Do Utah Educators Pad Minority Student Data?

Jul 18, 2008 by Elizabeth Ziegler

New Study from Conservative Think-Tank Alleges Manipulation Cost Vouchers Referendum Vote

(KCPW News) A new peer-reviewed paper published in the 2008 BYU Law Review alleges Utah educators manipulated student data to falsely indicate minority students are scoring higher on standardized tests than they actually are. Dan Witte of conservative think-tank The Sutherland Institute, and author of the paper, says the information could have changed the outcome of last year's failed vouchers referendum.

"During the campaign over the vouchers, one of the arguments was: Utah is having problems adequately serving its minority community. And the retort that came back was: No. Utah schools are doing a great job. Everything is peachy here in Utah. We don't have anything to worry about," Witte says. "Then, after the election, the federal government forced out a confession of sorts that the statistical averaging had been going on for quite some time."

The paper finds a correlation between school districts that used the controversial averaging method of determining student achievement and the regions in Utah with the highest minority populations, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Witte alleges the statistical averaging allowed these school districts to avoid being shut down by the federal government under the No Child Left Behind Act. He says the education system needs to be more transparent so voters can have more accurate information about how their tax dollars are being spent.

"We like to see local control of schools, but we also believe that those local institutions and governing bodies aught to institute on their own a reliable, comprehensive, statistically-credible reporting system for how those schools are performing," Witte says.

The paper, "Removing Classrooms from the Battlefield: Liberty, Paternalism, and the Redemptive Promise of Educational Choice," takes a historical view of the vouchers and homeschool movements. Click here to listen to a longer interview with Witte from Thursday's Public Square.

1. Lisa said:

The irony of the Sutherland Institute's statements is that the voucher program they supported required NO public reporting of student performance from voucher schools. One of the reasons voters overwhelmingly rejected Referendum 1 was that it lacked the accountability measures to ensure that voucher schools were achieving their stated goals. The Sutherland Institute's inconsistency on reporting standards should raise serious concerns for anyone studying their approach to education policy.

2. Jeremy said:

Lisa, the reason vouchers didn't require public reporting of student performance is because it didn't rely on government bureaucrats to exercise "oversight" over the schools. Instead, it freed up schools to work with parents on obtaining whatever goals were important to parents. That is the sort of oversight that we should have in schools, but don't because school usually only have to placate government bureaucrats by marking off the items on a checklist (although apparently they are fudging the numbers to do so). The reason voters "overwhelmingly" rejected Referendum 1 was because the education establishment has convinced everyone that only government bureaucrats have the capacity to ride herd on the government run school system. Somehow we lost faith in the capacity of parents, so returning to parent sovereignty was a completely foreign, and somewhat terrifying, notion to a lot of the public. The teacher unions played up that terror, and the voucher proponents were very inept at realizing what they were up against and overcoming it. In short (too late, I know), there is no inconsistency on reporting standards from the Sutherland Institute, except to those who can't be bothered to look beyond the talking points of the anti-voucher crowd.

3. Dave Hansen said:

Lisa,The law did require student achievement reporting by voucher schools. Unfortunately, you took everything that the voucher opponents said for face value with investigating the obvious facts.

Any school receiving vouchers would have to administer a national norm referenced test to all voucher students. These tests are in many ways a higher measure of performance than state-wide tests because it compares students all across the U.S.

For example, who cares if 90% of students pass a certain state-wide test when the test isn't challenging. It doesn't tell us much about school or student performance. But when the test score shows what percentile a student is in compared to the rest of the U.S., that's useful information for knowing how well a school or student is performing.

It's too bad more of the people opposed to the voucher plan didn't actually read the legislation.

4. Lisa said:

Jeremy,

If the idea is to let parents make choices, why not give them information about student performance, both across the board and for specific populations? Why wouldn't voucher parents want access to this information as well? Your anti-public ed rhetoric doesn't erase Sutherland's double standard.

Dave,

Take another look at the bill. Referendum 1 only required voucher schools to report an individual student's scores to his or her parents. There was no provision for public reporting of student achievement, let alone for specific populations. (This is a point that Jeremy concedes in his post.) The averaging that Sutherland Institute decries provides far more information to parents and taxpayers than the voucher program they aggressively supported.

5. Jeremy said:

Your arguments are laughable on their face. You go no further than all of the other anti-voucher people I've had the pleasure of conversing with, in asserting that I have made "anti-public ed" statements, when I have said nothing of the sort. Can you bother to have a rational conversation without lying about your opponent's statements?

You, like so many others, have conflated two entirely separate concepts, and it is that conflation that makes it impossible for you to look at this objectively. The education establishment is NOT public education. There are those who benefit monetarily from the current system, and they are the establishment who will fight tooth and nail to oppose any change. Public education is a concept where society contributes generally to the education of society's children. Why do you believe that public education must, as a matter of course, require the current level/shape/size/structure of bureaucracy?

Back to the original point, parents would naturally, and of course, want information about their children's schools, especially as compared to the other schools they could choose from. The huge difference between what is currently the case and what would have been the case under vouchers is that under vouchers the information granted would have a much higher probability of being information that parents would want and could use. You didn't bother to refute my argument that current regulations require a checklist approach, and why would we assume that government bureaucrats know the types and forms of information that all parents want about their kids' schools? They can't, possibly, but they issue a blanket edict, anyway. That means that parents receive the information some bureaucrat thinks is important, which likely won't be the information that the parent actually needs/wants. More to the point, more information is useless unless you can actually use it to make changes, and the current system allows limited options for parents to use the information (because they have limited options for moving their child to a different school).

Under the current system, schools don't really need parents, at least not for funding (clearly, education works best when parents are involved, so they do need parents to succeed - they just don't need them in order to get their budgets every year). Under vouchers, schools NEED parents, because only by convincing parents that they offer a good education for their children will the school get their full budget for the year. That means that schools have the incentive to find out what parents want to know and offer it to them. In the end, I don't mind so much whether government bureaucrats make a list of information that is required - they may be able to put together a baseline list of items that are so basic that they all do make sense. However, by implementing choice into the system, every school will improve upon the bureaucrats' list and offer the extra stuff that parents in their area are looking for. That's better for everyone.

Once again, no double standard, once you look beyond the shallow, surface sound bites and investigate a little more closely.

6. Jeremy said:

Lisa,

I might also point out that you might have missed the entire reason for the article, which was not that Sutherland opposes averaging, but that some in the education establishment were lying as they were putting together the numbers, so that the averaging was giving false information. Regardless of just how valuable someone thinks that averaging information is, we can certainly agree that when someone lies in presenting information, that is a bad thing, right?

7. Og said:

Lisa--

Home educators and private schools are subject to market forces. It is competition and direct accountability to the consumer that preserves quality in those sectors.

Public education, on the other hand, is supported by mandatory tax dollars and mandatory attendence regardless of family consumer preferences. Therefore, statistical reporting and political mechanisms have to be used to provide a (poor) public school substitute for direct market accountability.

Finally, private families don't have to justify themselves to the government; rather, the government has to justify itself to the citizenry.

8. Joe said:

Get over it people - you lost, even though you outspent those defending public education by more than $1M.

*** Utah ***For - 38%Against - 62%

*** Salt Lake County ***For - 33%Against - 67%

A majority of Republicans voted against this flawed bill. Even the conservative thinktanks are abandoning vouchers. Sutherland's assertion that the voucher vote was lost due to reporting formats is ridiculous.

9. Jeremy said:

Joe: Nice retort. After the comments expressed here, all you can offer is "get over it... you lost..." I'm just wondering, did you stick out your tongue after you typed it?

10. Joe said:

Jeremy, I made six points - one for each time you said "bureaucrat" (actually you said "bureaucrat" 8 times but I'll let that slide). Let's review:

1) The pro-voucher camp outspent the public ed camp by over 1 million dollars and still got crushed.

2) Clearly Utah didn't want this bill, as is evidenced by the nearly 2-1 vote.

3) The margin in Salt Lake County actually exceeded 2-1.

4) More than 50% of Republicans voted against the bill.

5) Conservative thinktanks have admitted that vouchers don't work and that everyone needs to move on.

6) Sutherland's claim that aggregating small groups together for reporting purposes (which is done in many other states) cost the voucher vote is void of evidence, and, given the scope and range of the voucher debate in its entirety, is, quite frankly, absurd.

Joe.

11. Jeremy said:

Joe, okay some substantive points. Separating the actual facts from opinions in Numbers 1 through 4, you have your facts correct. The pro-voucher camp did spend a lot of money for little result, and you'll notice that my post faulted them for being slow in recognizing what they were up against. You are also correct that Utah voted the bill down by a very large margin, although the statistician in me shudders at the implication that 62-38 is "nearly" 2 to 1, but that's probably too fine a point, and says more about my particular preferences, so that's not worth worrying about too much. I'll take your word for it that the margin in Salt Lake County was what you said, and that means that it is greater than 2 to 1. It is difficult to know precisely how accurate #4 is, because I don't know if you are saying 50% of total Republicans in Utah, or just 50% of self-identified Republicans who cast a vote (my sister would be one of those), but I'll concede the point that a lot of Republicans didn't like the bill, either.

Now, I notice that you don't give any examples of conservative think tanks who say that vouchers don't work, and that everyone needs to "move on." Quite frankly, I think you are making that one up, but even if you were correct about that, why should I concede my voice and my reason to a conservative think tank? I am a libertarian, and feel no need to sell my soul to any think tank, liberal or conservative.

In the end, however, points 1 through 5 have absolutely nothing to do with my post, the story, or anything other than your original statement that "get over it...you lost..." so my original question still stands as to whether you stuck your tongue out as you wrote it.

You're point #6 is at least addressed to the point of the article (although not really my response), so I do have something to respond to, and so I shall. I will agree with you that the claim that this practice is what cost the vote is ridiculous on its face. There were far more obstacles to the voucher bill passing than just the dishonest behavior of the education establishment in fudging the numbers. However, it is amazing to me that you are willing to defend that dishonesty because "everyone else does it." While neither you nor I know whether other states' educational establishments lie, we should all be willing to condemn dishonesty where we find it. I will do so, will you?

As a footnote, I find it hilarious that you added the snarky comment about my use of the word "bureaucrat;" it is a noun with a very definite meaning, and I used it every time properly. I use it to refer to a general position of government employee, traditionally in the executive branch. Harping on that point makes me think I know the answer to my earlier question regarding whether you stuck your tongue out...

12. Og said:

Joe, did you actually listen to the interview? Witte actually said that he doubts the NCLB cheating alone would have altered the outcome of the voucher vote.

Instead, what Witte said is that NCLB cheating is only a confirmed instance of a larger problem--wholesale fabrication of academic performance data over many years, which cumulatively has led Utahns to think that Utah schools are "peachy" and that no drastic remedy such as vouchers will be necessary.

In reality, our students are failing to acquire basic skills, our schools are failing entire minority populations, and our politicians are refusing to close schools that should have been closed under NCLB. But like a frog in a boiling pot, Utahns have been lulled to sleep by unethical cheating and statistical manipulation--and Utah educators are willing to keep cheating. You can't get people motivated to solve a problem unless they first acknowledge a problem exists.

The problem is that the article above reads as follows: "Dan Witte of conservative think-tank The Sutherland Institute, and author of the paper, says the information could have changed the outcome of last year's failed vouchers referendum." That's not precisely what Witte actually said on the recorded interview.