I was speaking the other day with a rather intelligent friend on the issue of homeschooling. This friend is scientifically inclined (important in the context of this piece), and he commented that he had heard a piece on NPR about how homeschoolers are below their peers academically (he cited it as an "extensive study"). Now, his citing of NPR as a source immediately sent up red flags. NPR has a pretty consistently left lean, and the left has a recent history of virulently attacking homeschooling (ironic, as the modern homeschool movement was the product of LIBERALS disenchanted with the educational system, not of religious conservatives, as many believe).

Anyway, I stated immediately that I would need to get my hands on the hard data to speak conclusively on this study in particular. After all, a number of states have laws mandating standardized testing for homeschool students, and in EVERY ONE of these states, the homeschool students consistently outperform their peers. The "study" he referred to, if true, would be absolutely earthshaking as its implications would controvert all previously released data.

His response surprised me.

He accused me of being "defensive" and stated he was only relaying information he had heard. Outside of "NPR", he was unable to cite a source. As a scientifically minded individual, I would have thought he would have respected the fact that I wanted to look at hard data and not conclusions. As well, he should have been more ready to provide a source.

Thus, I came online. In searching NPR's archives, I was unable to find A SINGLE reference to this alleged study. I was equally unable to find such a reference through a google search or the Homeschool Legal Defense Fund's webpage (he cited it was done by a "large national homeschool organization", and that the evidence they found went against the evidence they were trying to find. Well, as much as I loathe the HSLDA, they ARE the primary national organization that could truly be considered "large", and I would have expected to have found at a minimum a rebuttal to the data).

It would seem to me that news as groundbreaking as this would be accessible in the NPR's archives. It is not, however, making me question its veracity entirely.

What disturbs me most, though, is this only goes to underscore the inadequacy of what we call research. We rely primarily on secondary and often tertiary sources without a thought of analyzing the raw data, which is almost always far more revealing than the "conclusions" (conclusions are often subjective; filter them through a couple of layers and they quickly become even more so); let alone that a scientifically minded individual would be offended when I would solicit said raw data.

It's a crazy world sometimes.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish