Base Data: Review of Elective Home Education

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you with three requests under the Freedom of
Information Act.

I am interested to see the base data used by Mr Badman and his team
in arriving at their conclusions in the report entitled "Review of
elective home education in England".

In particular, I would like to see the data used to arrive at the
conclusion in para 8.12, which states:

"... the number of children known to children's social care in some
local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size
of their home educating population."

What data is this based on?

Secondly, in para 10.2, the report states:

"... some (but not all) studies have found that home educated
children outperform schooled children on a range of indicators... "

Again, what data is this based on? Which studies are considered?
What are their conclusions? All data used to arrive at this
conclusion is requested.

And thirdly, para 10.3 states:

"Evidence offered to this inquiry on the proportion of home
educated young people who are not in education, employment or
training (NEET) was inconclusive"

What evidence was offered? All data used to arrive at this
conclusion is requested.

Please consider these as three separate requests and, if it is not
feasible to fulfill one or more for any reason please consider the
other(s) on their own merits.

I would prefer the information to be emailed to me in electronic
format, with a paper copy following by post.

I trust you can comply with this request and look forward to
hearing from you shortly.

Yours faithfully,

David Landy

Dear Matthew,

Thank you so much for your reply. I understand your position and
appreciate you taking the time and trouble to research my request.

I am somewhat puzzled though as to why felt the need to write the
second paragraph pointing out your institution's support of
academic freedom and the right to free speech, whilst at the same
time pointing out that this does not constitute an endorsement of
any personal views expressed.

Of course, I too support academic freedom and the right to free
speech, but does this mean that you take no view at all on the
academic quality of what your Fellows (visiting or otherwise)
produce?

To take but one example, if I may.

Mr Badman's review of Elective Home Education strongly recommends
sweeping changes to the current legal framework.

It includes quotes from a number of institutions, including the
Church of England, who expressed some relatively minor concerns
about the current situation. Quite rightly, he included these in
his review.

However, he crucially omitted their conclusion (surely the most
important part), which came out firmly *against* any changes to the
current regulatory system:

"We have seen no evidence to show that the majority of home
educated children do not achieve the five Every Child Matters
outcomes, and are therefore not convinced of the need to change the
current system of monitoring the standard of home education. Where
there are particular concerns about the children in a
home-educating this should be a matter for Children’s Services."

It's hard to think of any reason why the author would have omitted
this crucial conclusion for any reason other than that it did not
agree with his already-formulated opinion.

Hardly the work one would expect of a seasoned academic.

I expect that this disclosure will at least raise some eyebrows at
how purported "academia" is being used to shore up government
agendas, rather than to do properly reviewed research work of real
value.

And I am sure you realise that this kind of pseudo-science does
nothing to enhance the reputation of your otherwise excellent
establishment, and indeed, casts aspersions on any academic who
does not denounce it for the obvious fraud that it is.

I request that you pass my response on to the highest levels at
your Institute.

Yours sincerely,

David Landy

Source:
http://dutchessdiscloses.blogspot.com/20...