Why do they publish this rubbish? A carefully reasoned critique

I don't read the newspapers often and when I do I usually end up shouting at them; which annoys my husband and leaves me with raised blood pressure. It seems to me that most, if not all, newspaper articles are just a lot of words for the sake of it. (Obviously, my blog is not this at all, but meaningful reflection on contemporary issues!)

I was sent a link yesterday to an article on Home Ed in The Guardian newspaper. It sounded good, with positive stories of 2 Home Ed families and publicising 'a book just published by academics at the Institute of Education, University of London' which is 'is highly controversial. It argues that home education is a viable alternative to school up to the age of 14.'

Already I'm asking, 'Why is this highly controversial?' It is, after all, my legal right to choose to Home Ed in this country. Also, 'Why up to the age of 14?' What happens when children turn 14 that makes Home Ed no longer viable? (My eldest is only 9 so perhaps there's something I don't know yet!)

It goes on to say that the authors,

'conclude that informal learning at home is an 'astonishingly efficient way to
learn', as good if not better than school for many children'

and that they

'marvel at the way one girl learned maths by "helping with the cooking and
shopping, and collecting supermarket-trolley money."'

Also,

'the chaotic nature of the informal curriculum does not appear to be a barrier
to children organising it into a coherent body of knowledge' and 'the lack of
information quality-control does not appear to lead to muddled, confused
children.'

(That's a relief for this sometimes muddled and confused mother!)

That sounds to me like 'We can't quite believe this, but this odd, uncontrolled, out-of-the-box, trusting that children can, will and actually love to learn, which we thought was a load of old rubbish, actually works? How about that?!'

'The authors discovered that these children absorbed information mainly by
"doing nothing, observing, having conversations, exploring, and through
self-directed learning". They liken the "chaotic nature" of informal learning to
the process that leads to scientific breakthroughs, the early stages of crafting
a novel, coming up with a solution to a technical problem, or the act of
composing music.'

Isn't that amazing? What more could you hope for in education than that it should emulate the processes of scientific breakthrough or the act of composing music? This brings to my mind Newton, Fleming, J. K. Rowling, James Dyson, Beethoven .....So you'd think the conclusion to all this would be along the lines of 'Yay for Home Ed!! It's fantastic! Why don't more people do it? What lessons can the educational establishments learn from this model?"

You'd think....

But no....

'Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment
Research at the University of Buckingham, urges caution. Informal learning is an
adjunct, not a replacement for a formal curriculum, he warns. There's a case for
starting formal education later in this country, he acknowledges, but the
curriculum is still essential. '

In fact, it gets worse.

'Not all learning is pleasurable; some of it is painful and repetitive. Unless
children are in a social situation that makes them stay at it, they will lose
out. "It's very important that parents have the option to home-educate their
children, but I wouldn't advise it," he says.'

Did the guy not read book, or even the rest of this article? What is he talking about? What is it based on? And why does he get the last word?

So, once again, I am shouting at a newspaper!