Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting study about why parents choose to home school their children.  I found to have a good sample of a diverse group of families.  The design of the study was robust.

However I do not feel the Discussion of the raw data is sufficiently developed and reads more of a summary of the findings already presented.  This is a missed opportunity and I’m suggesting that this section be rewritten.  Below are some ideas which can be explored further but the authors should feel free to look for other areas to expand on.

-what do the findings have to add to the discussion on whole school inclusion policies?  This is the title and the focus of the special edition, but other than a description of the reasons for choosing home schooling, very little is stated to connect the paper/findings to positive efforts which schools could consider.  The paragraph starting at 371 is where this could potentially be added.

-the link between and reasons for those with additional needs choosing home schooling is not really explored.  Literature cited is consistent with the raw data and shows that this group of families are choosing to home school due to more negative reasons.  Stating with 327, it just seems to be described and not gone into much detail.  This is an interesting point and worth exploring to look at possible reasons and how these can be positively built on.  Has a Factor Analysis been explored to perhaps show which areas have more weighting on this decision?  I’m left asking, how does this impact the field or what does this mean for whole school inclusion?

-the discussion on the proactive and reactive decision making is also interesting to explore further with more details about the characteristics of each group and implications

-the data on child depression is very interesting, but not mentioned either before this or in the Discussion.  If you agree that it is relevant, further exploration is needed (351+).  If not, then why is it included?

To make space for this larger discussion, I’m recommending condensing the first 2 pages.  Remember to write this as part of a special edition where the reader will have some knowledge of the topic by the editorial introduction and other papers.  Also you mention several issues which are not discussed later (leadership team, teaching staff, training and support).  These are areas which should be either removed or discussed in the expanded Discussion section. 

Minor points:

-consider adding some theoretical basis for the design

-An explanation of why Catholic Schools were chosen as a category and not other independent/fee paying schools is needed. 

-minor typos:  full stop needed in line 303, space in line 360

-try to avoid so much repetition (for example at the start of the Discussion section).  Remember the reader has just read this information in previous sections so you can avoid this level of detail. 

In conclusion, I do feel that there is merit to developing this paper further and would encourage the authors to consider doing so. 

Author Response

please see attached table

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for allowing me to review this research.  It is an interesting topic and of value as education is changing and seemingly going downhill quickly. While this paper has value for publication it needs stronger research support in the introduction and a stronger conclusion based on the data collected.

Research references are limited; 13 of the 41 listed are published research. Several are meta-analysis and not original research.  15 of the 41 listed are websites that talks about whole schooling, but is not evidence based.  This is of grave concern when publishing in a research journal. 

It is interesting that more parents are home schooling their children.  It is beneficial that the authors have sorted the parents who have always home-schooled as opposed to the parents who have taken their child out of a traditional school.   It should be a wake-up call to public schools.

 Concerns about this article include the missing information about inclusive schools that do not fully include all students in the typical classes for the full day, but do not regulate students with specific education needs or alternative learning needs to segregated schools.  Many schools offer segregated classes or separate instruction within the local public school. This description should be added to give a fuller picture of the options.  

Overall, the paper is well written, although not supported by sufficient appropriate research.  A stronger discussion and conclusion would better serve the reader.  The purpose of this paper is to question the actual benefits of ALL learners using fully inclusive schools. This is a strong interest of mine as many students are included, but left behind and others are separated and unchallenged and therefore fall behind. 

I suggest making the suggested changes and resubmit.  Continue researching the benefits and downfalls of full inclusion.

Author Response

please see attached table

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Nice job with corrections and additions. I find this interesting and this research could be beneficial across the continents as the process of inclusion continues to evolve.