More: Media Bias on School Choice

An e-mail, sent to a variety interested observers by George Mitchell, an expert on and strong supporter of school choice:

On page 5 of the WPRI [Wisconsin Policy Research Institute] report the following appears:

“A story in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel recently noted that ‘parents might have more choices in publicly funded education in Milwaukee than anywhere else in the United States.’”

The referenced story discusses a study on how low-income parents choose schools in Milwaukee, Denver, and Washington DC. That study’s findings pertain directly to the issues raised by WPRI. Namely, to what extent do parents in Milwaukee make discerning decisions?

I have attached a copy of the study. Its findings and methodology differ starkly from those of the WPRI study.

Unless I am too numbed by this whole affair, I find no discussion in the WPRI report that addresses these differences. That is perplexing. With a recent study (from a highly credible source) having addressed essentially the same issues as WPRI, one would expect WPRI to examine that study and comment on similarities and differences. Questions that arise include:

1. How do the studies differ in terms of gathering information about Milwaukee parents?
2. How does the studies differ in terms of conclusions about how those parents choose schools?
3. Given those differences, what suggests that more confidence should be placed in the WPRI method and findings?

I encourage you to skim the attached study. It differs in so many ways from the WPRI report that I feel a summary from me would not do it justice. WPRI must disagree with its findings, but WPRI’s report is silent on that matter. If I have missed something in the WPRI report, it means that the reference is very brief and thus does not address the obvious questions raised above.

A separate question is why the Journal Sentinel did not raise these questions in reporting on the WPRI study.

Setting aside the paper’s demonstrated failure in connection with this story, the failure of WPRI to pursue the questions raised above stands out as yet another glaring inadequacy in its report. I thank Mike Ford for bringing this to my attention.

George

This, of course, is a follow-up on an issue we have covered here, in which the Journal-Sentinel enthusiastically jumped on and covered prominently reported a study from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute casting doubt on the ability of school choice to improve the quality of Milwaukee’s public schools.

We critiqued the study, and commented on the failure of the Journal-Sentinel to report better studies showing positive gains from school choice in Milwaukee.

Mitchell followed up with his own critique posted here.

The study sends mixed messages about the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. First, it shows considerable integrity when an organization that strongly favors school choice publishes a study that goes against school choice. Honest policy analysis says to go where the data take you.

But on the other hand, it simply wasn’t a very good study.

But how about the local media? The Journal-Sentinel gave high visibility to the WPRI study, but didn’t even bother to report a study from a New York Federal Reserve Bank economist who found that choice has indeed improved Milwaukee’s schools. This latter study has been accepted for publication by a top ranked peer-reviewed economics journal.

Likewise, as yet there is nothing in the paper about the study Mitchell references above. The conclusion, based on extensive research into parential decision-making, including a sample of parently in Milwaukee:

On balance, the research indicates that while there are some differences related to income, race and ethnicity, parental education, and the kind of school the family selects, overall these low- to moderate-income parents seem fully capable of making the decision. They feel well informed; they appear satisfied with their choices; and they go about the process in very much the same way as middle- and upper-income families choosing schools—or other consumer goods.

Are we soon going to see this in the local paper (or on local radio and TV)?

And if not, why not?

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute School Choice Study: More

The following was left as a comment to an earlier post of ours, and we feel it deserves the prominence of a full-fledged post. It’s from George Mitchell, policy wonk and activist who has been a stalwart supporter of school choice.

George Mitchell said...
The following was sent to the study’s author:

October 26, 2007

Dave,

WPRI’s sponsorship of your recent study, combined with the Journal Sentinel’s misleading article, has generated wide interest in the findings. You can anticipate many questions regarding the methodology you employed and whether it was appropriate for the Milwaukee situation.

For reasons summarized below, I am interested in knowing if you or WPRI submitted your methodology to others for independent review. If so, can you share the responses you received? If the methodology was not reviewed by others, I think it would be advisable for you or WPRI to seek such a review.

You estimate “the extent and nature of public school choice and parental involvement” in Milwaukee by applying “a variety of demographic variables…correlated with…parental choice and parent involvement...” The variables, derived from a “national data set,” were:

• educational attainment of parents
• race and ethnicity of students
• household composition (single-parent vs. two-parent), and
• mother’s employment status.

The “national data set” consisted of answers to an NHES survey. These answers apparently show, for example, that high educational attainment is correlated positively with parental involvement and more engagement in school choice. Similarly, I assume that two-parent, non-minority families also were positively correlated with parent involvement and engagement in school choice. And so on.

You assume (or “extrapolate”) that MPS parents will behave in the same manner as those who answered the NHES survey. By constructing a demographic profile of MPS parents, you thus believe you can estimate the “extent and nature of public school choice and parental involvement within the Milwaukee Public Schools district.” In the specific case of school choice, you conclude that only 10 percent of MPS parents are discerning choosers.

George Lightbourn’s introduction to your report says, “The report you are reading did not yield the results we had hoped to find.” However, given your methodology, the results were completely predictable — even pre-ordained. Specifically, rather than gathering information about the actual behavior of MPS parents, the study simply assumes that they behave in a manner similar to respondents to a national survey. Given the demographic profile of MPS parents, you knew from the start that you would estimate relatively low levels of school choice and parent involvement. To quote one scholar who has read your report, “[WPRI] simply assumes that parents of a certain demographic profile behave the same way no matter what. In this way, the WPRI study assumes the very thing it claims to prove. The study finds that [parents] are not effective choosers based on data from environments where they have few choices.”

The key question, then, is whether the methodology is appropriate for Milwaukee’s unique situation.

Consider some actual numbers, beginning with your ten percent conclusion. Applied only to MPS enrollment, that yields a group of 9,000 discerning choosers. Applied to all Milwaukee students in tax-supported K-12 education, the total would be 12,000. So, you find that between 9,000 and 12,000 students have discerning parents. Yet:

• There are more than 17,000 students who attend schools in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
• More than 5,000 other students attend independent public charters authorized by the City of Milwaukee and UW-Milwaukee. That’s more than 22,000 students.
• There are thousands — perhaps tens of thousands — of MPS students with parents who have chosen neighborhood schools. Indeed, a specific focus of MPS school selection in recent years has emphasized neighborhood schools. Your report appears to discount all those choices by labeling neighborhood schools as a “default” option.
• Roughly 10,000 other parents use the open enrollment process and the Chapter 220 program to make clear choices about where their students attend school.
• Thousands more parents enroll their children in so-called specialty MPS schools. These parents make clear choices. Many of those schools have waiting lists, yet another measure of choice.

In other words, by any reasonable estimate the number of actual choices made by Milwaukee parents substantially exceeds 9,000-12,000. Even allowing for a subjective definition of what a well-informed choice is, the number is simply much greater than your 10 percent estimate.

This raises the possibility that your methodology is highly inappropriate when it comes to the Milwaukee situation, one that is unique among American cities. Given that Milwaukee parents have so many options — a condition that has existed for more than a decade — it is questionable to assume that their behavior will not differ from other urban parents who don’t have such options.

While there are other assertions in your study that I find debatable, those are overshadowed by the methodology question. As part of the continuing discussion your report will engender, I reiterate that an independent assessment of that methodology is in order. This is all the more so given the existence of peer-reviewed scholarship (such as by Hoxby and Chakrabarti) that is at odds with your conclusions; it is unclear why your report does not acknowledge and discuss their work.

George

Supreme Court Race: Future of School Choice on the Line

George Mitchell is a long-time Wisconsin political activist and policy wonk who has been a strong supporter of school choice. In a circular e-mail, sent Tuesday and reprinted here with permission, he lays out the danger to school choice that the election of Linda Clifford to the state Supreme Court would entail:

Take Note

Unreported in today’s article on the Supreme Court debate is a comment by candidate Linda Clifford, who responded to a question saying that the law regarding “school choice” needs “clarification.”

It does? What does that mean?

The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1998 upheld the constitutionality of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. On a 4-2 vote, with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley recusing, the court rejected each and every point raised by lawyers for teacher unions.

In 2002 the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Cleveland voucher program.

There is no benign way to interpret Clifford’s comment. “Clarifying” the 1998 court decision can only suggest an adverse impact on Milwaukee’s program. This would affect not only Milwaukee but parents and families statewide, as some candidates for public office and some sitting officials favor an expansion beyond Milwaukee. While that likely would not occur while Jim Doyle is governor, he won’t be governor forever. However, Linda Clifford, his candidate for the Supreme Court, easily could serve for decades if elected April 3.

After April 3, three of seven Supreme Court justices on the court in 1998 will remain. They are Chief Justice Abrahamson, Justice Patrick Crooks, and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.

Justice Abrahamson dissented in the 1998 decision. Justice Crooks voted with the majority. For reasons not publicly explained, Justice Bradley recused herself.

New to the court are Justice Butler, a Doyle appointee; Justice Pat Roggensack; and Justice David Prosser.

As an appellate judge, Justice Roggensack authored a lengthy dissent in support of the Milwaukee program’s constitutionality when the case was heard in 1997. Her dissent became the spine of Justice Steinmetz’s 4-2 majority opinion in 1998. So, she clearly is on record, as is Justice Crooks.

Justice Prosser was a member of the Legislature and strong supporter of school choice in the 1990s. He, too, presumably believes the law is constitutional.

So, that is three apparent votes to sustain the principles established in the 1998 Wisconsin and 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case.

Chief Justice Abrahamson is on record that the program is unconstitutional. When I asked Louis Butler his opinion during his candidacy against Diane Sykes, he pointedly declined to answer.

Justice Bradley’s reasons for recusing in 1998 are not known, as is whether she would recuse herself if another case came before the court. Justice Bradley often agrees with Chief Justice Abrahamson.

So, the math is clear. Three apparent votes to sustain prior rulings on choice. Three potential votes not to sustain.

Linda Clifford is seeking the fill the seat of Justice Wilcox, who voted with the majority in 1998. She could provide a fourth vote to “clarify” the school choice law.

I am unaware of Judge Ziegler’s position, though the presumption must be that she would vote to sustain the precedent set by the 1998 and 2002 decisions.

Linda Clifford’s comment is significant beyond the very ominous implications for school choice. If anything has seemed clear in the school choice debate, it is that the law is settled. Yet Clifford is saying otherwise, notwithstanding two court rulings (that happen to reflect the thinking first set down by Justice Roggensack).

What other established precedents does Linda Clifford think need “clarification”?

Does Clifford’s opinion on choice explain the Greater Wisconsin Committee’s issue ad in her behalf? Did WEAC fund that?

These and many related questions now are at the center of this race.

This is what happens when judges adopt an activist posture. Constitutions cease to matter. Precedents cease to matter. All that comes to matter are the policy preferences of the judges. And Clifford is a liberal, endorsed by all the usual liberal suspects. They must feel -- and they are probably right -- that she will give them the policies they want.