tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post4003862689561157568..comments2024-03-20T00:30:11.702-07:00Comments on Home Education Heretic: Autonomous Education - the evidence baseSimon Webbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-58680222306936592162009-08-27T03:53:13.209-07:002009-08-27T03:53:13.209-07:00Angry black youth from Toxteth? Is that how they s...Angry black youth from Toxteth? Is that how they speak? Must tell my white, 70 year old mum to stop using that phrase then!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-3798472137742278292009-08-26T23:57:52.315-07:002009-08-26T23:57:52.315-07:00True, but for an educated woman in her mid fifties...True, but for an educated woman in her mid fifties to say, "You got it sussed", does make me think that she is trying to be with it. She's not really an angry black youth from Toxteth, you know.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-77363151344493064512009-08-26T12:38:16.953-07:002009-08-26T12:38:16.953-07:00Ahh, or relating to the common people; popular. Ma...Ahh, or relating to the common people; popular. Makes more sense. Can't see what's wrong with her style of writing for a blog comment though. It's not like she's writing a thesis, LOL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-18510315978785582842009-08-26T12:35:10.752-07:002009-08-26T12:35:10.752-07:00Demotic? Ancient Egyptian script derived from nort...Demotic? Ancient Egyptian script derived from northern forms of hieratic used in the Delta, or the stage of the Egyptian language following Late Egyptian and preceding Coptic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-71790737053236533372009-08-26T10:18:27.512-07:002009-08-26T10:18:27.512-07:00Love the demotic style, Maire. Nobody would guess ...Love the demotic style, Maire. Nobody would guess that you are the wife of a professor. I'm not sure what a "Stuck in the boxers" is, though. Sounds like some gay sexual mishap.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-44574769149769919932009-08-26T02:37:54.587-07:002009-08-26T02:37:54.587-07:00'what a very sad place this is. All you ever p...'what a very sad place this is. All you ever post are various reasons why other people are inferior to you, why other parents are wrong for thinking what they do,'<br /><br />you got it sussed, surprised people are giving his destructive fire oxygen but some excellent comments that can help fight the stuck in the boxers.Mairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00516412983740136098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-18483543164295302122009-08-23T04:53:10.145-07:002009-08-23T04:53:10.145-07:00P.S. hope you pop back occasionally - not sure how...P.S. hope you pop back occasionally - not sure how long I'll be here!Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-68462212340345430722009-08-23T03:29:38.449-07:002009-08-23T03:29:38.449-07:00Sorry to see you go anonymous, I've enjoyed re...Sorry to see you go anonymous, I've enjoyed reading your posts!Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-77577861484297348852009-08-21T05:50:21.673-07:002009-08-21T05:50:21.673-07:00Not the same anonymous but they might have meant p...Not the same anonymous but they might have meant people who post things like:<br /><br />Anonymous said...<br /><br /> Well said Simon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-26302281255145440082009-08-21T04:40:49.456-07:002009-08-21T04:40:49.456-07:00Anonymous, I presume that because I agree with som...Anonymous, I presume that because I agree with some of Simon's views I fall into the category "mindless cheerleaders". I find this very unfair and offensive, there is no need to resort to abusive comments. Personally, I know I am not a mindless cheerleader, or indeed any form of cheerleader so therefore YOU are a liar.Marynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-91349323571779339662009-08-20T13:53:24.995-07:002009-08-20T13:53:24.995-07:00Well anonymous, I had better answer the specific p...Well anonymous, I had better answer the specific points you raise. Points 2 and 3 hang together. Yes, I do realise why the five children were re-tested and I also understand the significance of the close match. Paula Rothermel herself spotted the potential problem here when she said that some of the procedures she used might, "raise the issue of collaboration leading to inflated scores". Quite. It is not hard to see several mechanisms which might account for the close match in the scores when the children had been re-tested. I'm guessing that due to the slightly unconventional nature of this testing that it is quite possible, likely even, that the papers were left laying around the house either before or after the tests had been administered. I assume that this was how one paper got splashed with egg white; it had been laying around in the kitchen. This alone makes the scores a little unreliable. Since the re-testing was carried out only three weeks or so after the initial test and assuming that the same paper was used, then I think it quite possible that the initial test had the effect of teaching the children the spellings of words. This would be particularly so if, as I said, the completed papers were left laying around where the child could see them.<br /><br />Since you will no longer be coming on here, Anonymous, there seems little point in responding further. You are right, I do not know which of the many Anonymous you are. Indeed, beyond the fact that you spend the week in Durham, go home at weekends and are an artist, I Know nothing at all about you!Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-4043602021278838922009-08-20T13:39:09.860-07:002009-08-20T13:39:09.860-07:00I've decided to stop reading and posting to yo...I've decided to stop reading and posting to your blog, Simon. You won't notice much of a difference (since you don't even know which of several anonymous posters I am!) except that the voice of opposition will be somewhat quelled. I thought I'd try to explain why I've decided to leave, though.<br /><br />I've come to realise what a very sad place this is. All you ever post are various reasons why other people are inferior to you, why other parents are wrong for thinking what they do, why other families ought to be checked up on, and so on. Do you really not have <i>anything</i> positive to say? Have you learned anything during your time home educating that might be of interest or value to others? There is certainly the occasional glimmer in your writing of something other than suspicion and disdain, but it doesn't seem to make its way to the surface very often.<br /><br />I initially started posting here because <a href="http://xkcd.com/386/" rel="nofollow">I didn't want your statements to go unchallenged</a> in case some passer-by unfamiliar with the facts should stumble across your blog. That seems to be an imaginary danger, though, judging by the comments: there's a steady stream of opposition to your posts and a few mindless cheerleaders. In any case, Sharon and others do an excellent job in patiently responding to misleading statements where they appear. I'm glad that they do, because I don't have the heart for it. I'm going to spend the time I would have wasted here on constructive and enjoyable things instead.<br /><br />I would, quite honestly, like to discuss home education with you; I think that you probably have some interesting views. There is no possibility of such discussion here, though, since you take some sort of perverse delight in posting things that are misleading, false, and defamatory, apparently in order to provoke a reaction.<br /><br />I'm glad that your decade of hard work with your daughter has achieved the results you hoped for. I hope that you can find some new way to "make a positive contribution" now that that period of your life is over.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-67246373457064036992009-08-20T08:47:28.639-07:002009-08-20T08:47:28.639-07:00You dismiss Rothermel's study as too small to ...You dismiss Rothermel's study as too small to be useful yet are happy to use her results to support your claim that home educators choose HE for different reasons in the UK from the US. Add to this the fact that despite the different reasons given in the Rothermel study, the outcomes were the same as the US studies.<br /><br />You claim that laws are stricter in the US but, on checking, their laws are less restrictive on average - 28 of the 50 states and territories either have no regulation or just require parental notification. Added to which the US research found no difference between outcomes based on level of regulation or style of education.<br /><br />You mention the legal requirement's to teach various subjects in Texas but fail to mention that you do not have to register and the school district does not approve curriculum (home schools in Texas are private schools, and private schools are not regulated by the state). There also seems to be a thriving unschooling community in Texas. Here's an example of unschooling in Texas, http://www.rethinkingeducation.net/unschooling.html<br /><br />You claim that they probably don't educate autonomously in the same way in the US. Unschooling is popular in the US and sounds just like autonomous education to me. The research found no difference in outcomes between styles.<br /><br />You seem to dislike the practice of postal testing with verification. However, I've seen similar methods used in peer reviewed research before and it seems to be accepted. You can't really compare this to you carrying out tests when they are to be used to plan treatments or plan an educational approach for an individual child. Yes, you might consider that some of the results may not be accurate, but the high correlation between the 5 carried out by parents and checked by Rothermel suggests that this is a relatively minor risk, certainly not high enough to completely disregard the unchecked tests.Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-68087228096359620892009-08-20T08:46:50.272-07:002009-08-20T08:46:50.272-07:00As usual, you haven't addressed any of the po...As usual, you haven't addressed any of the points I made. You're just repeating the same old nonsense. I understand the claims you are making perfectly well, but I don't share your view that they have any relevance to the question under consideration.<br /><br />Here are some questions that appear to have escaped your attention earlier:<br /><br />1. Do you really not understand the purpose of Rothermel's re-testing five children?<br /><br />2. Do you really not understand the significance of the close correspondence of the results of the two tests?<br /><br />Here are some more points that you seem to have missed:<br /><br />3. Universities, including very prestigious ones, often use take-home exams, so it is clear that your views (that everyone should be treated as a fool or a liar) are not shared by those who administer important tests.<br /><br />4. You write "We know that five were", but you do not know this, any more than you know whether all forty-nine children took the tests. In both cases, though, the available evidence is strongly in favour of all children having taken the tests.<br /><br />The fact is that you dislike some aspects of the tests, and so you pretend that they don't exist. Pretend all you wish, but when you state that only five children were tested as if it were an established fact then you are propagating a lie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-71420816036154439932009-08-20T08:34:31.943-07:002009-08-20T08:34:31.943-07:00tests and more tests with checks and more checks a...tests and more tests with checks and more checks and then tests and more checks and the nwe need to test the person marking the test and then check and then test go on for ever liek that what you need is trust but simon does not trust people did you do that to your daughte? when she said i done this did you see lets check just to make sure?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-50778548226869299452009-08-20T08:16:56.864-07:002009-08-20T08:16:56.864-07:00I'll have one last try at explaining and then ...I'll have one last try at explaining and then I think I'll call it a day. Listen carefully, Anonymous. If my boss tells me to administer the Griffiths Mental Development Scale, a kind of intelligence test, on child A, he would expect me to do it by seeing the child. If I decide to save myself the trouble and simply post it to the child's address, along with the manual, then I have not tested child A at all. Indeed, I have no idea whether child A has in fact been tested in any way. If my boss then asks me, "Did you test child A?" and I reply, ""Yes", then for all practical purposes I have told a lie.<br /><br />That you do not understand this, leads me to suppose that there is little point in continuing this discussion.To claim that a child has been tested, it is at the very least necessary to be sure that the test and the child have been in the same room at some stage. Posting them out like this does not ensure even this bare minimum. We are simply not in a position to say whether the other forty four children in this cohort were actually tested. We know that five were. We know nothing about the others.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-38673392197813469702009-08-20T07:21:18.474-07:002009-08-20T07:21:18.474-07:00Well, it's a shame that university examination...Well, it's a shame that university examinations don't come up to your high standards. <br /><br />Here's an example from the first page of a Google search: <a href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/0910/L12/syllabus.pdf" rel="nofollow">a graduate-level computer science course from the university of Cambridge</a>. 75% of the marks on the course come from an exam that the students take away to their homes. (The remainder of the marks appear to come from take-away problems as well, although it is not quite clear from the syllabus.) This is by no means an unusual practice.<br /><br />Do you really not understand the purpose of Rothermel's re-testing five children? Do you really not understand the significance of the close correspondence of the results of the two tests?<br /><br />Regardless of all your nonsense, the fact remains that more than five children were tested. You know this as well as you know that Rothermel tested five children.<br /><br /><br />As said before, "five of whom" is a lie, and you are a liar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-28137419477363896632009-08-20T07:08:40.589-07:002009-08-20T07:08:40.589-07:00You know, anonymous, I rather suspect that you do ...You know, anonymous, I rather suspect that you do not work in this field or you might see the problems and understand why posting off a test to an address and then receiving it back again is not testing a child. I visit families and do stuff like this routinely. Imagine if I said to myself one day, "Hey, I can't be bothered to traipse round to Mrs. Smith's house. I'll post her the test and get her to administer it". To begin with, Mrs. Smith might be a very busy woman with a large family. She might not get round to conducting the test at all and at the last moment, just when I am pestering her to send it back, she might just fill it out herself to save time. I know cases where this has happened. She might be busy and delegate the task to an older sibling, who in turn saves time by doing the test herself rather than sit down with her brother and spend half an hour doing the thing properly. In these cases it would be impossible for me to say whether or not the test had in fact been carried out on the child. And don't even get me started on the kids being prompted, the television being on, a visitor to the house helping the kid, the list of potential problems is endless.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-35355793647532360482009-08-20T07:07:09.843-07:002009-08-20T07:07:09.843-07:00Blah, blah, blah. You're off on a tangent aga...Blah, blah, blah. You're off on a tangent again.<br /><br />The fact remains that more than five children were tested. You know this as well as you know that Rothermel tested five children.<br /><br />As said before, "five of whom" is a lie, and you are a liar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-31266636397087915662009-08-20T06:48:35.959-07:002009-08-20T06:48:35.959-07:00Well, anonymous, we will have to agree to differ a...Well, anonymous, we will have to agree to differ about this. Thirty eight children were tested with the PIPS baseline. Rothermel tested them. Forty nine children's parents had tests sent to them. These tests were returned and I have no idea and nor does anybody else whether the tests were carried out properly on the children concerned, or if so whether they were helped, or indeed whether the parents or other siblings did the test. That is why I did not include them and said that five children were tested for their literacy skills. These were the five that Rothermel actually tested. If we carried out research on literacy by sending out the tests and telling the kids to do them at home, we would save an enormous amount of money. The same of course goes for many other tests such as SATs, GCSEs and A levels. The reason that we do not do this and insist on controlled conditions should be obvious even to the meanest intelligence.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-1843328527276777332009-08-20T06:23:56.560-07:002009-08-20T06:23:56.560-07:00Your comment is so poorly written that it is diffi...Your comment is so poorly written that it is difficult to tell what most of it is supposed to mean.<br /><br />Regardless of what you disregard, the fact is that more than five children were tested. Perhaps you don't like the way they were tested, but the fact remains that they were tested.<br /><br />As said before, "five of whom" is a lie, and you are a liar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-15272640483458338712009-08-20T06:18:16.588-07:002009-08-20T06:18:16.588-07:00No, I am saying that to send out a mailshot of IQ ...No, I am saying that to send out a mailshot of IQ tests, reading tests and so on and then hope that they will be carried out properly under controlled conditions is not good practice. Rothermel herself drew attention to this problem. In one family that she was working with, the mother told her that there was no point asking the child to name the letters of the alphabet, because she would not know them In the even, she did. th reverse case could easily be imagined, where a mother thoguht that her child did know the letters and so simply ticked this task without actually checking. The tests which Rothermel carried out seem to have been in a fairly informal setting, actually in the homes of the subjects. In these circumstances one must gurad particularly against problems such as the so-called "Clever Hans" effect. I am accordingly only taking note of the reading tests carried out by Rothermel herself and disregarding the others. How am I telling a lie?Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-12341634889627943762009-08-20T05:27:00.849-07:002009-08-20T05:27:00.849-07:00So Rothermel just happened to test and confirm the...So Rothermel just happened to test and confirm the accuracy of the only 5 that were carried out accurately? That's a bit of a stretch, even for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-1607915856830792782009-08-20T05:23:20.445-07:002009-08-20T05:23:20.445-07:00Anonymous says, "five of whom" is a lie....Anonymous says, "five of whom" is a lie. An elliptical reference to what I said in the article that Rothermel tested five children for their reading ability. It may well be a lie, but is so, not one of my making. This is what she claimed herself; that forty nine NLS tests were sent to parents and that she then carried out five herself on these children to see if they tallied with what the parents had found. I disregard the forty four carried out under unsupervised or controlled conditions and count only those conducted by Rothermel. Where is the lie?Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-54959279106283654712009-08-20T05:18:34.706-07:002009-08-20T05:18:34.706-07:00Certainly Rothermel mentions this, but that is not...Certainly Rothermel mentions this, but that is not my only reason for saying so. If you watch what home educators themselves say, not only on the message boards, but also in magazines and when one meets them, a similar pattern emerges. One seldom hears a home educating parent say, "I'm not sending Jimmy to school because I am convinced that I can teach him better here." On the other hand, one often hears that children have been removed because they were unhappy or being bullied. My contention is that the primary motive for home education in this country is not education per se. And yes, I am familiar with Thomas' Australian work and will deal with it separately in a later piece.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.com