withdrawing and provide the reason, insofar as they are aware of it.  

 

In Scotland the law in respect of withdrawal differs: under section 35(1) of The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 the education authority must:

 

[…] have consented to the withdrawal of the child from the school (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld) […]

The Education (Scotland) Act 1980,  s. 35(1)

 

As of January 2002, draft guidance was issued for consultation (closing date March 2002) under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc. Act 2000.  Objecting to the draft, SNP MSP Irene McGugan put down a Parliamentary Motion calling for the draft guidance to be withdrawn immediately.  Her motion referred to:

 

'unfounded and insulting inferences that home educated children are in need of extraordinary measures of care and protection […] the guidance exhorts local authorities to act beyond their powers under section 37 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and seeks to condone unlawful breaches of data protection and human rights legislation […] that the Scottish Executive should end the discrimination against home educating families in Scotland forthwith'

 

By April 2002, Ms McGugan's motion had received substantial support from her colleagues.  Further, in response to the level of monitoring advised under the draft, were it adopted, Meighan [2](2002) published a strongly worded statement:

 

'The guidance demonstrate [..that those..] trained in the methods of crowd instruction and crowd control that schools require, are therefore seldom equipped to judge other learning systems, especially the personalised learning style adopted by most home-based educators.  It is outside their competence, experience  and often their imagination.  They usually resort to 'judging tennis by the rules of basketball', as it were, even though they are different games with different logistics.  The intelligent response, […] will be to either, hand the monitoring over to a home-based education committee, or defer to the expertise of experienced home-based educators and researchers.'

Meighan (2002)

 

At the time of writing the matter was still unresolved.  The concern for home-educators nation-wide was that this draft document, if formally adopted, might set a precedent for the UK, substantially curbing the right of parents to educate according to their own wishes, as per the S. 9 of The Education Act 1996.

 

This Chapter briefly reviews definitions of 'home-education', relevant legislation, home-education prevalence and LEA perspectives.

 

1.3                           definitions of home-education

There is no simple definition of home-education.  Some LEAs might, for example, define home-educating families only as those known to, and approved by, the LEA[3]: many families however, are not known to their LEA (Muckle 1997).  Petrie, Windrass and Thomas (1999) wrote that:

 

'Home education can be defined as the full-time education of children in and around the home by their parents or guardians or by tutors appointed by the parents or guardians'

Petrie, Windrass, and Thomas (1999, p. 6)

 

But in the absence of a universal concept of 'education' this definition is rather ambiguous: no explanation of 'full-time' is provided and it is implied that the hiring of professional tutors qualifies as home-education despite a common perception that hired full-time tutors are not necessarily synonymous with parental commitment.  Petrie (1999) however, expanded and modified her explanation thus:

 

'[home-education is] where the parents are committed to their [children's] education and home-educating'

(Petrie 1999)

 

The mention of a necessary commitment by parents narrowed the definition by inferring that there were some parents 'educating' or arranging an education but who were not fully committed to their children's education.  Commitment however, takes many forms and what is commitment to one may not be perceived to be so by others.  A conversation with the DfEE in 2000[4] confirmed that most travellers who are not registered either with schools or with their LEA nevertheless view themselves as committed home-educators, apprenticing the children to their trade and viewing the input from the children as integral to the family's social and economic fabric: it is likely however, that many such families would escape the Petrie et al. (1999 p. 6) definition.

 

The North American term, 'homeschooling' implies an element of schooling is involved, whilst the UK term lacks such inference.  Home-education however, suggests that the education takes place at home, whereas the home is more often a base rather than the actual full-time locus (Meighan and Brown 1980). 

 

The terms 'schooling', 'education', 'learning' and 'teaching' are often used synonymously whereas they may have little in common in the eyes of the home-educator.  Petrie (1995) provides an overview of the confusion between compulsory education and compulsory school, quoting amongst others, John Patten, Secretary of State for Education, during a speech given on the 26^th November, 1993:

 

 'We must continue to drive home to parents that they have a moral as well as a legal duty to ensure that their children go to school and stay there.'

John Patten, cited by Petrie (1995)

 

There are home-educators who neither 'school' nor 'teach' their children, preferring to leave the children free to follow their own inclinations, whether or not that involves any formal learning and whether or not such incidental learning would be determined as 'educational' by more authoritative bodies.  The confusion between 'education' and 'schooling' is apparent in the term, 'Educational Psychologist': at Manchester University[5] for example, the reading syllabus for this qualification relies almost exclusively on books pertaining to children's learning and behaviour in school.

 

In a 1999 speech, Abbot pondered the difference between schooling and learning:

 

'By the time I was 13 I was quite a good wood carver, and then I went off to a conventional boarding public school. […] I memorised vast chunks of Caesar’s Gaelic War and Virgil’s Aeneid. Night after night I lay awake testing myself on conjugations and declensions. And of course I passed Latin. Six months later I had forgotten most of it …… but I still woodcarve! […]  at that early stage in life I came to realise that learning and schooling were not synonymous. […] Learning is a consequence of thinking […] Thinking – not simply instruction.'

Abbot (1999)

 

Education is compulsory despite there being no clear definition of what an education is.  At a local level, LEAs must determine this for themselves, leaving interpretation open to disparity between Local Authorities.  A family may be considered to be home-educating by one LEA, but not by another.

 

'The LEA will need to satisfy itself that a child is receiving suitable education at home.'

DFEE (1998a, point 3)

 

There is a further anomaly as the government, by inference, places compulsion upon learning, which is a human instinct.  This is peculiar because the government fails to clarify just what it is that they are making compulsory.  The UK Educational Reform Act (1988) stated that a school curriculum should be ‘broad and balanced', descriptions open to broad interpretation.  Furthermore, the Education Act 1996 requires that a child’s education is ‘suitable to his age, ability and aptitude’ but does not stipulate what it considers to be 'suitable'.  In an attempt to give some guidelines as to what an education should be, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 29,1 (1989)[6] states that an education should be directed to:

 

(a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child  (1989)

The document, 'Convention on the Rights of the Child: Appendix General Comment No. 1 The Aims of Education Article 29 (1) (2001)', elaborates further.

 

Article 26.2 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, offers some indication, if not clarification, of what an education should entail:

 

'Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.'

Article 26.2 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

With confusion over what constitutes an education, deciding what makes a 'home-educator' is complex.  After all, until their children begin school, most families are practising home-education and even after that date, children continue to learn outside of school hours, often under parental guidance; perhaps this is no more sophisticated than assisting with the family shopping but it is nevertheless, home-education.  If home-education includes all those children not registered with a school (eg. sick children, travellers, preschoolers, those in pupil referral units, exclusions) the numbers of children involved may be substantial (Rothermel 2000, calculated the figure to be as high as 560,000), but just how many of the children out-of-school, aged between five and sixteen-years might be considered as home-educated is debatable.  Many home-educators, for example would not consider travellers to number amongst their comrades; yet the DfEE note:

 

'Traveller children make up a significant group of those whose parents choose to educate them at home.'

DFEE (1998a, point 6)

 

Some home-educators dispute other's right to the title, 'home-educator', where tutors are involved: the use of tutors may vary from full-time, to the weekly hour's gym class.  If a family employ full-time tutors, are they home-educating?  Where the LEA pay the tuition for say, two hours a week (e.g. perhaps for a child with special needs), there are those home-educators who would dismiss such a family's claim to be 'real' home-educators.  A similar distinction might be drawn between those who home-educate by ideological choice and those who do it under extreme duress, e.g. as a result of many years of school related problems.

 

'The pressure schools are under to meet Government exam and discipline targets was underlined by the case of Firfield school […]. The fresh start school has admitted removing "five or six" persistent truants from its rolls by persuading their parents to educate them at home. '

Slater (1999)

Long term sick children are often cared for at home, attended by a visiting tutor (DfES 2001b).  Children excluded or expelled from school and pregnant or young mothers might be taught at home by a tutor employed by the LEA or may have education, in part, arranged at an LEA pupil referral unit (HMI, 1994).  Part-time or flexischoolers (Meighan 1988a), occasionally consider themselves home-educating, yet to their LEAs and the DfEE they are full-time school attendees[7].  For all these categories of children, there is perhaps inherently, an element of home-based learning involved.

 

Because of the diversity involved, defining what constitutes a 'home-education' is complex.  The support organisations for home-educators are generally inclusive, without rigid membership criteria, numbering among them some families who might not be home-educating in any established format.  The LEAs on the other hand, operate exclusive categorisation so that, for example, home-educating travellers are not dealt with by the same department that administers the home-education operations and similarly for children excluded from school or sick:

 

'For this group [travellers] specialist support in securing children's integration into schools and continuity of learning may be available through an LEA Traveller Education Service.'

DfEE (1998a, point 6)

 

The 20,00016,124 registered traveller children (as calculated by HMI Ofsted,1996)(OFSTED 1996) might be considered as legally flexischooling[8].  This is because Section 444(6) of the 1996 Education Act (HMI(OFSTED 1996) allows children whose families follow an itinerant lifestyle to attend school for just 200 half days per year.

year.

 

1.4                           The law concerning home-education

Further to the lack of direction given at governmental level as to how an education should be defined, the law clearly imposes the duty to ensure a child is being educated, whatever that may be, upon the parents.  Despite the DfEE statement that LEAs can define a suitable education[9], it would appear from the literature (Petrie 1992; Lowden 1993) that LEA powers to define what is appropriate, are confined to their schools. 

 

Decisions concerning how and where children are educated and of what that education should consist lie ultimately with parents, as detailed in Protocol 1,  Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1952), adopted through the Human Rights Act 1998 into UK law, 2^nd October 2000. 

 

'No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.'

Protocol 1,  Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1952)

 

However, S. 9 of The Education Act 1996 (England and Wales), reads:

 

'In exercising or performing all their respective powers and duties under the Education Acts, the Secretary of State, LEAs and the funding authorities shall have regard to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, so far as that is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.'

Section 9 of The Education Act 1996 (England and Wales)

 

Section 28 (1) of The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 reads similarly.

 

Section 28 (1) of The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 reads similarly.

 

This implies that parents' choice has priority only so far is it does not conflict with the public purse.  When the UK signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1952 the stipulation regarding unreasonable public expenditure was noted as a reservation and remains the case today (Council of Europe 2001).

 

Considering a further restriction on the extent of parents' wishes, Rothermel and Fiddy (2001) reported that whilst parents who home-educate their children do not need to follow the national curriculum, provide formal lessons or keep school hours, LEAs may nevertheless seek information from parents about the education they are providing to their children.  If such a request is ignored or the LEA believe that information provided indicates that the education is inadequate, the LEA may seek further information:

 

'If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise, they shall serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within a period specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education'.

Education Act 1996, s.437(1)

 

According to Rothermel and Fiddy (2001), in the case of Phillips v BrownDivisional Court (20 June 1980, Divisional Court, unreported), the LEA sought information from the parents concerning the child's home-education programme.  When the Browns informed the LEA that they were providing a suitable education, but did not submit any details, the LEA then served notice under s.437(2) Education Act 1996 requiring the parents to satisfy them that the child was receiving a suitable education.  Despite the parents' argument that the LEA could only serve a notice where something had come to their attention which led them to believe that the parents were failing to perform their duty to educate the child, the court held that the LEA request had been reasonable.  Thus, although there is no duty on the parent to respond to LEA demands, if they fail to do so, it would seem that the LEA is within their rights to issue a notice.

 

Moreover, the Care Standards Act 2000 amended the Children Act 1989 so that Ofsted would regulate provision for early years education (day care, crèches, out of school care and childminding)provision through an Early Years Directorate, effective from September 2001, thus bringing under national inspection the education of most pre-school and school children but not those who are home-educated.  Were such inspections to be made compulsory for home-educated children, questions might well be raised as to whether such diversity of provision involves 'unreasonable public expenditure'. By stating that the authorities should ‘have regard’ to the 'principle' of parents wishes, S. 9, (The Education Act 1996) ambiguously avoids making a commitment that the Authorities must adhere to them. This is not to suggest any government might wish to outlaw home-education but one might foresee a situation where it could happen inadvertently, as has occurred in some other countries (Petrie 2000).

 

1.5                           PREVALENCE of home-educators

As indicated above, (pages 14-15), establishingEstablishing the number of home-educators is difficult.  The DfES do not maintain records ofthose families known to LEAs in England and Wales.  Estimates relating to how many families home-educate within the UK have been portrayed alternativelyvariously as 10,000 families (Budge 1997, p. 11), 20,000 (TES 1997), 20,000 children and 20,000 families (Welsh 1997 p.5), 50,000 children (Meighan 1997) and 15,000 children (Taylor and Petrie, 2000).  These contrasting figures illustrate the confusion that abounds and are perhaps indicative of the guesswork used.  Nevertheless it is notable that growth from an estimated 10 known families home-educating in 1976 (Midgley 1996) to a possible 20,000 in 1997 (Welsh 1997 p.5), implies a two thousand-fold increase in home-educators over a 21 year span.  Calculations by this writer to some extent support an increase, albeit less sensational:  Petrie's (1992) work implies that in 1988 there were 20.39 children per LEA,  Lowden's (1993) research suggested 37.70 children per LEA and Bates' (1996) revealed 49.08 children per LEA.  This indicates a 140% growth in home-educators over the 8 years 1988 to 1996[10].

 

Where definitions and calculations are so fuzzy, counting home-educated children will always create problems. The most relevant numbers appear to be that in 1997 there were about 2,850,000[11] children under five years of age learning at home (i.e. not learning in a formal setting) and in 1997-98 there were up to 560,600 children between five and sixteen-years-old out-of-school (being 'educated', since it is compulsory), that is, at least 25.25% of UK children (DfEE 1999a)[12] apparentlyWhat can be suggested as a very rough estimate of the wider picture is that as many as 25% of the population's 0-16 year olds may be learning outside a formal educational environment.

environment.  This figure combines the Rothermel (2000) estimate of unregistered 5-16 year olds with the population's 'at home' under fives[13].

 

The disparity betweenDisparity between, and uncertainty over, the figures mentioned stems from the following: census information in this country asks about people but not about education.  It tells us for example, how many children there are, aged between 5 and 16 years old in the United Kingdom.  The DfES collects data on schools, permitting them to report on the number of 5-16 year olds at school in this country.  The difference between these figures represents, in only the loosest terms, children who may be outside any official counting mechanism.  Whilst some children can be accounted for, others cannot, at least not with accuracy.  The Office for National Statistics in Britain does not collate data on home-educated children.  Therefore, unless families come to the attention of their local authority, they are 'lost'.  Child benefit is paid out to children living in Britain, aged from 0 to 16 or 18[14] but, there are no routine checks on whether such children actually live in the country[15] and the information that the Child Benefit agency has on children is not studied in conjunction with census and DfEE data (discussionsdata. Discussions with DfEE officials have revealed this)/confirmed this).

 

Schoolchildren and their families participate, knowingly or otherwise, in numerous surveys and data gathering exercises.  The DfEE, for example, is continually collating, amongst other data, statistics on schools, teachers, pupils, examinations and social groupings of pupil families.  The University of Keele holds a database of 35,000 pupil survey responses to questions concerning their education.  Health checks take place on schoolchildren regularly, whilstbut home-educated children, once they are out of the system, are not involved in these automatic medical check ups; thus, medical data on children does not normally include the home-educated children.  The above, adds up to a system in the UK whereby monitoring of children is, debatably, far from adequate.

 

1.6                           local education authority perspectives

Petrie (1992) trackedinvestigated the relationship between home-educators and LEAs. She wanted to document the various LEA procedures and suggest guidelines for future LEA/home-educator interactions.  Petrie interviewed LEA officers to assess their personal experiences and also gathered questionnaire data from 83 UK LEAs (a response rate of 69%) with a view to ascertaining LEA practices and attitudes towards home-educating families in the UK.  She established that the improvements LEAs wanted were:

·        an increased awareness of home-education by their officials

·        the effective monitoring of education at home. 

 

Petrie (1992) found that in terms of evaluating a family’s educational situation, most LEA’s rated the happiness of the child as most important, followed by an estimation of the parent’s ability to teach, the maintenance of a record of current work and the parental attitude to the child’s integration with peers. Parental qualifications, social background, the child’s ability and current academic attainments were seen as less important.  Petrie (1992) found that generally speaking, LEA’s believed parents chose to home-educate because they believed that they could provide a better education for their children than a school could, or because the parents were dissatisfied with existing school provision; of the forty-seven LEAs replying to a question on this topic 38% believed that religious motives were often behind the decision to home-educate.  Whilst both religion and ideology were seen as strong motivators, child giftedness, demographic issues, psychological problems and special educational needs were seen as less decisive factors in families' home-educating.  Petrie (1992) concluded that amongst LEA staff, misconceptions about home-education stemmed from a lack of understanding rather than from a straightforward disregard for non-school alternatives in education.  However, there was little evidence to suggest that LEAs were implementing remedial policies.  Finally, Petrie argued that a clearer definition of an ‘efficient education’ should be formed and that the DfEE should ensure that LEA’s were better informed about home-education[16].

 

Bates (1996), an LEA employee, was commissioned to investigate the LEAs' role in home-education in order to identify good practice amongst the LEAs and produce good practice guidelines.  Using a questionnaire, he surveyed 108 English LEA’s (his return rate was 35%). Bates found LEA figuresBates' data showed to contain almost equal numbers of boys and girls.  Having proposed that parents would be more likely to homeschool their children only until eleven-years-old, he found 52% of the children in the sample to be over twelve-years-old.

 

All LEA’s whose catchment area included over one hundred home-educated children said that they divided their time between monitoring and advising home-educating families, whilst other LEAs with under a hundred home-educated children tended only to monitor home-education.  Home-education was considered ineffective by 38% of LEAs responding to a related question: Bates attributed these negative evaluations to a lack of understanding of home-educators' aims, by LEAs.  According to Bates, the LEAs who considered the home-education option as synonymous with parents renouncing their responsibility for ensuring their children’s attendance at school, either ignored home-educating families, pleaded lack of funds as a reason for not monitoring them or co-operated with families only where there was an intention to return the child to school: such authorities responded to home-educators by hindering them with bureaucratic procedures.  Bates considered that since metropolitan LEAs were unenthusiastic about home-education, this could be attributed to the smaller numbers of home-educating children within their boundaries than within the boundaries of the county authorities, who with greater numbers of home-educated children to deal with, had more experience with home-educators, leading them to intensify their understanding of home-educators' motivations and actions.  Bates discovered that LEAs varied considerably in their attitudes towards home-educators and that their policy, or absence of policy had been formulated according to criteria that varied between LEAs.

 

Promotion of good practice could be implemented, he concluded, by:

·        better communication;

·        home-educators receiving two visits from the LEAs:

-one by the educational welfare officer,

-and a second by an education advisor to assess the education received and given;

·        a request that families describe their educational aims prior to the LEA visit;

·        documentation provided by the LEA in plain English;

·        LEAs striving for good working relationships with home-education support organisations. 

 

Bates described families who did not follow an educational programme based around a pre-determined curriculum, as 'weak', further concluding that LEAs should ask families for this information.  However Bates omitted to consider, as Petrie (1992) had proposed, that it is just such demands that lead to conflict. 

 

 

1.7                           Summary

This chapter has briefly reviewed some of the difficulties associated with defining home-educators and calculating their numbers; however, it has been established that home-education is legal, subject to criteria specified by law (i.e. procedure for withdrawal from school), and LEA inspections of home-educating families are not compulsory.  Furthermore, home-educators in England and Wales need not inform anyone of their decision to home-educate, although in Scotland, parents must have permission from the education authority before they can withdraw their children from school.  Whilst the legislation uses some ambiguous wording, the large numbers of children outside school might contribute towards making any tightening up procedures difficult. 

 

1.8                           contribution of this thesis to the field

This thesis seeks to build upon what is known about home-education, and in doing so complements the work of UK home-education researchers such as, Thomas (1998), Meighan (1997), Lowden (1993), Petrie (1992), Webb (1990) and Blacker (1981).  The thesis examines home-education by employing a methodology that has not previously been incorporated into home-education research, that is, amixed methodology combining quantitativequestionnaire data from parents, with educational and psychosocial assessments of children.  These are supplemented with data from preliminary analyses of with ethnographic data. interviews with families. The aim is to provide a robust view of home-education today.

 

It was important to establish whether children learning at home were able to attain the academic standards of schoolchildren and explore how, in the absence of formal school structure they coped, academically, socially and psychologically.  In terms of reading and mathematics particularly, the thesis seeks to evaluate the importance of age-related expectations and the value of acquiring such skills in the context of home-education.  The value of testing beyond the school gate was also a source of investigation.  It was necessary to explore the psychological effect of home learning upon the children and their families, and important also, to establish what, if any, were the social consequences for home-educated children.

 

The thesis used home-education as a catalyst through which it might be possible to conceive of non-institutional methods of education in a commercially, industrially and technologically advanced society.  In effect, the home-education sample would be a control group, contrasting with the majority of children, educated at school.  Home-education remains the most accessible method of learning available in many families, communities and societies internationally, particularly for primary aged children.  Thus it was anticipated that this study would provide insights into whether home-based education was an acceptable, or even advantageous, addition to mainstream educational practice.  In summary, the value of this thesis is not only in the light that it casts upon children educated at home, but also in its relevance to the broader applications of learning.

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction Endnotes