Posted on 01/13/2017 1:45:34 PM PST by MichCapCon
A University of Michigan professor is being accused of mischaracterizing the results of a 2011 survey of scholars’ views on allowing students a choice in education through private school vouchers or charter schools.
Susan Dynarski, a professor of public policy, education and economics at Michigan, wrote an op-ed for The New York Times. The headline: “Free Market for Education? Economists Generally Don’t Buy It.”
She wrote: “But economists are far less optimistic about what an unfettered market can achieve in education. Only a third of economists on the Chicago panel agreed that students would be better off if they all had access to vouchers to use at any private (or public) school of their choice.”
Dynarski was referring to a question posed by the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago to a panel of academic economists. Of those who responded, 36 percent agreed or strongly agreed that all parents being able to choose their child’s school would lead to a higher quality education.
But Dynarski failed to note that only 19 percent of those who offered a response disagreed or strongly disagreed with that assertion. Another 37 percent were uncertain.
Jason Bedrick, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, challenged Dynarski on Twitter about the accuracy of the headline.
Bedrick did his own critique of Dynarski's claims on his Cato blog.
Bedrick cited Scott Alexander of the Slate Star Codex blog who wrote: "A more accurate way to summarize this graph is 'About twice as many economists believe a voucher system would improve education as believe that it wouldn’t.' "
Dynarski responded to Michigan Capitol Confidential in an email. “I report the raw stat, which is 36 percent, or roughly a third,” Dynarski said.
Dynarski also sent a link to her Twitter response to someone who also questioned the accuracy of the headline. She tweeted: “Can equally say that of those with an opinion, most either disagree (19%) or are uncertain (37%)=>56%. No consensus.”
Bedrick also questioned why Dynarski cited the 2011 survey when there was a more recent survey in 2012 that showed much stronger support for school choice among the academic economists polled. In the 2012 survey, 44 percent of those surveyed were in favor of more school choice, 34 percent were uncertain and just 5 percent disagreed.
These numbers are interesting but miss the point. People support school choice for several reasons. The most urgent of these, and probably the most widespread, is when kids are trapped in failing schools, or schools in which the powers that be are engaged in some social engineering project that outrages parents. When the status quo is unacceptable, people want out. Opponents of school choice want to nail the doors shut. This is a moral question.
Wrong question. Look at public education before college and how it is funded through property taxes. There are two theories of taxation: 1) Benefits received (e.g., gasoline taxes used to build and maintain roads), and 2) ability to pay (e.g., income taxes). Property taxes to fund public education fits neither. Retired people, many relying totally on SS income, can’t afford the rising property taxes (no ability to pay) nor do they have kids in grade school (no benefits received). However, with a voucher system where property owners receive vouchers for the property taxes they pay, retired people could sell their vouchers (they don’t need them) to people who do. More over, people with large families would have to buy vouchers since the cost of educating their family may well be more than their vouchers allow. If nothing else, a voucher system would help identify the cost of educating a student.
Professors in their academic gated community don’t understand “market,” even many or most economics professors- pace Walters and Sowell- and believe that they or other experts know what is best for anyone in any situation just because they are “experts” and have all that awesome brainpower.
Sounds good.
A non-STEM/Business "analysis" out of U-M (or practically any other school) implies that there's a 99.44% chance that intentionally misleading results will be contrived.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.