If you are of a certain generation you will know that who you have to thank is, “Boland, Boland Bank” but is it possible that the DBE is to thank for the start of cottage schooling? (If you aren’t of that generation watch this.)
In this post LearnFree suggests that perhaps the very wording of the old Policy for the Registration of Learners for Home Education led to the idea that you could have ‘home school’ at a cottage school or learning centre.
Many people have been confused for a very long time about the status of cottage schools. The Pestalozzi Trust and Facebook groups like S.A. Cottage Schools and Tutors have done sterling work explaining that cottage schooling and home education differ and that legally cottage schools are treated as unregistered independent schools. And there is little doubt that this is legally correct. I would say ‘no doubt’ but the law is a strange mistress. Which is why “it depends” is the lawyer’s favourite phrase. To be fair the law on a particular and complex matter can often only be settled after the courts have decided an issue.
But when you spoke to cottage school owners in the past, and even still a few today they believe that attending a cottage school is homeschooling. Many (possibly even most) parents whose children attend cottage schools also will say my child is doing home schooling or in a home school.
Cottage schooling is a natural development from home education. Many home educators have been approached by friends, family and even total strangers to “home school” their children. Did a legal explanation for this arise because of the business models of certain curriculum providers? But if so where did they get the idea from that a legal basis for cottage schooling existed at all?
While this may be one of those fact being stranger than fiction cases, could it be that the DBE (at that time the DOE) is the source? There is a very strange clause in the old Policy for the Registration of Learners for Home Education. It defines Home Education as follows:
“(a) a programme of education that a parent (1) of a learner(s) may provide to his/her own child at their own home. In addition the parent may, if necessary, enlist the specific services of a tutor for specific areas of the curriculum; or
(b) a legal, independant form of education, alternative to attendance at a public or an independant school.”
So (a) and (b) are pretty clear by themselves but the problem is “or”.
The conjunction “or” has two meanings the first is to link alternatives i.e. tea or coffee, Being alternatives, tea is not coffee and coffee is not tea.
So is it possible to read this clause and think there is a type of home education that takes place at home (tea) ‘OR’, alternatively, another one (coffee) that takes place somewhere else that is a legal alternative to schooling.
The use of schooling in (b) makes you think that this alternative has something to do with schooling perhaps cottage schooling or centre-based “home” education i.e. education taking place outside the home but according to a home education syllabus.
The second meaning of ‘or’ is rarer it is used to introduce a synonym or an explanation of a preceding word or phrase. For example “We are off to see ‘the Scottish play’ or Hamlet”. There is little doubt that the drafters of the Policy for the Registration of Learners for Home Education were explaining the preceding phrase. They meant to say in (b) that what they were describing in (a) is legal, independent etc.
But the question is when people read this twenty years ago is this what they concluded? Did someone starting a cottage school, learning centre or a curriculum company not look at this and say “there is a legal alternative to home education (that is still home education) but just not at home.”?
We know that when you start any business you should get legal advice but who really does? Most people hear from other people in the field that this is what you do, register here, go there... etc.
Even if you went to a lawyer and showed him or her the old Policy what would they say? In this case we conducted a small test, we gave the old Policy to a lawyer (who had no special knowledge of education law) and they thought that a cottage school could easily fit under the definition of (b) it never occurred to them that the second meaning of ‘or’ was intended.
Specialists like the Pestalozzi Trust and the experienced cottage schoolers on SA Cottage School & Tutors know the correct position but the average person does or did not. We have heard of a case were a prominent private school asked a home educating mom to open a cottage school near the school so they could send children who needed individual attention there.
The question here is not, that anyone would be correct in concluding there is a legal alternative to home education, but just not at home, but did people mistakenly believe this? Should the then DOE not gave been clearer in drawing up the old Policy?
Secondly, the then Department of Education, its successor the DBE and the provincial education departments have been aware of the existence of cottage schools for twenty years. Why have they not consulted with cottage school owners and parents? The government consults with illegal miners, unions that destroy property etc. but can’t have a civilized conversation with dedicated educationalists?
Cottage Schools are a fact of the educational sector. Many play a vital role (often allied to schools) to help children negotiate the overly rigid CAPS syllabus. Which should be an additional reason for a government so fixated on its syllabus to recognise their role. The DBE needs to negotiate with cottage and related schools (those that follow CAPS and those that don’t) to understand their role in helping learners with special educational needs or who are struggling with CAPS based schooling or who use alternative educational approaches and see how they strengthen the education sector in this country.
The new Policy is supposed to clear up this confusion, but is that not a tacit admission that a confusion was created in the first place?
As an aside, if anything, the sections in the new Policy on Home Education that deal with cottage schooling raise further legal issues. We will deal with those on another occasion.
Policies and legislation often have unintended consequences they are rarely positive. It is an intriguing possibility that an ‘or’ may have had the positive impact it had in this case.
Comments