It rather looks as if the writer didn't finish this paper, which may be not altogether surprising, given that his conclusions look to be erring towards a vast conflict with the evidence! Monk's paper has, however, alerted me to the fact that I must re-read my Bowlby, as I admit I read Bowlby's work on attachment at a time when I was most interested in his theories of infancy. Whilst Monk may be right to suggest that Bowlby's child-centred approach was at least partially responsible for the childrens' rights movement, I don't think one could possibly infer, as I think Monk tries to do, that home educators pay any less regard for children's rights than do schooling parents, and that problems of attachment and separation exist for home educated children.
(I say this with quite high measure of confidence, whilst thinking of all those children in our ken who I am quite sure would be diagnosed securely attached in anybody's scheme of things, and yet who have actively chosen, infinitely prefer and thrive upon home education)
No comments:
Post a Comment