School choice advocates now stand on shaky ground. Their own funded evaluations show that students in voucher schools do not get higher test scores than their peers in public schools.
So they fall back to the next line of defense, which is to say that the voucher students have a higher graduation rate.
In the case of Milwaukee, the graduation rate is muddied by a very high attrition rate, either 75% or 56%, depending on which version of the evaluation you read. Both are very high attrition rates, not much of a statement of student satisfaction.
But there are other problems, as you will see if you read Dr. Mercedes Schneider’s review of Dr. Patrick’s Milwaukee study.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Interesting exchange between Mercedes and a poster named JB in the comment section. My question to JB was “who are you?”. In other words, it is easy to hide behind an anonymous internet blog name not exposing one’s agenda and/or perhaps funders.
Duane, I “broke up” with JB in the comments section of this subsequent post:
http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/intention-to-treat-analysis-a-primer-for-those-not-in-the-stats-club/
M. Schneider: I am familiar, firsthand, with scholarly/specialist writing and publication.
I clicked on the link that you provided to your blog [dated April 4], another link to your blog on the same matter provided below [dated April 2], and read both pieces and the responses they provoked in their entirety.
To be perfectly honest, even though I would describe what Wolf did re the 75%-to-56% matter as at least unprofessional scholarly conduct, and JB’s comments as confirming my worst opinions of the educational “accountabullies” who rely on dishonest manipulation of data in order to engage in “mathematical intimidation,” I must add that your responses forced me to admit that I owe an apology to all the ethical stats/numbers folks out there.
My sincerest mea culpa for some postings where I lumped y’all together as “bean counters” who “knew the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
Live and learn. Thanks for schooling me.
Props to one KraaaaazyMathLady….
🙂
KrazyTA—
Apology accepted.
Some of us use our powers for good. 😉
Diane, Check out letter #1 in the Weekly Press (Baton Rouge) Someone from Stand for Children is defending Jindal’s law. This is a local paper geared to the African-American community. Letter #2 is mine. However, I intend to write a response to #1.
Even a number of his former in-pocket legislators are not defending Acts 1 and 2. And this week, John White was in the hot seat before the House Appropriations Committee for tampering with the MFP formula and coordinating budget surpluses. Add to that Jindal’s embarrassingly low approval rating, and I think Stand for Children knows they just ought to “sit down and shut up.”
My observation is that quite a lot if not most of the studies on charter schools are privately published by well funded think tanks or their privately funded journals and avoid the academically peer review process customary for scholarly journals. While it is a customary courtesy not to question the outright manipulation of the data, even where the formal methodological procedures and research design appear formally appropriate, the conclusions drawn from the studies usually considerably overreach what the research data actually shows. Frequently, this is because key independent variables are disregarded or were not included, and plausible alternative explanations of the data results are conveniently ignored. Unfortunately, given the privately funded nature of most of these studies, there is no forum to rebut this misuse of data, especially after they have been released to national news media. Unfortunately, such is the nature of the education wars today where money counts.
“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:
http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/in-ravitchs-defense-milwaukee-voucher-study-found-wanting/
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 non of this pseudonymous
mountebank’s obfuscation, and blast 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:
http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/in-ravitchs-defense-milwaukee-voucher-study-found-wanting/