We have come up with some good inventions before but this is the first time we thought we could patent our invention. We have learnt a lot in the Body Forward season about materials science, electronics and the warmth and helpfulness of the engineering community. We are grateful to the FLL Body Forward challenge for starting a process which has resulted in the design of Gripassist, a device which will make a difference to millions of lives.

Stop Worrying!

I know it's easier to say it than do it, but don’t worry! You've made a decision which is...

• Natural (in the eyes of those who think that forcing children to go to school and/or study subjects against their will is wrong).
• Brave (in the eyes of those who would like to do it but haven't got the courage or support to do so).
• Negligent (in the eyes of those who think that children can only get an education at school).
• Ill-advised (in the eyes of the government, LEAs and most teachers).
• Mad (in the eyes of those parents who can't wait to "get the children out from under their feet").
• Wonderful (in the eyes of all those who know it works and/or have been through it themselves).
• Understandable (in the eyes of those who realise that the current institutionalised school system is falling apart, doesn't work and has to be changed drastically).

So what are you worried about when it comes to home-educating your children?

• That they will not study hard/long enough?
• That they will not cover the subjects you think they should?
• That your child will lounge around in bed all day or watch TV for hours?
• They will have too much freedom in their lives?
• They are not going to get enough qualifications?
• They won't get the chance to go to college or university?
• They will have problems finding a 'good job' when they're older?
• They won't get the education that you never had (or wasted) the chance to get?
• They won't get-on socially in the 'big-wide-world’ when they are adults?

I will attempt to address some of these doubts, and hopefully allay some of those fears, apprehensions and reservations.

"How will my child pass exams if they don't go to school?"

Let's take one step back and consider why this question is being asked in the first place. What are exams, what are they for, and most importantly, what use do they have?

Exams show that someone had enough knowledge of a particular subject on a particular day to satisfy an examiner. Maybe the student was lucky and the right questions came up. Any other day they could easily have failed. Does that prove that the student knew their subject? Of course it didn't. Say the student has a photographic memory, or is good at cramming three days beforehand and forgets most of what they've learned within a few weeks (like most of us would). Do they really know the subject? No. What about the student who really knows their subject but has exam nerves, was ill on the day, or concentrated on the wrong areas? They will be deemed failures when they are obviously not. So what do exams prove? Nothing. They are a convenient and divisive way of providing 'success' statistics for government, local education authorities, OFSTED, schools, teachers, but, least of all, the student. Their main aim is to justify the (lack of) progress of the mainstream education system in this country.

So why are we 'measuring' children at all in this way? What gives adults the right to put children through such an ordeal, usually against their will?

If someone (child or adult) wishes to be tested, that’s fine, and even then it would only be if they were confident of passing, or to genuinely find out what they don't know about a subject. Unfortunately for most children in this country, they have to take exams at a fixed time in their life, whether they are ready or not, and are branded as failures or ‘low-achievers’ if they don't reach a certain standard in an exam that they hadn't themselves chosen to sit in the first place! It may sound strong, but in other aspects of life this could be seen as an abuse of human rights! It wouldn't be tolerated by adults, so why inflict it on children? How would we feel if we were expected to have a detailed knowledge of ten subjects and be tested on all of them within a three-week period (in June, of all the months to be stuck inside an examination room!).

You may be now be thinking "OK, so if exams aren't the answer, how do you measure a child's knowledge of a particular subject?". Why is this measurement necessary at all? To justify the positions of those employed within the education system?

"But surely they need exam passes if they are going to do well in life?"

Most adults claim that exam results are the passport to a successful life. As long as our society places more importance on GCSE and A-level passes than real skills which are of use in the real world, that will remain the case, but look at the harm this attitude doing to our young people meanwhile, and the pressure they are being subject to. What good is it doing? The system is geared towards testing, more testing, exams and more exams. Crazy!

It's SKILLS that make the world go round, not pieces of paper saying you have 4 GCSEs at grade C. There are (and probably always will be) potential employers and places of further-education which insist on paper qualifications, but the balance is changing and in many places skills and experiences are now being recognized just as much as exam passes.

If a child of (eg.) 13 is more interested in motors and engines than any lesson they are 'fed' at school, why can't it be arranged so that (s)he pursues that interest in a garage as an apprentice mechanic? They wouldn't 'get in the way' (a horrible phrase used by adults who don't enjoy the company of young people), they could just observe, or get some practical experience stripping-down a disused engine, and even get paid if they were productive towards the business.

If a child really loves art or music they could be out in the real-world learning about script-writing, back-stage electronics or how to make guitars. It's never too young to start if the child is interested, but can they do it within the current schooling system and its extremely narrow (and boring) National Curriculum?

Either way, the experience gained is far more valuable than any exam certificate.

Too little thought is given to the question "Are we preparing our children to be motivated, responsible, happy and looking forward to a life which they are in control of, and not ending up in a low-paid, dead-end job which they hate, but are doing just to 'pay the bills'?". Our children deserve better than that. It may have been more the case in the past that exam passes led to a higher probability of obtaining a 'better job' (whatever that means), but thankfully that attitude is changing now, albeit slowly. Training staff costs money, so once someone has even the most basic of skills that can be built upon, paper qualifications soon become irrelevant.

If you were a potential employer, who would you chose? The applicant with 5 GCSEs and an A level, or the applicant who has done rock-climbing, has taught themselves to speak Spanish, belongs to the local chess club, knows a bit about car mechanics and designs websites for hobby and profit?

If children want to take exams (without coercion from adults - we do NOT know better) in the subjects that THEY are interested in, let them do it in their own time, when they are ready. Look at the number of people choosing to go to evening-classes, college or university later in life. They have a keen attitude towards studying because it is their choice, and children should not be treated any differently. Why the hurry to get so many subjects crammed-in before they are 17? Most of them still have 80% of their lives still to go!

Many adults acknowledge they learned more about 'real-life' in the five years since leaving school than the 12-14 years they spent at school! It is currently estimated that around 20% of school-leavers at 16 do not have a 'basic grasp of the fundamentals of the English language and mathematics which would be reasonably expected of a person of that age'. Whatever these standards are (and I personally believe there should not be any dividing-line in this case - each child is unique) is irrelevant, but if a child has been subject to 15,000 hours of schooling, what has been going on during that time? The school has failed in its legal duty to provide an education for each child in accordance with their age, aptitude and ability. Anyone fancy suing them?

"How do I know it will be worthwhile? What advantages will it give them in their future life?"

Above all, you are giving your children the opportunity to be themselves, make decisions for themselves, learn for themselves, make mistakes for themselves. If an autonomous approach has been followed, and with supporting adults to help make their wishes happen, and to fall-back upon if things go wrong, children who haven't been through the school 'conveyor belt' (and hence been moulded as products rather than individuals) will flourish accordingly.

If you are thinking of future education or employment prospects, educational institutes and employers are usually looking for interesting people who they think can complete the course or do the job, not robotic pupils who have been 'fed' all the knowledge they have, forced to learn it parrot-fashion and regurgitate it for an exam, then forget it all.

Because of the more independent and customised type of education that home-educated children have had, they are often more resourceful and entrepreneurial than their school counterparts. Useful fact - the 50 top earners in the UK today have very few formal qualifications between them (Alan Sugar started off with a market stall, Richard Branson started with a van delivering records). They got out there and did what they wanted to do, despite their lack of qualifications.

Non-schooled children often have a confidence and different outlook on life which their schooled counterparts don't have. This partly results from the fact that they have not been continuously tested to satisfy someone-else's agenda, not constantly measured against others, not regarded as backward or below-average in any way, been encouraged to follow their interests and have, on the whole, been treated respectfully as regards what they do and don’t want to do in life. They see their future as more under their own control than predetermined by others. Life is seen as something to look forward to - not a chore.

Because they haven't been subject to the socialisation restrictions that schoolchildren experience (see elsewhere in this article), and if they have been brought-up in a loving and respectful environment in which they are not 'shouted-down' and suppressed by adults, they are not so ‘scared’ of authority and find it easier to relate to all people, not just those of their own age.

"But if my child is left to determine their own education and timetable, they wouldn't be able to cope. They would sleep 'til midday! And when they did get up, they'd be so lazy. They would play computer games all day!"

Laziness is a term often used to describe the fact that the recipient is not doing what someone thinks they should be doing. Doing 'nothing-in-particular' is an important part of life. Playing games can be beneficial (I have found if you let children regulate themselves, they usually don't spend excessive hours in front of a screen). Sleep is especially important - medical experts suggest most teenagers don't get enough! We can't spend all of our waking hours concentrating, learning, busy, active, etc..

So home-educated children may not be up at 7.30am, so what? They would probably go to bed later as well, so they wouldn’t be deprived of sleep. More importantly, they would be waking when their body was ready, not when an alarm clock or shouting parent breaks their peaceful sleep 5 days a week. It's unnatural and we have no right to force this regime on our children when it is not necessary. Our children don't tell us when to get up or when to go to bed, so what gives us the right to tell them? Allowing them to regulate their own body-clock is just one of the many ways in which they can take control over their life.

Most adults know how wonderful it is to have a lie-in at the weekends, that's probably because we've pushed our bodies so much during the week. We would function a lot better if we listened to our bodies more.

"But if they don't get up early, how are they going to cope with a job?"

This shows a 'stuck in the past' mentality, where childhood is controlled by adults and geared towards the end goal of 'getting a job'. Besides, we are moving ever-closer towards a 24-hour society, so having to 'get up early' to go to work is becoming less relevant. Sure we all need money, and for most of us this means working for it, but is it right to pressurize our children further by placing yet more expectation upon them? They are not children for long, so why spoil their childhood with the "If you don't study hard, you’ll end up on the dole queue." threat?.

If our children have vocations in life, following their own interests via their own motivation will far more likely lead them there than studying subjects they have no interest in because someone thinks that's where the employment prospects are. If they can earn money from something they are interested in, that’s a welcome bonus. 'Getting a good job' should not be the be-all and end-all of life. There is probably not enough conventional employment to go around anyway, so an increasing number of us will have to look around for alternative ways of making a living.

"But left to themselves they would have no structure to their lives. They wouldn't learn anything!"

Because they haven't been restricted by the numerous constraints that school imposes, non-schooled children have a different, often much more positive outlook on life, and are motivated by themselves to take an interest in subjects, activities, etc. to a level which suits themselves, and, because of the time available, often to a higher level than they could ever achieve at school.

Children who have the freedom to set their own agenda and timetable of life are far more likely to do what they think is interesting and relevant to their lives. They often have a different concept of what education is and do not see it simply as knowledge that is 'spoon-fed' between the hours of 9am to 3.30pm. It is absorbed by living and experiencing as well as via studying. They have the opportunity of looking-forward to all 7 days of the week, not just weekends and holidays.

"What about socialisation? How will my child learn to mix with others if they are at home all day?"

Another myth to dispel. Home-educated children are rarely at home all day everyday. Parents who have taken the decision to home-educate are usually responsible enough to realise that mixing with others is an important part of a child's development.

Home-educated children have the opportunity of mixing with people of all ages all the time, as opposed to the extremely unnatural environment of spending 6 hours a day with around 30 people of their own age, most of whom they would choose not to be with. Where in the 'real world' does this happen? Because of this age division someone who may only be a month older may be perceived as being so much larger, older, cleverer, etc., all because they have been graded as a year older. In school, children rarely have the opportunity to mix with someone more than a year older or younger than themselves. Home-educated children are not subjected to this unfair segregation, and generally have fewer problems dealing with people of different ages and a wide range of social situations.

The school playground and classroom culture is not an ideal environment for making meaningful friendships. What with the taunting, bullying, gang culture, etc. that goes on in schools (from adults as well as children), we can do without most of the socialisation that goes on there.

It is also important to remember that children must have the option NOT to socialise if that is their wish. We all sometimes find ourselves in social situations in which we'd rather not be. Children must have the freedom to withdraw from such situations if they feel uncomfortable. It's analogous to forcing someone to eat something they don't want to, or study something they don't want to, or being forced into saying “Thanks for the wonderful present” when it was awful. It is wrong and disrespectful.

Every child is a genius!

This doesn't really come under the heading of a reservation that the potential home-educator may concerned about, but I think it is very important to reassure parents that their children are very special in many ways, and that by taking them out of school (or not sending them in the first place) they are giving their children a much greater opportunity to flourish in whatever area(s) of life they choose.

I believe that every child has the capability of excelling in one or more aspects of life (social, academic, commercial, sport, entertainment, etc.) to a standard which most of us would regard as outstanding or exceptional. Most of us don't attain this, even if we would like to, and often this is due to the way we were treated at school and by our parents. Due to the way they were brought-up, some parents don't have the confidence in their children to believe that they are anything other than 'ordinary', and are destined to be 'nothing special' in life. And so the negative cycle goes on. Thankfully there are also many parents who are determined to ensure that their children do not have the restrictions that they themselves had, and so the cycle is broken and (hopefully) we move towards a better society for all of us.

If a child is good at sport but hates dancing, or loves computers but not maths, music but not art, etc., let them follow what they enjoy to a level they are comfortable with. Pushing and challenging themselves is far more productive than being coerced by well-meaning parents or teachers who think it would be 'for their own good'.

We should help the child who is mad about machines and appears to be interested in nothing else by going to the local second-hand shop, getting an old radio, dismantling it and trying to rebuild it. It doesn’t matter what the outcome is, just consider all the skills that may have been picked-up during the process! Maths, physics, reading (instructions and manuals), dealing with people (the local electrical retailer for advice, spare parts shops), electronics, learning to use tools, gaining the confidence that comes with the satisfaction one achieves by building something that (hopefully) works and is valued by others, and (eventually) getting rewarded by payment for something that they enjoy doing.

Similarly, a child's love of music could lead them to instrument making (art, craft, design, maths), playing (study, memorising, reading), performing (socialisation), recording, etc..

Any child's loves, however narrow they might seem at first, will usually lead to other skills which could be useful in later life (and if they aren’t, so what?). Whatever they decide to do (with support and praise from us) I'm sure that they will eventually get the balance of skills which is right for their lives. The most important thing we as adults can do is to allow them to follow their chosen path.

"If schools are so bad, surely they would have been abolished years ago!"

Most schools today are still loosely based on the way they were in the Victorian times, when the opportunity to learn to read, write, etc. was first made available to all children, not just those from wealthy families. Unless you knew someone particularly knowledgeable in a certain subject, teachers and books were the only way children could learn about life beyond their own family and locality. Today things are totally different. Knowledge can be obtained from so many sources (books, newspapers, radio, television, libraries, internet, etc.) that if one wanted to learn about anything, school is probably the last place one would think of! Teachers are no longer the 'font of all knowledge' that they were regarded as. Their job now is to control a group of children of differing abilities and interests for around 50 minutes, before passing them onto another teacher to do the same, and so on until the school day comes to an end. If some knowledge is absorbed by the children during that time, that will be a bonus. It is a glorified child-minding service. The vast majority of learning takes place outside of the classroom. Education and knowledge is obtained by attending the longest lesson of all. It’s called living.

School fails most children most of the time. They cannot cater for anyone but the 'average' child, who of course does not exist, because all children are unique. In its current structured, institutionalised and inflexible format schools cannot cope with their individual requirements, interests and abilities. Those with more ability and/or interest in a particular subject are held back by others in the class. Those who find the subject difficult, but are still interested, may require more individual help, which they can't get. Those who are not at all interested in the subject may disrupt the others, and shouldn't be there in the first place. No-one wins.

Children should not be forced or coerced into attending lessons of subjects they are not interested in - their time would be far better spent doing something they were interested in.

I am not suggesting that we abolish schools altogether. There are many children who have such a poor home life (not necessarily financially, but from the point of view of love, respect, stimulation, etc.) that for them to spend a few hours a day away from that environment would probably be beneficial.

I am not suggesting that we knock all schools to the ground. Keep the buildings, open them up to children and adults of all ages, change the name from school to resource or community centre, keep the resources they have, especially those not found in the average home (sports, science, music, art, etc. equipment), change the staff title from teacher to assistant or facilitator, and, above all, let the children take what they want, when they want, from what is on offer. Don't have compulsory attendance or exams, don't have narrow, prescriptive, uninteresting curricula. In other words, give the children a REAL CHOICE. If a child wants to do carpentry all day, why shouldn't they? If they just want to go there to meet with their friends - why not? By taking control of their own lives, I'm sure that far more children would enjoy going, and it would not be seen as the 'prison' it has become for so many.

"But isn't home-education a huge risk?"

It is only a risk in the same way that any big life decision is a risk. Think how much more you risk to your child’s emotional health by placing them in an environment which does not respect their individual needs and stifles their learning abilities and talents. Most parents take great care over selecting child-minders, baby-sitters, nannies, etc., but think nothing of placing their child into the hands of strangers for 200 days a year for 12 years in the hope that they may get an education? And if it goes wrong, they blame the schools and the teachers that they selected and approved of in the first place!

"If home-education is as good as you make out, how come more people aren't doing it?"

Why isn't it the norm? I think the main reason is ignorance. The vast majority of parents in this country still do not know that it is legal not to send your children to school, despite the law "Children must be educated, in school or otherwise" having been around since 1944. Even before this, families have been home-educating their children since the beginning of time. If more parents knew about it, I'm sure that more would take-up the option, the word of its success would spread and eventually there would a national acceptance of home-education as a common alternative to school. It may then even attract funding from the government (hopefully with no strings attached) who, along with Local Education Authorities and the schools themselves, currently ignore it.

It's strange - we have a state education system in this country that so many people regard as failing, yet there is one obvious solution staring the authorities in the face - the promotion of home-education as a viable, valid, and successful alternative! But that would mean admitting failure, which would be very embarrassing considering the promises made by politicians and the huge amount of money being pumped into the system. For every home-educated children at present (in 2001), the government is saving about £2,400 per child per year. That's a lot of money that could be re-distributed to home-educators in the form of tax rebates or resources which we currently have to pay for ourselves!

Even if parents do know that education doesn't have to take place at school, here are a few reasons why they don't do it...

Even if one or both parents are in favour of home-education, lack of support (even hostility) from other family members and friends prevent them from taking it further.

• Economics dictates that both parents may have to work, and childcare may not be available or too expensive.
• They don't know of any home-educating 'success-stories', so they have no idea whether it works or not.
• They are not too happy about the idea of their children being around them for more hours of the day than they already are!
• They don't want to be seen as 'odd'. There is a myth that because home-educators are different from the mainstream in one aspect of their lives (ie. education), then they must be weird, wealthy, and teachers themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. They span the entire range of backgrounds; financial, political, racial, religious, geographical, educational, and so on. They are normal people from all walks of life, united by the fact that school is not the best option for their children.
• The "School didn't do me any harm. If was good enough for me, it's good enough for them" attitude.

"Who does this person think he is? Surely I, as a parent, know what’s best for my child. What does he know?"

I can hear many readers (if they get this far) saying (maybe shouting) "What an opinionated bigot! Who does this person think they are? I have children in school and they seem perfectly happy. What does (s)he know about my children and their lives?" Well, if it is totally the child’s choice (non-forced or coerced) to be in school, good luck to you/them and I hope they really are as content as you make out, but if you have sent your child to school, it implies that it is not the child’s decision, so how do you know (s)he is really happy?

What do I know about school? I have lived it, I see it, I read about it, I listen to other parents and children and about their problems with the system. I have enough experience and knowledge of home-education to confidently stand by my opinions in this article.

I appreciate that there are differences between state, private and so-called 'free' schools, and that many of my statements are generalisations which (by definition) will not apply to every school, adult, parent or child, but I stand by them in that they apply to the majority. It is the so-called 'normal' society that I would love to see changed and hopefully we are sowing the seeds of change.

Of course there are well-balanced and happy children who have been through the schooling system, and 'come out the other end' to lead contented lives, but that does not detract from the fact that I believe that more children should (and could) be given the choice as to how their futures are determined. I don't just mean a nod to choice in the form of selecting 4 out of 10 GCSE subjects, I mean the true choice of whether they want to study any subjects at all, whether they go to any place of work or study, whether they go to bed (or wake up) early or late. Those are true choices in life.

I suspect many people reading this article will think (and the people that asked me the questions at the beginning of this article have said) "This is all fine in theory, but I bet it doesn't work in practice." Please believe me - it does. If only more parents would give it a chance.

I don't want to appear patronising, nor force my opinions down other peoples' throats (that usually has the opposite effect of the aim one is trying to achieve), but if this article makes people think a little more about their children and their future and happiness, it will have served its purpose.

Within the confines that life imposes (time, money, etc.) I try to give my children as much freedom and choice as possible. My children (2 boys, 10 and 15, never been to school) often tell me when they think I'm wrong and I sometimes think "If they have the confidence to disagree so forcefully when they believe that something is so wrong, then I must have done something right." Life is far from perfect, I make mistakes, I know I can do better, and I'm trying.

Conclusion

Take the plunge! Do it! Thousands have done so successfully. I've yet to meet any ex-school family who said that moving to home-education was the wrong decision. There cannot be failures, since there is nothing to fail. The best you can do for your children is to help them to get what they want from life and get where they want to go. Remember, they are real people with real ideas, real aspirations and real experiences. Just because they haven't got the same 'experience of life' (whatever that means) that adults claim to have, their views and opinions are just as valid and adults have no right to trample all over those decisions just because they are adults. Older does not mean wiser - look at all the problems in your street, locality, country and the world. How many of them are caused by children?

Wherever they are going in life, let's help them on their way, not get in their way. We need to let them go, observe, listen, help and guide when asked. The future of childrens’ happiness, self-confidence and life-fulfilment is in their hands, but only if we, the parents, trust it to happen.

Thanks for listening,


© Alan Harris-Reid, January 2002

This article by Barry Durdant-Hollamby appeared in the April 2004 EO Newsletter

I'll never forget the night in the Spring of 2001, that my wife Winnie and I sat down to talk about home education for the first time. There I was, father of two girls Anna and Sophie (now 14 and 11 respectively), already beginning to wonder how to find the time to balance my growing business in personal development with my desire to be an active and involved father and partner. With a new book about men nearing publication and a growing list of clients and talks, I started off that conversation feeling sure that there was no way I could give even more time to my girls. After all, I worked from home, they were attending a Steiner school which was just five minutes walk, we spent hours together every day - why risk creating greater pressure?

The truth was that cracks were beginning to appear in the walls of their 'education'. Whilst it all looked superficially lovely, and there was certainly much more of a 'holistic' approach to their education than we had experienced in conventional schools, warning bells were sounding. For five years the girls had been very happy. We had adopted a policy of giving them freedom of choice as to whether they went to school or not. Interestingly they were unusual among their peers in hardly ever missing a day. However, when we started to hear comments such as 'I hate...various subjects' and even more worryingly 'I'm no good at...' or worst of all 'It was so boring because the teacher spent most of the lesson trying to control the class...' we both knew that it was time to listen more closely to what our girls were really saying.

Quite simply, our eldest (then 11) was asking if we could try home education - which was how we came to be having that conversation that night. As we talked, we started to realise that core values such as honesty, integrity, happiness, self-respect, trust and self-worth, were becoming of prime importance to us in our lives but were seemingly of decreasing importance in the school environment in comparison to the learning of more abstract and academically oriented subjects. Working as someone who helps adults to create greater present-moment awareness and 'uncreate' the negative conditioning of childhood, I now understand these core values to be a necessary part of any education. A happy, balanced individual is by definition 'rich' in life, regardless of wealth, status or 'education'. It is not what someone does that is important. It is who someone is - their sense of self. And Anna and Sophie's sense of self was beginning to be weakened in their school environment by the expectations and projections of teachers and by pressure from their peers to conform in ways that did not reflect their true selves.

Throughout this discussion, it became clearer to both of us that if we were really going to 'walk our talk' we needed to offer the girls the freedom to home-school (whatever that meant). I needed to trust that the development of my 'business' would fit in around my helping to meet the family's needs as opposed to the family's needs fitting in around my business. For me this meant a quantum shift in my life. I'm sure that many men and women in our work/money oriented society would understand that this is a scary step to take.

But I couldn't stop myself from becoming increasingly excited about what home-educating might mean to us as a family and at 1.30 am, by which time we had of course both become experts on the subject, we were all ready to go and wake the children and tell them they couldn't go back to school even if they wanted to! (Fortunately we slept on that one and decided just to 'sit' with the whole idea for a few days while the implications sank in.)

Our enthusiasm didn't wane, in spite of my uncertainty as to how this would fit in with life. We discussed the option with the girls and received two very different responses. Anna, our eldest, was very excited; Sophie however was initially horrified at the thought of being at home and leaving her friends but at the same time didn't like the idea of remaining at school without her older sister. We told her that no decision needed to be made immediately and that she would not be made to do anything she didn't want to. This reassured her. She returned to school and saw it with new eyes - observing more things that she was not happy about (with no influence from us - we truly wanted them to make whatever decision felt best to both of them and have tried to act unconditionally throughout).

By the end of the summer term Sophie had moved her position entirely and was now happy to give home-schooling 'a go'. We took them out of school provisionally for a year and held our breath...

Two and a half years later they're still out of school. Two and a half years later and I find myself scratching my head because somehow I seem to have just as much time as I ever had - in fact I possibly have more time now. Perhaps one of the main reasons for this is the relaxed routine we now enjoy as a family in our new-found freedom from the limiting strictures of the school day.

As importantly as being able to 'have a life', my feelings of self-worth as a man, father, husband, playfellow to my children etc have increased beyond all measure. How much is that worth? Priceless I believe. In fact the more this 'one year' experiment continues, the clearer I am that home education is every bit as much for the parent(s). It is probably one of the best therapy courses in existence. And of course, the happier and more fulfilled mum and dad feel, the more likely it is that the family environment will become the safe, nurturing, uplifting space in which children can fulfil their highest potential.

Where will it go? I haven't got a clue. This is a classic case of a 'work in progress'. And for once I'm okay with that, which is no small thing considering my conditioning to achieve 'results'. At last I'm not needing to see an end result because I'm beginning to understand what many philosophers have written of - that life is all about the journey. And by challenging my ego to put up with the daily 'trivia' of playing with and learning alongside children, I am finally becoming a conscious participant on that journey.

A few points to end on:-

• I received a public school education - Winnie went to a high-achieving grammar school. We both feel that Anna and Sophie have already experienced as many things relevant to 'real life' in their two and a half years of home-ed as we did in our whole school careers.
• Our families, almost without exception, believed us to be mad. Taking the decision was in many ways frightening, going against convention as it did. But somehow listening to our children and letting them guide us has given us the confidence to experiment. Doubters may well remain doubting for the rest of their lives (after all even if our girls become 'captains of industry' the argument can still be thrown at us of 'well yes, but imagine how much better they would have done if they had gone to school') - we have to learn to accept their judgements even if we don't agree with them.
• People often think you need money for home-schooling - 'it's a middle class thing'. Well yes, we both had middle class upbringings. But no, we do not have pots of money. Since 1996 we have been personal change consultants, until very recently on a donations-only basis. We have no savings, we don't own a house and we live literally from month to month. We try to trust that if we're following our hearts, if we are 'listening' to our truth, we'll get provided with what we need. We have not really wanted for anything as a family and home education has been anything but a drain on the family's resources.
• I had heard it said that you can't stop a child learning and you can't stop a child being sociable. Now I'm one of the people saying it; the thing is, now I'm not quoting it from a book or a story, I'm simply speaking my truth based on my experience.
• I feel that I am a more complete man as a result of entering even more fully into the world of children. I experience frustration, anger, tears, hurting, joy, elation and impatience at levels I had never been to before.
• Home-schooling can involve a timetable, but it doesn't have to; it can involve a curriculum, but it doesn't have to; it can involve tutors, 'play dates', organised activities and meetings, but it doesn't have to. Put simply - there are no rules and the only wrong way of doing it seems to be when we stop listening to our children and start to impose upon them the things that we think they need. They're the teachers, we're the pupils.

Barry Durdant-Hollamby is the author of three books including The Male Agenda.

It took them 8 weeks to organise!! Everyone turned up from their Head Ed Psych, Luke's Ed Psych, Gifted and Talented LEA and school rep, SENCO and the Head Master and us.

The Head Master asked if Luke's case was unusual! Luke's Ed Psych and our Parent Partnership lady who teaches dyslexia awareness courses nearly fell off their chairs. We were offered a dinnerlady to help Luke in class. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against dinnerladies but this would be totally unsuitable.

After talking it over with our Parent Partnership lady and researching it on the web we de-regged him the following day.

After the terrible neglect and downright blatant attempts by the school to ruin Luke's confidence it is the best thing I ever did and would do it again in the blink of an eye.

Rae Price (2003)

He hated assembly - the three and four year olds were forced once a week to go into a hall full of older children. He couldn’t cope and tried to hide. This became an issue. He learned to swear. This became an issue. He escaped and got out onto the road. This became a big issue. I was summoned to see the head. In the meeting I was patronised, lied to and my baby daughter was spoken to harshly by the nursery nurse, who growled that she was a “dirty girl” for reaching out to a bowl of pot pouri. In this meeting they claimed that my son’s successful escape attempt was a behavioural problem, (like Drapetomania, a psychiatric disorder only suffered by Black slaves, characterised by an “irrational” desire to run away). When I pointed out that I had thwarted another child’s escape attempt when no member of staff was in sight of the door, it was dismissed. They said that I would have to stay with him in the nursery. I didn’t go back. I wrote about my concerns that a three year old could escape, to the school and to the educational authority. Neither replied.

So we had a term at home. But he was a bit bored, I had a demanding baby and yearned for paid work. So we tried another school nursery. Aged nearly four, he started in a bigger space, a warmer nursery, more smiles and greetings - surely everything would be OK now? Well, just to be on the safe side I spent the first few days with him. On his first day three boys surrounded him and threatened to beat him up, out of sight of the staff. The same thing happened two days later. I told my son to make sure he brought any incidents to the attention of the teachers. But they ignored it. He had a tendency to hide when overwhelmed. This was considered "not safe." He was not cooperative. One example: He was sitting sideways on the carpet: Teacher: "can you please sit facing forward like all the other children?" My son replied, "I’m quite comfortable thank you." This became an issue and he was evicted from the room. They had a "punishment regime" (though they called it assertive discipline) and when children in the nursery "misbehaved" they were sent to the "big school" to sit in on year six class with the meanest teacher in the school. My son was deeply distressed by this but made a number of friends in that class who felt sorry for him and gave him sweets and comics, when the teacher wasn’t looking, to stop him crying.

He was labelled "highly intelligent and poorly behaved" on his Stage One special needs papers. He was integrated early into reception class to meet his intellectual needs. This was a disaster, as the teacher from hell was in charge. She had trained as a secondary school maths teacher, couldn’t cope, moved to primary, couldn’t cope with year six so she was moved to reception (possibly in the hope that she would leave) where she had spent most of the previous year off sick. She didn’t make eye-contact with her nineteen four to five year olds and I wrote down a few disturbing incidents from the first few days. One day my son had diarrhoea in the morning at school and didn’t make it to the toilet on time. He said he’d told the teacher who said there was nothing she could do about it so he sat in pooh all day. When I went in to discuss it with her the next day she was off sick. The following week, a freezing January day, I picked him up soaked to the skin. Only his socks were dry. Again this had happened in the morning when another child had been throwing water at him and he had been left soaking wet all day. I challenged his teacher about this and she said, "Well, he was playing in water when he shouldn’t have been." I pointed out that he saw it, as I also saw it, as a punishment and I didn’t think it was appropriate to leave a four-year-old soaking wet all day.

Then there was the playground. By going into reception he now shared the playground with children up to age eleven. Sometimes it was a ten year old in unstoppable motion who ploughed into him. At other times it was being thrown against a wall. Lunchtime staff failed to respond to most of these incidents. I mentioned my concerns. The staff were "vigilant" for a week, witnessing and responding to some incidents. Then it was business as usual.

Things deteriorated. Many meetings. Most afternoons my son was sent out to the head's office. One day, he refused to do some work because he had already done it the previous week while his teacher was off sick. He was sent to the head. His teacher remarked to him as we left, "If you misbehave again tomorrow, you’ll have to miss more of my lessons." What an encouragement! The next day when I went to collect him, his teacher snarled that he was with the head. He wasn’t, he was dancing along the corridor singing, "I’ve escaped from Mrs R..." At this point I was told that someone from behaviour support would be visiting me at home that evening. In walked Mr Tough Guy whose opening remark to me was, "I mostly work with Afro-Caribbean kids, some of whom come from utter devastation, so when I saw this white boy misbehaving in school I thought he must have been seriously abused." So that put me at my ease. I was further shocked when he called my son into the room, forced him to sit on his lap, restraining him from leaving and demanded of my son, "Tell your mum what you were doing when I saw you in school today." My son was four years old. I talked to this man, who made all manner of allegations, and discovered that he didn’t know my son was on special needs, knew nothing about him and my son had not been referred to him. He’d been in school observing another child that day. I wrote to complain to this person's boss about his confrontational manner and spurious allegations. He denied it.

So I spent a day at school with my son to try to see what the problem was. I was horrified by what I saw. Large amounts of unengaged time being snarled at, lots of standing in line, forcible evictions for fidgeting, a sour faced teacher shouting at children for "mistakes," shouting at a child she’d just said did not understand English, unclear instructions. I could understand entirely why my son hated it. At a meeting I said, "I think he’s bored". His teacher said, "He’s going to spend the next 12 years in school, he’ll have to get used to being bored." At this point I removed him.

We stayed in touch with the school, with a view to reintroducing him part-time to the other reception class with a marvellous, positive teacher who we know. The head was actually quite accommodating, listened to our concerns and moved his teacher to the nursery where she would not be alone with the children.

So after a short spell part-time in the other reception class where the teacher said, "I’m not going to make him do any work. I’m just going to let him play and re-establish friendships." He turned five.

We tried year 1 for one and a half terms. Initially things went well, though I was involved in a campaign to remove the mobile phone mast that had appeared on the school during the summer, which led to tensions with the head. His new teacher was the school's special needs coordinator and at a meeting she removed him from special needs saying that none of his behaviour was different from other children who weren’t on special needs. Two weeks later the head said she wanted a meeting to discuss exclusion. In discussions the head said she was unwilling to put him back onto special needs as he wasn’t high enough priority to get an assessment. At one point, when my son was alone with her in the office she said to him that he didn’t have to go to school and if he didn’t show up the next day no-one would be surprised. When he told his teacher she said it was the law that you had to go to school. He came home very confused.

At one meeting I said I wasn’t prepared to punish him at home for things that happened at school, but would discuss things with him. The response was "Well, if parental values are incompatible with school, there’s nothing that we can do about it."

One Wednesday, an outing was planned to the local Mosque. That morning I handed over my contribution to the bus-fare. When I picked him up he hadn’t been allowed to go because they were worried he might misbehave (and cause a diplomatic incident?) The following week in "religious education" the children were asked to write about their trip to the Mosque. My son screamed in frustration and would not stop screaming. He was excluded for two days. He never went back.

That was three and a half years ago and the huge relief of not having to deal with school was overwhelming. I’d made the mistake of believing that I was dealing with reasonable people, that my son would find his own way of coping. They weren’t and he didn’t. Over time, he relaxed, I relaxed and it's only when I look back that I remember how frequently he was ill in school. I used to measure him every month to see how much he’d grown; he only grew when he was out of school. I have his last school photo: a pale sunken child with dead eyes. Just turned five and barely alive. A year later, out of school and alive again, the photo next to it looks like a different child, an amazing, glowing, alive being. If I ever question the decision I look at the two photos and I’m glad I have the boy in the second photo. Yes it's hard work. Yes there are days when I’m climbing up the wall. Money is at times a problem. Winters can seem very long. But I know being at home is the best thing for my child and that school was destroying him and me in many, many ways.

EO member

We decided to Home Educate our daughter from a young age. When I say "we" I actually mean my husband. He found out about HE from a book in the library. We were looking for alternatives to formal schooled education. Where we lived at the time was not so good, the local primary school had a poor reputation, and I did not want to send R there knowing that. I personally didn't think we could do HE. I thought it was another one of dh's hairbrained ideas, but realising we could do no worse than the school we gave it a go.

R was a chatty, inquisitive child, and I did not want that to be knocked out of her in a classroom. I did not want her to be told off for asking questions, or wanting to go to the toilet at the "wrong" time. We actually found it very easy, it wasn't as bad as we, or I, thought. We had all the usual questions, about socialisation, exams, scientific experiments (even at age 5), secondary school, my qualifications. I have to admit I was not all that confident in those days, and would answer depending how I felt on that day. But R was happy to chat away to anyone.

In the start when R was 4 there were not many HE groups around. The nearest to us was about 20 miles away, and this did make me question on more than one occasion whether we were doing the right thing. After all, in a classroom, there are 30 children. However we made an effort to go to the group on one occasion. There I met a group of children, whose ages ranged from babies to teenagers. I could not believe that all ages mixed so freely, and R was very happy to join in, and one of the teenage girls asked to take DD2 who was one, to the swings. There I got a chance to chat to mums and dads, and I learnt that HE comes in all shapes and sizes. I was very surprised!

We always gave the girls the chance to go to school if they wanted, but they were happy to stay at home. Over the years we lurched from structured to autonomous, and somewhere inbetween, and a mixture. As they got older we did more formal education, but with an element of autonomy about it. We also joined in many group activities and meetings.

At the age of 15 R was accepted into the local colege to do a Btech first diploma, then an year later she did the Btech National Diploma. Along the way she also did Maths and English GCSEs at college. At the end of last year she started to apply to Universities and was accepted by all she had an interview at. The interviews were positive towards Home Education. They liked the fact she was able to think for herself, and had her own points of view. She is now at the Uni of her choice.

If I had the chance, would I do it again? Yes I would, especially so now. Have some confidence in what you believe in. It doesn't seem like five minutes ago, we were sitting together reading, playing, and learning, and now she is on her own, and coping well with the work, and looking after herself. For us, Home Education worked.

Lorraine