OK ..
There's a lot of room to suggest this difference is still significant. It's not really a concern though. My concern here is that you're suggesting this report is trying to hide something.
If they have the numbers how they present them says something about their intent here. I don't believe they went at this thinking "Let's be less than fully disclosed here and hope no one picks the data apart" but I do think they neglected a pretty obvious problem and had the data on hand to spot it.
I think if you look at the nature of the presentation and consider the intent you'll not find any desire to mislead.
I don't agree. If you know or reasonably should know a thing and fail to note it while examining/extolling the virtues of a practice you're allowing people to be misled, at best. That's good PR but bad practice.
Re: when is noting a deficiency over reacting.
When it's not a deficiency.
Depends, I suppose, on how you approach it. If you want a clearer picture of home schooling's strengths and weaknesses, it is. If you want a rosy, misleading bit of PR, it isn't.
The authors are under no obligation to present every piece of data possible.
Of course not. I try to keep that in mind any time anyone representing a party or faction gives me information about their interest. That's also why I look into any claim independently and frequently find things like the omitted consideration now considered.
The things it's "hiding" clearly aren't being hidden very well. :chuckle:
You might be surprised at how many people run with what's handed to them if it suits their inclination.
If that's how you define a fairer treatment of the subject, sure. :thumb: