The comment below draws attention to a debate that followed Dr. Mercedes Schneider’s methodological dissection of Patrick Wolf’s Milwaukee study. Wolf holds an endowed chair in school choice in the “department of education reform” at the University of Arkansas. The Wolf study initially reported a staggering attrition rate of 75% from the voucher schools, which was later altered to a merely astonishing rate of 56%.
Dr. Schneider then was peppered with criticisms from someone who signed only as JB, preferring anonymity (funny, on this blog I often get pro-voucher comments from jb@uarkansas.edu).
Here is the Comment, which includes the thread from Dr. Schneider’s blog:
“75 – to – 56%… ?”
Why, it was just a typo! Case closed!
Or so someone calling himself “J.B.” offers up
as a possible explanation for Wolf’s alteration
from 75% to 56% in quantifying the percentage
of students who leave Milwaukee’s voucher program.
“J.B.” is going to need muscle relaxants after an
absurd stretch like that.
This nugget is from a nice little debate between the
“J.B.” and “Deutch29” in the COMMENTS
section of Schneider’s blog article at:
Scroll down the COMMENTS section to read it.
“J.B.” and “Deutch29” get into it, with Deutsch29
repeatedly asking J.B. what possible explanation
there could be for the mysterious 75 – to – 56% alteration,
and how when you do make such an extreme alteration,
one should include the reasons behind or the the mistake(s)
that led to making that alteration; to date, there is none.
After ducking the question, J.B. finally offers up:
J.B: “I have no idea about the alteration. Seems odd,
but typos do happen.”
His farts probably make more sense than that.
Thankfully, Deutch29 will have none of this pseudonymous
mountebank’s obfuscation, and blasts back with the following
response…
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Deutsch29: “You should investigate that 75% to 56%
attrition alteration with the same veracity as you used
to defend using ITT on a voucher study, or with
the same rude vigor with which Wolf attacked Ravitch
for ‘getting it wrong.’
“Perhaps you are Wolf, JB, or someone working for him.
“And I challenge you to honor Dr. Heilg’s request for
access to the data set used in the Wolf et al. study.
It sure would be nice to know just how far from that
‘gold standard’ these two groups strayed.
“Finally, let me add that your group’s (I assume you
are of their camp) decision to not investigate students
who choose to begin with vouchers and use consistently
until graduation makes me wonder whether those funding
the venture really don’t want to know the answer. Or
perhaps it was investigated but not publicized (?)
“No one (on this side of the study) knows.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
It’s a great and illuminating debate. Again, to read it,
scroll down the COMMENTS section of:
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thanks for the compliment, Dr. Ravitch.
I just made another, and perhaps better
COMMENT underneath Wolf’s latest
non-explanation for the 75 – to – 56%
alteration. (however, it’s “awaiting
moderation”, so it might not be there long.)
Again, scroll down to the COMMENTS section
at Wolf’s EDUCATION NEXT article at:
http://educationnext.org/update-on-the-milwaukee-school-choice-evaluation-dust-up/
I’m responding to ubiquitous J.B.—or should
I say “oddly ubiquitous” as he claims that he
has no connection whatsoever with Wolf or
the Corporate Reform movement, but he seems
to be all over the internet with posts defending
Wolf in this dust-up.
Here’s the text:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“J.B.
“There are questions that have STILL not been answered:
“ ‘What was the cause of the initial incorrect 75% figure?’
“ ‘What mistake (s) was (were) made that led to initially inaccurate 75% being published?’
“ ‘What new information or re-calculation led to 75% figure being altered to a lower figure, that is conveniently more favorable to those who favor and promote vouchers?’
“ ‘Why won’t those responsible present the answers to these questions, and allow independent analysts access to all the data and methodology used so that those analysts can verify whether or not those who produced the study are telling the truth NOW, and acted in an ethical manner THEN when they made the change from 75 – to – 56%?’
“You proffered the following lame-o excuse for the 75 – to – 56% alteration on Schneider’s blog:
J.B.: “I have no idea about the alteration. Seems odd, but typos do happen. ”
“Seriously, J.B., after stretch like that, you’re going to need muscle relaxants for at least a week.
“With billions—if not trillions—of dollars at stake that would result from the proliferation of vouchers, don’t you believe that that this report was proofread, and re-proof-read, then checked and re-checked before it was initially released? (or that with so much at stake, that it SHOULD have been.)
“J.B…. DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT SOMEBODY ACTUALLY JUST HIT THE “7″, then “5″ KEYBOARD KEYS ACCIDENTALLY WHEN HE/SHE SHOULD HAVE HIT “5″ THEN “6″… AND THEN NOBODY EVER CAUGHT THIS ERROR PRIOR TO RELEASE?
“Please! Just “a typo”?
“Your farts make more sense than that.”
Not a great idea to disclose the email addresses of anonymous commenters, in my opinion. Either allow and respect anonymity, or require real names. (I’m assuming that this email address wasn’t identified by the commenter in his/her comments or user name. If that’s incorrect, I withdraw the criticism.)
The email address was not real.
I have no problem protecting the anonymity of teachers and principals who fear for their jobs, but I see no reason to protect the anonymity of trolls and others who use anonymity to attack teachers or others who comment.
Flerper, The email address for the University of Arkansas is @uark.edu not @uarkansas.edu
What does one call an academic who is extravagantly paid (over $13 million dollars in research grants alone, according to his department website, all from the usual suspects) to produce “research” that reliably supports the ideological and economic interests of his funders?
I can think of a few names, but they’d probably violate Diane’s rules of civility.
How about “academic concubine?”
And how do you not burst out laughing when someone is solemnly referred to as holding the The 21st Century Endowed Chair in School Choice at a Department of Education Reform at the University of Walmart, er, Arkansas?
That’s like holding an Endowed Chair in the Study of Bourgeois Decadence in the Department of Scientific Socialism at Moscow University back in Soviet days, with just about as much independence and academic integrity.
Wolf’s job title alone comes close to burrowing down to the bedrock limits of self-parody, but he goes lower still by trying to attack Diane Ravitch, and with the predictable nastiness that is the hallmark of many so-called education reformers.
Michael Fiorillo: a mix of sober fact and piquant observation topped off with a hearty sprinkling of humor.
Delicious!
🙂
Ditto!
Let’s see now. If you have 100 in the 9th grade and 4 years later the same class is 25 that is a 75% dropout rate. That is something to be real proud of isn’t it? When I was in the aerospace business a long time ago we called engineers like that “Educated Idiots.” They got this classification from us when they had a PHD, magna cum laude and could not read their own prints or knew what to do. The only place I did not run into that was in the old Kelly Johnson “Skunk Works.” That was the best run place I have ever worked for the few times I did not have my own business. Spinners Spin when they have nothing else to stand on as this fake so-called expert. I learned a long time ago you can call yourself anything you want but if you cannot put up you have nothing. Proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Michael, I hope you do not mind me stealing your phrase “academic concubine.” I am getting some really creative phrases from all of you.