Thursday, March 05, 2009

A poll about 'fending for themselves', and other news.

Following the conversation in the comments to this post, I'm running another poll today. Tony Mooney said:

"A lot of my children, who are mainly on council estates, don’t actually sit any GCSEs or any examinations of any kind when they’ve been home educated and they just go out into the world of work and fend for themselves."

And, tempting though it is to make one of the poll questions: "How many of your children were sired by Mr Mooney?" I will resist. Instead, given Leo's definition of 'fending for themselves': "Parents didn't care to help the children become independent and couldn't wait to kick them out at 16," which is presumably what he was talking about, if you home educate we'd like to know whether you intend to kick your young adults out of the family home to 'fend for themselves'.

Please elaborate on your answer, if you wish, in the comments either here or on the poll. You might also like to read Mum6Kids' fisking of that interview with Tony Mooney, a short excerpt of which I've added to the quotes on my sidebar.

I'm planning to come back to the CME issue hopefully tomorrow, and indeed the rest of the ECM situation very soon. But for today I just want to mention two items of news:

  • I keep meaning to tell you about Organised Pauper's sparklingly satirical item on NewsBiscuit just in case you hadn't already seen it. It was voted top entry, the last time I looked; and
  • The consultation about ending child poverty about which I blogged here, closes in six days on the 11th March. That's the one that says if you're on less that 60% of the national average income, your children will FAIL the fifth ECM outcome about boiling frogs achieving economic wellbeing.

We've got home ed friends visiting today, so I think we might be doing some baking this morning and maybe even some planting - only the indoors sort though, as there's a thick frost.


Blogger Gill said...

Link for this post:

8:37 am, March 05, 2009  
Blogger Gina xx said...

Why, when there is no chance of the kids being able to afford a place of their own would I kick them out at 16, especially as they would have to remain in education until 18! (humph). The only one who might leave home at 16 would be DD1 who would be going to live and work on my cousins stud farm should she choose to.
She may choose to leave home at 16, then again we could be living on our own land by then and she might have her own annex or caravan. (dreams dreams)

Then again, fending for themselves does not need to mean kicking them out. At 16 we could go on holiday and she choose not to, then she would be fending for herself, albeit for a weekend or a week.

If fending for themselves means working, paying bills, cooking their own meals, doing their own housework, taking responsibilities etc, what the feck is wrong with that? Doesn't mean they have to leave home to do that!

9:04 am, March 05, 2009  
Blogger Mieke said...

"If fending for themselves means working, paying bills, cooking their own meals, doing their own housework, taking responsibilities etc, what the feck is wrong with that? Doesn't mean they have to leave home to do that!"

Totally agree!

Two of my children are over sixteens and still living at home. Tried to kick them out, but they say they need to stay and look after dh and me (joke!!). They're both fending for themselves - as are the younger ones, btw - and at the same time being part of the family. No.1 has been away from home (college, abroad) but still considers the family house to be home.

It's just silly age group thinking, isn't it, to assume that it is age related to be or not be able to 'fend for yourself'.

10:12 am, March 05, 2009  
Blogger Ruth said...

I have 3 over the age of 16 and 4 under 16. All are welcome to live here for as long as they want. They will leave home when they are ready. My 16 year discussed the option of moving out to live with a college friend but decided against it cos of costs involved. I went to school and left home at just 17. It was great. I think there is ome namby pamby thinking going on unless Mr Mooney believes HE children have no life skills. We went on holiday and the older ones stayed at home. We are going again. I know I will come home to a clean house and they will have fed themselves and looked after the pets and not even had a party:0

10:45 am, March 05, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mine are still here and will be for the forseeable future. (Oldest nearly 20) But I voted 'yes' because although I won't be kicking them out-I am sure they will eventually want to move on.
Having said that if they wanted to stay here even after being married because of housing cost. I don't see why not. 'Twas like that in my gran's day.

5:36 pm, March 05, 2009  
Blogger mamacrow said...

If my children choose to leave home (hopefully not till they are least 16, but you never know, Chealsea FC might come calling early) - to study elsewhere, stay with relations, or to live by themselves, work ,whatever - then this choice will be subject to the usual discussion and debate, and mostly likely supported by us if they are of age.

If they choose to remain at home then they are free to do so for a long as they wish, so long as (once of age) they contribute to the household - running of (as actually they already do), and/or finances.

This has always been our policy and as such is not altered by our desicion to home educate.

(for goodness sake. Do any of these 'people' actually have ANY atom of common sense IN THEM?!)

11:08 pm, March 05, 2009  
Blogger Gill said...

Thanks for voting everyone! 97% of us aren't planning to kick our children out, which says a lot I think.

Gina, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone providing for their own needs, but I don't think that's what TM meant, is it? I'm still not sure exactly what he did mean.

Mieke, TM didn't actually mention age, did he? I wonder if it was a factor in his thinking though. Very hard to tell!

Ruth, I hope you have a lovely holiday! :-)

Mum6Kids, if you're not kicking them out then you meant 'no', surely..?

Mamacrow, "for goodness sake. Do any of these 'people' actually have ANY atom of common sense IN THEM?!" Dunno, but I wish we could test them for it before they were allowed to call themselves EHE 'inspectors'.

9:35 am, March 06, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a home edder has met with vijay patel.her post is on the eo list. I have just x-posted with permission onto aeuk and he-uk although it is only showing on aeuk at the moment - thought you might be interested.

7:44 am, March 07, 2009  
Blogger Gill said...

Thanks Jo. Yes, I've emailed her about it - am hoping be able to include excerpts from it in my next NSPCC-based post.

7:53 am, March 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home