When we are asked about where our children go to school and we say that they are educated at home it is interesting for me to notice that 99% of responses, or concerns about that choice, relate to ‘socialisation’. I don’t like the word and it reminds me of the other word that comes to my mind with regard to school – institutionalisation. Arguably, children who go to school are not institutionalised. Arguably, they are not socialised either.
My own concerns about our decision to home educate, in those moments I feel the weighty responsibility of being in charge of the children’s learning, are never about socialisation.
What does socialisation mean?
Here are some definitions:
1. the adoption of the behavior patterns of the surrounding culture; "the socialization of children to the norms of their culture" (thefreedictionary.com)
2. The process whereby a child learns to get along with and to behave similarly to other people in the group, largely through imitation as well as group pressure. (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 6th edition)
3. To "socialise" may also mean simply to associate or mingle with people socially. (extract from Wikipedia article)
4. 1. to behave in a friendly and sociable manner 2. to prepare for a life in society 3. to alter or create so as to be in accordance with socialist principles (Collins Concise English Dictionary)
5. socialize verb (TRAIN) (UK usually socialise) “ to train people or animals to behave in a way that others in the group think is suitable” (Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary dictionary.cambridge.org)
When most people ask, either critically or with an open mind, about the socialisation aspect of school I suspect most of them are using the term to refer to the third definition above. I doubt most people are sending their children to school for the purpose of socialisation whereby children are all reduced to the ‘norm’ of their culture and that by imitation and group pressure, they will be trained to behave and think in a way which has been decided by anonymous ‘others’?
There are many things, one would hope, our children will not come to take on themselves from society in general, therefore it is an interesting thought when we consider that they are to be socialised and reduced to the behaviour of the majority. We mostly bemoan behaviours, words and attitudes that ‘come home from school’ and lament the fact we cannot do anything about it because it is where they spend most of their time.
I am beginning to think just as there are so many views and interpretations of the word ‘socialisation’ that it is rendered virtually useless in any argument about education. We need an agreed definition of something before we can debate its existence or validity.
So first – the association or mingling with people socially. This does not say “to associate or mingle with people of exactly the same age socially”. When was the last time you were in a room with 30 or 32 people exactly the same age as you? Least of all spending all day every day with them save for weekends and a few left over hours each day. The last time most people found themselves in that situation was at school at the age of 16. Therefore ‘socialisation’ at school will not prepare for a life in Society (whatever society itself actually is – I could go on defining and redefining terms all day). Let’s just think about preparing a child for their life ahead.
So this (the idea of spending a number of years specifically grouped and educated according to age, and sometimes ability) does not appear to be a valuable lesson / experience for the rest of our lives: university, the workplace –where all of a sudden we have a rude awakening and realise that everyone is not our age, does not have the same values and ideas as us (so clearly the adoption of behaviour patterns of surrounding culture, socialising children to the norms of their culture (see above definitions) is either not what is intended by educating children all of the same age together, or it fails miserably).
I was shocked at university to find that there were mature students on my degree course. In fact most of the 18-newly-left-home-year-olds were quite snooty about their presence on the course – and not only that, the lecturers actually seemed to like them and value their opinions…
Then it came to the job hunt. All of a sudden it became apparent that these mature students who had experienced life, done other things before their degree – were more desirable than the graduates who had exactly the same vocational qualification but who had proceeded along the educational conveyor belt without hopping off and taking a tangent in the meantime. Why was this ‘life experience’ more important than having faithfully progressed through educational institutions without ‘wasting any time’ on jobs that would not necessarily further a career, some in an entirely different field? At the point of leaving full time education (and many leave it at different points) each individual student finds their own way, making different choices, having a broad depth of experiences.
So if socialisation does not mean mingling with people of the same age socially (it can be seen how this is poor preparation for later life, and won’t actually get anyone a foot in the job market) why do we hold that perceived benefit of school in such high esteem?
In the alternative – a child educated at home is likely to have parents who want to not only educate their child but who will also want to assist the child in making meaningful friendships with people of all ages, and have the ability to interact in situations with people who are different from them in many ways (by which I mean ‘interact’ - deal with, not necessarily ‘get along with’ but learn how to manage those interactions in a positive way). So experiences are found, by joining groups, making family friendships where a number of siblings will meet a number of similar or different aged siblings for play and / or educational activities – and social skills continue to develop.
One would hope that parents have not left the ‘teaching of social skills’ to schools by the time a child is 5. In reality a young baby begins social interaction at a very early age – far before what we recognise as ‘language’ emerges. Children imitate their parents socially too – so we need to appreciate that we are mirrors for them – they watch, learn, and emulate how we interact with others – in social situations, at the shops, in the car, everywhere they go with us. Home educating continues social and interpersonal development from that point on. We still meet friends, we still go shopping, and we have the freedom to introduce our children to the real world at an early age where they can watch and learn how we interact with it and the others around us.
Yes – children need to play. They need to get along with others. But those people do not need to be all the same age as them, and they do not need to be in a room full of 30 of them, where the teaching methods to a lesser or greater degree- depending on the class, and depending on the ability of the teacher – have to be aimed at the ‘norm’ within the group – the weaker ones have to keep up and the more able have to tarry. (I can remember being ‘held back’ in reading schemes and phonics work because I was not in the right ‘year group’ for the next colour or level. I can also remember helping the older child next to me do her work). Individual needs outside the norm of the group have to be met by extra teachers and helpers – and surprisingly, parents are quite often considered well educated enough despite not being teachers – to be the extra pairs of hands that teachers cannot do without.
In the olden days (and in some rare places still!) children in village schools may have been in a class made up of children of all different ages – taught in one room, all together, by one teacher. Those children were not sent there to learn to get along with a group of children all exactly their own age – they were sent there for their education. This also discounts the idea that a differently aged group of children cannot be taught by one person. Even a large family of 7 children would still have a better teacher:pupil ratio than the village school classroom. There are greater advantages for all involved for say a family of 7 children ranging in age to be taking turns teaching the younger ones, taught together for certain activities, time spent one or two on one with the parent-teacher.
So why is the main criticism of home educating, the lack of socialisation, or the perceived ‘need’ for children to be kept in a group of same age children?
I actually feel that some lessons in life are better learned at home – sibling relationships are certainly a learning environment in terms of sharing, sympathy, empathy, self-control, friendship making. Perhaps adults who have grown up with dysfunctional sibling and family relationships may not have done so if they had spent more time together learning to get along at home? At school and in society we are taught to stay away from people with whom we don’t get along. We can give up and choose someone else from the many people we have contact with. At home we find that we cannot choose our family – learning to get on with them is essential for later life but this conflicts with the message that is given to us outside the home (or advice from those within the family on how to cope with situations outside the family, difficulties at school etc). The trouble is, that advice comes home to roost in many cases. The duality is lost on many, and has only just dawned on me.
So yes, whilst children need experiences and friendships outside the family / outside home:
- it is not essential (nor desirable) that all of these friendships and experiences take place within one arbitrarily restricted age group – and need not be an environment in which the primary goal is an educational outcome – the time for making meaningful contact is limited in such a place in any event
- children need to be able to get along with their family and to persist and work at sometimes potentially difficult friendships and relationships – we need to teach them and demonstrate perseverance within safe parameters – compared with, for example, sticking at something which is potentially dangerous physically and psychologically – for example persecution and bullying in the classroom…
- if our reason for sending children to school is because they don’t have any friends their own age outside school – maybe that is something we have to look at as parents – who are our friends? –are we modelling good friendships, are we prepared to seek out and meet new people in order to give our children extra experience in this area?
- With the plethora of outside school activities and clubs available there are many opportunities for children to interact with others with a little more in common than just their age – it might be a common interest such as drama, art, music, or it might be sharing the same faith.
- It is far more likely that children not ‘in school’ will have the time and energy to engage with others in those interest groups from an earlier age and more successfully – no time restrictions based on the fact it will have a knock on effect for school the next day, activities can take place within school hours for those with a shared interest, and homework, family time and mealtimes are not compromised.
Like-minded home school families? Is that also a myth?! Yes, possibly! I have met so many homeschooled families, and have rarely come across a family with exactly the same views and ‘philosophy’ (of life, or education) as ourselves. They may be home educating for the same primary reason, but may be using completely different materials and approaches as us. Or it may be the other way around. Discipline also differs greatly.
I have met families whose children were a perfect match in playdate and friendship for ours. I have met families whose children were completely different from ours. Behaviour varies greatly. So our children are still exposed to other children in a group setting where they have to find a place within the group, and learn to deal with it. They learn self-control in situations where other children are doing something that our children know is not acceptable to us. I saw an amazing example of that recently. Matthew sees that at scouts every week. But we are in what we consider to be the privileged position of being able to witness, praise and watch over these interactions. We can use the ‘teachable moments’ that arise and we can reinforce the positives that we see.
I would say it’s virtually impossible to keep our children in an environment where everyone has the same views as us, same outlook on life, and where all the parents have the same goal for their children. Firstly – I do not want to, and secondly if I did want to I don’t think I could. What we can do is experience and learn together, and our reference point for all of our experiences is our family values and belief system. Neither the institution which is school, nor any restrictions on educating at home can prevent us from doing that – interpreting our experiences together through our own possibly unique lens – and neither should they.
The real question is education – and that is a wholly different matter. For now though, as a final thought here – whatever happens to be the outcome of our children’s education:
- we can either be ‘responsible for it’ – and be proud of their achievements and feel we have had a sizeable part to play in it
- or we can be ‘responsible for it’ and spend an unquantifiable time trying to make good the gaps / mistakes that come to light; or
- we could quite forseeably spend an inordinate amount of time making good others’ mistakes, gaps in experience, negative experiences with long lasting effects…while those others who are responsible for those mistakes and experiences will be long gone, not accountable for their mistakes and judgements, wholly likely not even aware of the ‘fruit’ of their labour (and certainly not caring about it in the same way that we do as parents – that would be impossible).
So maybe the sum total of that final thought is accountability. We are and feel constantly accountable, and that accountability will never end. We have chosen to be accountable to our children (et al) for what they learn and don’t learn – rather than being accountable to our children for experiences (learning and otherwise) about which we have very little information and over which we have even less control.
I am sure that an eloquent and reasoned argument could be made to come to the opposite point of view as this, although I have never heard one past the first mention of the word socialisation, as though that very word were a case in point. I am sure that many parents have good reasons for sending children to school. I am also of the view that it is probably not right for everyone. Hopefully, though, I have shown a little as to why I think that the mere use of the word ‘socialisation’ is neither the primary reason nor even a compelling reason to send children to school outside the home. In the same way, it is not on its own a valid (and usually not a considered) criticism of the decision not to.
Posts
