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:

In Ravitch’s 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 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:

In Ravitch’s Defense: Milwaukee Voucher Study Found Wanting