how smug are we feeling about the cambridge report this morning?

[workstostaysane]

on a scale of 1 to 10. 10 being 'i always knew i was right and everyone else (especially those who ask about socialzation) can go hang'
i have to say i am at 7. which is because i haven't even started yet as dd is only 18months, but am planning to do so.
its soooo nice to hear it reported favourably for once no?

I'm not a home ed-er myself but I agree we start too early and test too mucm and I pmsl at the govt saying the study wasn't impartial and that they will be doing their own. it's by bloody Cambridge academics ffs. I kind of assume they know how to do impartial studies. and that they haven't got reasons to be partial...

oh can you link pls?

I haven't yet seen the reports that are being quoted this morning, but I have to say that I am surprised at the level of "research" being used by the Primary Review. For example the teams are only looking at reports that have already been translated into English, they will not translate any reports written in German, Swedish or Dutch. Likewise they are not conudcting any new research, they are simply examining the work already published. Finally whlst the work may be being coordinated through Cambridge, most of the authoers of today's report are not from Cambridge University!

Not to say that an HE'er or indeed anyone outside of the state sector shouldn't feel smug, but I'm not sure that this report is the best basis for such smugness.

I don't feel smug, but I do hope all this research does some good, and the government realises the pointlessness of this endless testing.

lol - it doesn't increase my smugness (as if anything could! ) but it does help enormously in terms of dealing with family objections. Which is the only real problem I have, so that's good.

yes exactly the same for us sue

off to find a link

I think this is it.
The Primary Review

www.primaryreview.org.uk/.
link to report site. have not read it... have you been following these studies LM or are you involved with them in some way?

www.primaryreview.org.uk/.
link to report site. have not read it... have you been following these studies LM or are you involved with them in some way?

i'm sure i only pressed that once..

The story is here in the Guardian;
State schools shunned for home education

thanks juliennoshoes.
i'm still interested in wy ladymuck seems a bit dismissive of it though
if you're out ther LM, let us know.

Not dismissive as such - more pointing out that these reports do not contain any new research. They are simply reviews along certain topics of previously reported research. Furthermore they are being limited to looking at research which is a) readily available, and b) does not need to be translated into English. So for example when they are comparing curricula across countries they have chosen to rely on the Government websites, notwithstanding that this may not be an accurate reflection of what happens in the classroom.

So when they are looking at homeschooling and stating that homeschooling results in better achievement, they are regurgitating some research that was carried out in the US almost 10 years ago. Far enough - given their marrow remit, there isn't anything else that they can look at. But it is slightly less than a thorough review of efficacy of homeschooling in the UK.

Of course it is not as newsworthy to state that the underlying research is in fact old studies on selected areas of American homeschooling!

One of the other reports today which indicates that UK children are overtested, has drawn this conclusion because children are "tested" each year from 7 onwards. Yet most parents would be thinking in terms of SATs and in that respect the UK isn't that much different from some of the other countries studied. I haven't looked at the UK website used as the basis of research, so am unsure as to why they conclude that children are in fact tested annually, but I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions purely from newspaper articles (because journalists aren't always known for being completely impartial!)

hi again, ladymuck. good to hear from you.
their website says they have commissioned 31 studies from the uk and 3 more european countries. it says nothing at all about american home schoolers as far as i have seen.

From their site:
"When the Review was launched, we invited written and electronic submissions on any or all of the themes from all who are interested in primary education, including parents, teachers, local authorities, political parties, employers, community organisations, faith groups, and members of the public.

We were particularly keen to hear from two constituencies whose voices all too often remain submerged: parents and children"

i've just been through the whole website and can't find any reference at all to the US. just lists of consultants (most from the uk), consulted organisations and individuals.

where are you getting the information that the results are based on out of date american research? i'm not having a go, just genuinly interested.

One of the links from the Guardian piece quotes a Mrs Tomsett, monitor for West Sussex LEA as saying in 2004 -

"If the mother isn't powerful enough to get the child to school, she certainly isn't powerful enough to make him get up and do five hours study and shoo away his friends."

Five hours? Where did she magic that figure from?

And if an employer tried to force a bullied employee back to the work place he would end up in a tribunal. Why should children be different?

I hope that legal knowledge and attitudes of West Sussex LA have moved on since 2004.

I've skim read the actual report on curriculums & it does make reference to American home schooling...is that the section that LM is referring to?

The report on primary futures which was headed by James Conroy (Professor of Religious and Philosophical Education at Glasgow University) and has been published today is here. The main section on home-schooling starts on page 10 of the report (or page 14 of the pdf file), and you will find the research mentioned by Rudner, Welner and Welner etc referenced at the end of the paper.

Just to be clear, I have not said that this research is "out of date", merely that it is not new, and is in respect of findings in the US, not the UK or Europe. But bear in mind that this paper is simply trying to collate the research that already exists on this topic. I would hope that at some point this is used to identify areas where further research might be beneficial. But as is often the case I think that journalists have been rather selective as to how they have reported the publishing of these reports, which frankly in themselves are almost totally unnewsworthy, at least to the extent that they refer to anything new and not previously in the public domain.

Lady Muck I don't care when/where the info comes from. It still shows that HE'ing gives better results in the long term than schooling. If the information is old, so what, you cannot seriously believe that the education children receive in schools is better now than it was when the reports were written, or that HE'ing has deteriorated in any way? Also what real difference is there between Home Educating in the US, UK new Zealand, Australia (where its a fact of life for rural kids) etc.
Yes I agree that journalists are untrustworthy, look at the way they keep on going on about how well schooled kids are doing every year when they bring out the results, or the sensational stories they make up about children committing suicide because of exam pressures and buulying.

You seem to be misreading my posts, whether deliberately or not. I have not dismissed this research on the grounds that it is old. All I am saying is that, despite the fact that this has only just appeared in the UK newspapers, the reasearch quoted has been in the public domain for a number of years. In other words it is not "news" that HE children as a population outperfrom schooled children.

Not entirely sure that I want to get into a whole debate about HE to be honest. I'm just pointing out what the purpose and basis of the report is, and my comment was really directed towards one of the early posts with someone expressing surprise that the government might want to carry out their own research into the outcomes of HE in the UK. Which personally I would welcome, as I think that such a study would be more persuasive in indicating the benefits of HE in the UK and leading to it becoming a more common alternative to schooling. Without going into the whole "differences in HEing between countries debate", one of the key differences is that in many parts of US and Australia it is "a fact of life" and considered to be normal, not exceptional. And whilst it would be hideous to see undue interference from the Government, I suspect that being able to tap into some of the money available for education (the £2-3k pa spent on school pupils) could be of benefit to some HEers.

i see what you mean ladymuck. the research was not undertaken specifically for this report.
however, i would argue that it is 'newsworthy'. While one may have been able to get hold of this information before now, if you were so inclined, because it is now published in the context of the first comprehensive review of primary education in this country for 50 years, the information is now available to those who would otherwise not have known it.

I'm very much a newbie to this world and while I have come across the Rothermel study on line, I haven;t heard of the others and its really nice to have it readily available and quotable in a discussion about schooling in the UK.

I really appreciate you taking the time to post the links.