> He then goes on to New Orleans in which they lost one to two years of school, went back, and outperformed their peers, but the author also notes that they switched to charter schools which (not shown in your reference) have a noticeable impact. So again, there's another variable besides time spent. [a]

From your link, charter schools don't really outperform public schools so I'm not sure that this has meaningful impact on his argument.

> He provides no evidence that a significant amount of parents are operating in a way that is unlike school.

I'm having a hard time understanding how you can think otherwise. In your experience, do students have the same relationship with their teachers and school administrators as they do with their parents? Definitely not in my experience, and I expect in yours as well, so clearly the default assumption must be that there is more diversity in homeschooling than in public or charter schooling.

Another line of argument is that there is clear evidence that smaller class sizes are correlated with better outcomes, possibly because lesson plans are more catered to individual strengths and weaknesses, and there is no smaller class size than one-on-one or one-on-two in a parent-child scenario. Here again, the default assumption is that there is more diversity in home schooling approaches.

> I stopped reading after the intro to section 4 which I will now quote- [...] To be fair , as stated, he does start to look into them. However he had no issues with using studies from researches that worked for his theory but if they work against it then he's skeptical.

He literally explained the reason in the part you quoted: pro-education researchers have incentives to find schooling is essential, but researchers who don't have this incentive therefore don't have have this bias (and researchers who do have this incentive but don't find positive results are very trustworthy). It's the same reason we ask researchers to cite their conficts of interest on every paper, because we all recognize that this does bias results. I don't see a problem here, as long as the skepticism isn't extreme/disproportionate.

> His response to counter studies 2 - Teacher's striking leads to loss learning (US) - He says this in response " don’t entirely understand their methodology, so I can’t critique them very well, but I have to admit I’m skeptical of them anyway" Again he states he is skeptical for no other reason because he doesn't understand the methodology and it goes against him

Per above, the default should be skepticism given the vested interest. Secondly, Scott does this sort of publication analysis a lot, particularly in his practice as a psychologist, so if he doesn't understand a methodology then that's suspicious on its own.

> His response to counter studies 2 Teacher's striking leads to loss learning (Argentina) - he says "I can’t find any specific problems with this study. It just seems extreme to me" he then basically accuses the study of being misleading because he doesn't understand it.

Extreme outliers should immediately raise suspicion. If a signal is that strong then we should see it everywhere, but we don't, ergo we should be suspicious that this was either a statistical fluke or some kind of shenanigans.

This sort of argument is what has led to the retraction of lots of ivermectin papers over the past year and a half. The reasoning is sound. It's not an outright refutation, more a recognition that a single paper is insufficient to accept a conclusion absent corroboration, and we should investigate such strong signals that fail corroboration for fraud.