Tonight: Warrior Blogger to Speak on Academic Freedom

We are late posting this, but as of now (Thursday morning), there are a few places left.

Join

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute

for a conversation with
Professor John McAdams

“Safe Zones & Snowflakes:
The Future of Free Speech in Academia.”

Thursday, January 21st, 2016
The Wisconsin Club
Deutscher Room

5:30PM-7:00PM
5:30 – 6:00 p.m. Registration & Reception
6:00 – 6:10 p.m. Introduction
6:10 – 6:30 p.m. Professor John McAdams
6:30 – 6:50 p.m. Q&A
Cost: $15 registration includes hors d’oeuvres.
CASH BAR

To register: Go to www.wpri.org/Contribute.htm

Unpleasant Truths About Race Relations

From the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute:

By ROBERT L. WOODSON SR.

What distinguishes the recent unrest in Baltimore from other protests around the country over deadly encounters with police is the difficulty protest organizers are having linking the death of Freddie Gray to his race.

From Ferguson to Milwaukee to Madison, “Black Lives Matter” has been the rallying cry. Because Baltimore’s mayor, police commissioner and half of the 3,000-member police force are black, including three of the six officers indicted in Gray’s death, there seems to be confusion about where to assign blame. But there is little confusion about where to direct anger.

Many black activists complain that little has improved for blacks in West Baltimore since the 1968 riots. They used the conditions of poor blacks to make the case for voting rights that would help put middle-class, college-educated blacks in positions of power and offer a better way forward for all blacks.

However, five decades of civil rights legislation, anti-poverty programs and community renewal initiatives have not eased the persistent hopelessness that exists in many low-income black communities, including Milwaukee. Why not?

It is time to explore some unpleasant truths. The seeds of distrust were planted even back then as to whether the interests of poor blacks were sacrificed by their new black representatives, in government and in social service businesses. Poor blacks have been the victims of a cruel bait-and-switch game, where the demographics of all blacks were used as the bait; when resources arrived, the bulk of them went to middle-class providers.

If race were the primary culprit in injustice and poverty, why are poor blacks no better off in institutions run by their own people, including city governments and public schools? If government safety net programs were the answer, why has $20 trillion spent on the programs over 50 years failed to improve the lot of the poor? The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said that the highest form of maturity is the ability to be self-critical. Black America needs a serious self-examination.

What are possible solutions?

Before external resources will be effective in improving and rebuilding blighted areas, there must be improvements in the attitudes of young people living there. This attitude overhaul should be led by leaders from within the community, not outside professionals.

It was, of course, perfectly natural that in the heyday of the Civil Rights movement racial solidarity among black people should prevail. In reality, the movement did represent the interests of black people generally — poor and not-so-poor, educated and less educated. But increasingly, over the last half century, the interests of the race hustling elite in the black community have diverged from the interests of ordinary black people.

Urban riots, for example, create a demand for more spending on social programs, but also depress property values in black neighborhoods and deter investment in these same neighborhoods. Hostility toward police fuels a liberal narrative about cops oppressing poor black people, but makes it hard for cops to protect the poor black people who are the main target of crime.

It’s long past time to start looking critically at black elites, and asking the question “just whose interests are they really serving?”

Gwen Moore, Lena Taylor, we are talking about people like you.

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?

WPRI School Choice Study: Clarification or Recantation?

We’ve blogged on a recent study from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, which has been interpreted by the local media and liberal bloggers as showing that school choice can’t be expected to improve education.

Not only did we critique the assumptions and methodology of the study, we published a penetrating dissection of the study by George Mitchell.

Now George Lightbourn, a fellow at WPRI, jumps in with comments strongly supportive of school choice.

Key quote:

Unfortunately, the headline in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel read, “Choice May Not Improve Schools.” That headline not only misrepresented the study, it energized those who are dying to go back to the days when parents were forced to send their children to whichever MPS school the educrats thought best.

So that there is no misunderstanding, WPRI is unhesitant in supporting school choice. School choice is working and should be improved and expanded. School choice is good for Milwaukee’s children.

Unfortunately, the tone of the original study is pretty much accurately reflected in the Journal-Sentinel article.

Give the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute credit for having the integrity to publish a study that ran contrary to its long-established support for school choice.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t a very good study.

[Full Disclosure]

We have written three articles for The Wisconsin Interest, a publication of WPRI, and been paid for the articles. But of course, if that had corrupted our journalistic judgment, you wouldn’t be reading this.

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