Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Tuesday, 2 October 2012
If closer monitoring of home education in New Zealand and the USA does no good, why would we need it in this country?
In recent days two linked objections have been raised to the proposition that new legislation is needed in this country to regulate home education. The first is that increasing or decreasing monitoring in two other countries does not seem to affect the outcomes for home education there; the second that there is no evidence that there is anything wrong with the current arrangements in this country and that consequently there is no need for any new law. I want today to examine the first of these ideas, that it is possible and worthwhile to compare home education in this country with that in New Zealand and America. I strongly suspect that those making this claim know as well as I do why it is impossible to compare home education in this country with either New Zealand or the United States, but working on the assumption that there will be readers who do not understand the difficulties, I shall try briefly to outline the problem.
Let us begin by looking at the most recent investigation into motives for home education in the United Kingdom. This was conducted in Wales, but there is no reason to suppose that the findings are not also applicable to England. The full report may be found here:
http://wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/schoolshome/pupilsupport/homeeducation/?lang=en
What was discovered about the motives for home education? The report says:
Broadly, from the responses gathered at this stage, the motivations of the Home Educating community can be seen to fall into four categories on a spectrum and, in this description, in no order of percentage choice.
1. Response to behavioural /attendance issues
The extreme stance expressed by some authorities that the majority of HE parents choose HE to avoid prosecution when they and/or their children simply disengage with education is not endorsed by this initial scoping, but it is the primary experience of the EWS in relation to HE and, as such, is perceived to be a much more significant motivation than it is in actuality.
2. Lifestyle choices
At the other end of the spectrum, the political position of some home educators is that the family unit and not the state has primary responsibility for the education of the child and therefore that education is most suitably and efficiently delivered in the family context. Other ‘alternative’ lifestyle choices include those of the traveller communities, or various religious perspectives.
3. Curricular/structural issues
Between these two poles are children and families opting out of the mainstream, not to disengage from education, but after struggling with, and giving up on, the curriculum or structural difficulties of school life, be it the size, the length of day or the interaction with some teachers.
4. Special social, emotional, health or learning needs
Towards the choice of HE as a lifestyle are those opting out of the mainstream because of social, emotional or other learning challenges, delicate health issues, difficulties with transition, or, most particularly, the experience of bullying. This appears to be the largest group in the spectrum. Many of these, though originally choosing reactively away from school, do seem to find HE particularly suitable to meeting, or allowing for, those particular needs and come to embrace this alternative educational experience as a proactive and positive decision.
Lest anybody object that this research was carried out by those opposed to home education and accordingly biased against the practice, let us recall that Paula Rothermel found pretty much the same thing when she surveyed British home educators. The main motives that she found were things such as, ‘having a close family relationship and being together’.
Now I find all this pretty astounding. I was sure that I could provide my daughter with a better education than she would receive at school and it therefore made sense from a purely educational perspective not to send her to school. Such people as me are mentioned in the list of motives, but one does not get the impression that they are a majority or even a significant proportion. I have an idea, which is borne out by what little research has been conducted in this country, that very few parents in Britain home educate for purely educational motives of this sort. Research by both Paula Rothermel and Education Otherwise confirms this. When Education Otherwise sent out two and a half thousand questionairres, the main reasons that were given for home education were bullying and lifestyle. Education per se did not seem to be a big factor in the decision to home educate.
In America, the situation is very different. The largest piece of research carried out there into the motives for home education, that carried out by The National Centre for Education Statistics in America, showed that 50% of those asked about their motives gave as the answer, ‘Can give child a better education at home’. This indicates that the commonest motives for home education in America are very different from those in this country. There, parents tend to choose the practice because they believe that they can provide a better academic education. In the UK, it is at best a lifestyle choice relating to wanting to be close to the children and at worst, a reaction to problems at school. In other words, British parents are not in general choosing home education for educational reasons.
It must be fairly clear that if, as tends more commonly to be the case, American home educators are primarily concerned with good academic education, then their children are likely to be achieving highly; regardless of whether or not they are being checked by the authorities. To try and compare this situation with that in this country is pointless. Most parents here are either forced into a position where they feel they have no choice in the matter or wish to keep their children at home as part of a lifestyle choice. This means that we are not able to draw any useful conclusions by the American experience of monitoring and regulation. Unless somebody is able to come up with evidence that home educating parents in New Zealand are very similar in their motivations to those in this country, we may probably disregard what has happened there as well. All of which means that when considering new legislation, we would be well advised to restrict ourselves to thinking about what is happening in this country and not trying to rope in America and New Zealand.
What is happening in this country and what does the evidence suggest? I shall be looking at this in the next few days.
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Changing the paradigm
The folk wisdom in this country, both among professionals in the field of education and also ordinary people, is that education is something which may only take place effectively in purpose built establishments staffed by professional educators. As a home educator myself, I know this to be quite false. When challenging the accepted and almost universally held view on some topic, the onus is very definitely upon those determined to overturn the existing paradigm to show why it should be abandoned. This can only be done by producing convincing evidence.
I think it fair to say that the evidence for the academic efficacy of British home education is not taken seriously by many professionals. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, existing studies of educational attainment among home educated children have been of very small samples, typically no more than twenty or thirty families. Secondly, the existing research is all horribly biased and skewed by self selection. Both with Paula Rothermel's research in 1997/1998 and also with Education Otherwise's survey in 2003, which involved sending out two and a half thousand questionnaires, around 80% of parents refused to have anything at all to do with the business. The one in five who did respond tended to be weird and atypical individuals like the present writer! The third reason that nobody takes the existing research seriously is because none of it has been objective.
In order to gain access to home educating families, it is first necessary to demonstrate that one is not at all hostile, or even sceptical, towards the whole idea of home education. Paula Rothermel and Alan Thomas both, in effect, made friends with the home educators whom they studied. As soon as this happens, as soon as the researchers are sharing meals with those whom they are studying, or helping in the kitchen, playing with the children and so on; objectivity goes out of the window. In 1990, Julie Webb published an excellent book on the subject of home education called Children Learning at Home. In order to write this, she became incredibly close to a number of home educating families. When a person looking into a particular lifestyle becomes in effect one of the family, then any pretence at scholarly detachment is lost. Most professionals will treat the resulting work with either suspicion or at best condescension.
Last Autumn, Ofsted attempted to gather data in fifteen local authority areas. This project was not a notable success. It was perhaps unfortunate that such an exercise was conducted only a few months after the end of the Badman review of elective home education. The level of cooperation was not high. Now the DCSF has announced that they too wish to carry out a long term project, this time one which will track a cohort of home educated children and see what their educational experience and attainments amount to over the course of some years. I am expecting this to become hugely controversial and for home educating parents to boycott the whole thing.
It is about time that some information was gathered about the long term consequences of elective home education in this country. For my own part, I am convinced that home education is at least as effective as that provided in maintained schools and I would be delighted to see confirmation of this. We must hope that many parents agree to take part in this new DCSF sponsored exercise. If a large enough number of participants are enlisted and they are not given overmuch choice in the matter, then the bugbear of small samples, self selection, bias and personal prejudice, which as I mentioned above has bedevilled previous research, could be disposed of entirely. I think also that we can expect anybody engaged by the DCSF to undertake such a task to be fairly professional and impartial. They are unlikely to fall into the trap of climbing into bed, metaphorically speaking, with the home educators! Until such work is carried out, we cannot expect to see the received wisdom regarding education in this country change significantly. The result will be that home education will continue to be viewed with disfavour and that school based education will carry on being the model to which we should all aspire.
I think it fair to say that the evidence for the academic efficacy of British home education is not taken seriously by many professionals. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, existing studies of educational attainment among home educated children have been of very small samples, typically no more than twenty or thirty families. Secondly, the existing research is all horribly biased and skewed by self selection. Both with Paula Rothermel's research in 1997/1998 and also with Education Otherwise's survey in 2003, which involved sending out two and a half thousand questionnaires, around 80% of parents refused to have anything at all to do with the business. The one in five who did respond tended to be weird and atypical individuals like the present writer! The third reason that nobody takes the existing research seriously is because none of it has been objective.
In order to gain access to home educating families, it is first necessary to demonstrate that one is not at all hostile, or even sceptical, towards the whole idea of home education. Paula Rothermel and Alan Thomas both, in effect, made friends with the home educators whom they studied. As soon as this happens, as soon as the researchers are sharing meals with those whom they are studying, or helping in the kitchen, playing with the children and so on; objectivity goes out of the window. In 1990, Julie Webb published an excellent book on the subject of home education called Children Learning at Home. In order to write this, she became incredibly close to a number of home educating families. When a person looking into a particular lifestyle becomes in effect one of the family, then any pretence at scholarly detachment is lost. Most professionals will treat the resulting work with either suspicion or at best condescension.
Last Autumn, Ofsted attempted to gather data in fifteen local authority areas. This project was not a notable success. It was perhaps unfortunate that such an exercise was conducted only a few months after the end of the Badman review of elective home education. The level of cooperation was not high. Now the DCSF has announced that they too wish to carry out a long term project, this time one which will track a cohort of home educated children and see what their educational experience and attainments amount to over the course of some years. I am expecting this to become hugely controversial and for home educating parents to boycott the whole thing.
It is about time that some information was gathered about the long term consequences of elective home education in this country. For my own part, I am convinced that home education is at least as effective as that provided in maintained schools and I would be delighted to see confirmation of this. We must hope that many parents agree to take part in this new DCSF sponsored exercise. If a large enough number of participants are enlisted and they are not given overmuch choice in the matter, then the bugbear of small samples, self selection, bias and personal prejudice, which as I mentioned above has bedevilled previous research, could be disposed of entirely. I think also that we can expect anybody engaged by the DCSF to undertake such a task to be fairly professional and impartial. They are unlikely to fall into the trap of climbing into bed, metaphorically speaking, with the home educators! Until such work is carried out, we cannot expect to see the received wisdom regarding education in this country change significantly. The result will be that home education will continue to be viewed with disfavour and that school based education will carry on being the model to which we should all aspire.
Sunday, 4 October 2009
The Fraser Institute and home education
I have in the past been reproached for not paying enough attention to research on home education, particularly that from North America. I have decided to remedy this by taking a serious look at the paper on homeschooling published by the Fraser Institute in 2001 and expanded and republished in 2007. This piece is often quoted enthusiastically by the advocates of home education. I have to say, I found a very big problem almost as soon as I skimmed through it. For those interested in seeing for themselves, it may be found here;
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/Homeschooling2007.pdf
At first sight it appears to be a sober and measured overview of home education, with particular emphasis on the USA and Canada. A glance at page 14 will however at once give the game away. It says;
"For example, a three-year study conducted by
researchers at England’s University of Durham found
that home schooled students noticeably out-performed
their public school peers in both literacy and mathematics
(Livni, 2000). "
"England's University of Durham" tells us at once that they are referring to Paula Rothermel's doctoral thesis, but who on Earth are the "researchers" who "conducted a three year study"? Could the mysterious Livni, whom they cite, be one of these researchers? Well, no. Ephrat Livni is in fact a reporter for the ABC News in America. In other words, the authors of this widely quoted study from the Fraser Institute have not actually read Paula Rothermel's work themselves, but instead rely upon what they heard about it on the TV news! How scholarly is that? The truth is of course, that the the work at Durham to which they refer was actually a small-scale piece of research involving thirty five children carried out by an undergraduate. I suppose that talking about "researchers" made it sound more authoritative. They don't even credit Rothermel herself in their references.
The authors go on to say;
"The United Kingdom,
Germany, Japan, and Switzerland are some of the
developed nations with growing home schooling movements
(Billups, 2000)."
Who is Billups, cited as though she were an academic source? That would be Andrea Billups who is a reporter for the Washington Post. And so it goes on. Among the sources for this paper are The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, Baltimore Sun, Newsweek, Time Magazine, Washington Post and ABC News. The authors of this much quoted piece of work have evidently not bothered to read a lot of the original work upon which they comment, but have instead relied upon what newspaper reporters and the television news channels have chosen to say about it. Need I say more?
Try and imagine for a moment if I criticised Paula Rothermel's research here and then finished by saying, "Of course I haven't actually read it, but I know what was said about it in the Daily Mail!". To say that I would be heavily censured for expressing any sort of an opinion about the research without actuallybothering to read it for myself is perhaps something of an understatement. I have not the time to go through every one of the references in this piece, but I think that I have shown clearly that this is not really a proper study of the subject of home education. One has to bear in mind of course that a founder member of the Fraser Institute was Friederich Hayek, the economist. The whole organisation is very heavily slanted towards free market principles and the main reason that they are in favour of home education is because is not regulated by the government. Finally, I thought that this sentence from Wikipedia was worth quoting;
"Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have claimed the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method"
They got that right!
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/Homeschooling2007.pdf
At first sight it appears to be a sober and measured overview of home education, with particular emphasis on the USA and Canada. A glance at page 14 will however at once give the game away. It says;
"For example, a three-year study conducted by
researchers at England’s University of Durham found
that home schooled students noticeably out-performed
their public school peers in both literacy and mathematics
(Livni, 2000). "
"England's University of Durham" tells us at once that they are referring to Paula Rothermel's doctoral thesis, but who on Earth are the "researchers" who "conducted a three year study"? Could the mysterious Livni, whom they cite, be one of these researchers? Well, no. Ephrat Livni is in fact a reporter for the ABC News in America. In other words, the authors of this widely quoted study from the Fraser Institute have not actually read Paula Rothermel's work themselves, but instead rely upon what they heard about it on the TV news! How scholarly is that? The truth is of course, that the the work at Durham to which they refer was actually a small-scale piece of research involving thirty five children carried out by an undergraduate. I suppose that talking about "researchers" made it sound more authoritative. They don't even credit Rothermel herself in their references.
The authors go on to say;
"The United Kingdom,
Germany, Japan, and Switzerland are some of the
developed nations with growing home schooling movements
(Billups, 2000)."
Who is Billups, cited as though she were an academic source? That would be Andrea Billups who is a reporter for the Washington Post. And so it goes on. Among the sources for this paper are The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, Baltimore Sun, Newsweek, Time Magazine, Washington Post and ABC News. The authors of this much quoted piece of work have evidently not bothered to read a lot of the original work upon which they comment, but have instead relied upon what newspaper reporters and the television news channels have chosen to say about it. Need I say more?
Try and imagine for a moment if I criticised Paula Rothermel's research here and then finished by saying, "Of course I haven't actually read it, but I know what was said about it in the Daily Mail!". To say that I would be heavily censured for expressing any sort of an opinion about the research without actuallybothering to read it for myself is perhaps something of an understatement. I have not the time to go through every one of the references in this piece, but I think that I have shown clearly that this is not really a proper study of the subject of home education. One has to bear in mind of course that a founder member of the Fraser Institute was Friederich Hayek, the economist. The whole organisation is very heavily slanted towards free market principles and the main reason that they are in favour of home education is because is not regulated by the government. Finally, I thought that this sentence from Wikipedia was worth quoting;
"Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have claimed the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method"
They got that right!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
