Comments on: Answers to Charter School Criticism

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:19:40 +0000

What you don’t realize is that I would do this job for free if I were in a position to do so, because the truth and facts that we spread help make the world a better place. Do you really think anybody pays me to post comments to this blog after the work day is done, or in the middle of the night? I’m here because I want real educational options for the children of Missouri — that can’t be bought. My paycheck is incidental to that, and I’m lucky that I’m able to make a living doing what I love.

What I don’t understand about you is why you’re so uninterested in actual data. You cling to the notion that competition is bad, despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s that sort of widespread economic ignorance that keeps your broken system limping along.

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:09:44 +0000

School choice isn’t crucial to anything but the propigation of your myth. What does matter is that people work to improve our public schools. Irregardless, you are nothing but a paid propagandist, Eric D Dixon, and need to be exposed as such. You and the misinformation you offer are the cause of many problems for our children. It disturbs me that you sprinkle in just enough misinformation in a propagndistic message to steal from the future of our children. I honestly don’t know how you sleep at night.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:08:28 +0000

Have you ever watched The Wire? It's a great HBO series created by a former police reporter for the Baltimore Sun and a former teacher in the Baltimore Public Schools. Although it starts out focusing the structural dynamics of inner-city police and drug dealers, season four of the show spends a lot of time following the travails of a new eighth-grade teacher, who encounters many of the same problems you describe -- corruption, apathy, and a counterproductive set of priorities. Although it's a fictional series, it's also a detailed representation informed by the real-world experiences of several public school teachers on the writing staff. Very eye-opening. It's not surprising to see this sort of phenomenon play out in public schools, however. The groundbreaking contribution of the public choice school of economics demonstrates that officials in government positions are self-interested agents to the same extent as people in private organizations. But, while private groups generally have to face competition for customers and resources in the private sector -- a process that requires participants to either improve their services or close up shop -- officials in public organizations face no such winnowing process. How difficult is it to fire a bad administrator, or a bad teacher? If schools perform poorly, there aren't many other options to choose -- especially for the underprivileged. So public schools can continue limping along, doing a terrible job without suffering suffering any consequences (at least not in the short term), and the students are the ones who pay the price in lost knowledge and opportunity. This is why school choice is so crucial for St. Louis. You say things have improved during the past two years, and I think that's great. I hope the improvement continues. But there's no justification for holding kids hostage to a system that's failing them. If some of those kids can learn better elsewhere, they should be allowed to leave. If SLPS really wants to hold onto its kids, it needs to step up its game in a big way -- and the need to compete with charters will help it do that.

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:48:43 +0000

Look Dave Roland, additional paid propagandist. I don’t have to “frantically” do anything for you and your kind. But you intimated a desire to understand the problem with SLPS. So I’ll respond. That problem was corruption, pure and simple. And I’m afraid that started from the top. The crimes that weren’t perpetrated on the finances by the powers that be(we have heard tale not printed of corruption at all levels of past administrations)were perpetrated on the students in an echo fashion through the display of bad attitudes and lack of production by lower-level employees. And everyone did a nice job of protecting each other’s reputation as long as it didn’t interfere with their own.
When I came into this district, I had no ongoing consistency for my professional development; instead, I found a new ‘vision’ for success provided each year I came back in the fall. The ongoing joke was “I wonder what it will be this year?”. In the 10 years I have been at my school there have been 7 principals in charge of the building. I witnessed the supply room closed by a corporate raider named Roberti. We get virtually no basic supplies to do our job. I have to purchase chalk, copy paper, pens, pencils, markers, posterboards, grade books, etc. I use approximately 30 reams of copy paper per year and I have been lucky to get 3 or 4 reams a year. We have had administrators in the past who gladly pointed at the classroom as the reason the students were ill-mannered and disruptive, but rarely looked at the student behavior as the problem. When I sought out ideas from administrators, they always had a nice pat explanation that truly frustrated me due to its lack of insight into reality. No longer was I dealing with the problem of the student who was misbehaving or my own problem with classroom management, I was now contending with someone who was playing ‘CYA’ while diagnosing the problem from a safe ‘in their own office’ distance.
Things have changed over the course of the last two years. We now have a consistent curriculum, a somewhat improved handling of discipline matters, better direct feedback on performance, and clear expectations for performance. I wish I could say that everything is all better, unfortunately they are not. I can say that it is not for lack of trying. I have never seen the type of collaboration toward teaching that I am now seeing in this district.
The big problem now is all the leaches from outside political influences who have attempted to destroy the district to put a few more pennies in their bosses’ pockets. Our district faces tremendous financial shortfalls that are caused by the lies you spread about the success of charter schools, as well as the seed money provided by your boss that causes us to continue to lose students and pay extra for each child we lose to your deceptions. So I guess what really bothers me (and bothers a lot of other people in this city) is that we have gone from one form of corruption to another. You and your ilk must be identified for what you are and why you spread only a single distorted ideology in your ‘articles’. As long as I continue to care about our kids, I will be certain to expose you to St. Louis parents for your true propagandistic purpose.

By: Dave Roland

Dave Roland — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:20:26 +0000

Joseph, I’m willing to bet that SLPS pays you more than Eric gets paid. ;-)

I’m also afraid that your rhetorical tactics seem to reflect the common shortcoming of the school district’s administrators – frantically trying to get people to focus on anything but the abysmal record of most of the district’s schools. Perhaps if you wave your hands enough, people will forget that SLPS spends more than $15,000 a year per student but still performs so poorly that the district is unaccredited. Or that in 2008, according to DESE, more seniors in SLPS high schools dropped out of school (1,702) than graduated (1,690). Or that, given the option, tens of thousands of St. Louis citizens have gone out of their way to get their children out of the city’s traditional public schools – and that doesn’t even count those who choose to live in the county to ensure that their children have better educational options. It’s no wonder that you rely on ad hominem arguments rather than pointing to substantive, empirical evidence – the SLPS administrators don’t seem to be able to stomach the facts.

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Fri, 29 May 2009 09:50:14 +0000

You have zero crediblility because you are a vehicle of deception that is bought and paid for. You are not morally fit to occupy the same room as our children and I am certain their parents are grateful you don’t have any genuine input in their learning, but instead are relegated to offering your corporate diatribe from a safe distance. After all, we do actually care about our children a bit more here in St. Louis than to allow their future to be bought and sold to the ‘next bag of hot air’ that will spout someone else’s greedy agenda for a price. So if you are looking for a ‘free ride’ for your deceptions, perhaps you should look to move on to another city. I am certain for the right price you can find another opinion to share.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:28:00 +0000

Joseph, I’ve asked you repeatedly for evidence of bias in our research. You have failed to provide this evidence. That’s because it’s not there. But what’s even more disturbing is that you don’t seem to be interested in even trying. If you genuinely believe that charter schools are bad for kids, rather than just bad for teachers’ unions, you should be earnestly seeking evidence to support your claims. Instead, you parrot an ideologically entrenched point of view without data to back it up.

I genuinely want the children of St. Louis to receive better educations. If they can get that in traditional public schools, that’s great. But if they can’t, every alternative should be carefully researched.

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:18:22 +0000

At least what I have to say hasn’t been tainted by greed of money. You and all your fellow ‘bought and paid for’ distributors of misinformation need to be exposed, Eric D Dixon. As long as I have a say in the matter, as long as I take an actual interest in the future of my students, you and your ilk will be exposed, again and again.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:54:26 +0000

There are three categories of scientifically based school reform research, “gold standard,” “silver standard,” and “bronze standard,” each of which are able to control for different sets of variables. The “gold standard” studies have the greatest degree of variable control, and the National Bureau of Economic Research study that I linked to is a “gold standard” study. In other words, its methodology is regarded as the most stringent and respected within academia. If you want to claim that charters in general are statistically less successful than public schools, you need to present a study that meets this academic “gold standard” methodology. I don’t believe that such a study exists, but if you know of one, please provide a citation.

You say:
“You continue to fail to respond to the accusation that you intentionally present bias as though it is fact and that you do this for public consumption.”

I’ve responded to this multiple times, and I’ll do so again here. Your accusation is false, utterly and completely false. The work I do for the Show-Me Institute is accurate and unbiased, and you have yet to demonstrate a flaw with any piece of research that we’ve published. We take pains to present the most accurate and comprehensive data that we can find, not only because we want to present the truth to the public and maintain a bulletproof reputation for accuracy, but because we’re only interested in presenting market solutions that are practical and sound.

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:15:14 +0000

Oh, and when I referred to “outside political force,” I was fully aware that your boss, the man who stuffs your wallet to distort the truth, is from St. Louis. I meant outside in the sense of his being outside of a legitimate participation in these endeavors. The man pays you to lower his tax bill, as he has stated on more than one occaision. You are also, unfortunately for our children, outside of a legitimate participation in our children’s education. After all, these kids are our future. They shouldn’t be bandied about like commodities or tax burdens, and their education should not be toyed with by your propagandistic manipulations of the truth.

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Fri, 29 May 2009 01:59:02 +0000

When I mentioned the research about charters I was referring to your (I use the word ‘your’ collectively) article on KIPP, not your later brief citation of a single study done in New York that may show slight gains or statistical glitches, depending on the way the data is interpreted. Irregardless, you are also well aware that you are only citing the tiny minority of studies that suggest anything other than charter schools being at best nothing to write home about, and at worst total failures for the children. You continue to withold this essential information to any fair presentation of your finacially compensated ideology. You continue to fail to respond to the accusation that you intentionally present bias as though it is fact and that you do this for public consumption. This behavior is to be expected from you. You are a paid propagandist. But please don’t lie to us about or distort this simple truth.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:37:48 +0000

Our president, chairman, board of directors, and staff are all Missourians. The “millionaire philanthropist,” Rex Sinquefield, is a St. Louis native and a SLU graduate — not at all the “outside political forces” you claimed.

We present solid, unbiased academic research, written by leading economists, and subjected to a double-blind peer review process. The work is accurate, and your continual failure to provide evidence to the contrary only helps demonstrate that this is true.

Please show me how the research I’ve cited from the National Bureau of Economic Research is “questionable at best”. I’d love to see your sources. I really, really would. Do you have any relevant links for me to visit that would demonstrate the study’s questionable nature?

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:08:33 +0000

You and I both know there is nothing wild or vague about any statements I have made about your group. The facts are you were started by a millionaire philanthropist who has a particular ideology that he has employed you to exploit. The fact that you would cite research that is questionable at best and ignore the volumes of academically endorsed research that show the opposite, demonstrate you are supporting this biased and bastardized ideology through whatever means are at your avail. Reasonable persons who look at all sides of an issue see through your dubious posturing.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:51:16 +0000

The link I posted above leads to a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, and it was funded by the federal government. Joseph, you’re the one who continues to evade the point. You don’t know me, and you have no direct experience with my personal integrity — so it’s natural to be skeptical about my motives, however sincere and rigorous I know they are. But you make continual assertions, both wild and vague, about our organization without citing any data to support your claims. In contrast, we present real data researched and analyzed by leading economists in academic positions at widely respected universities throughout the nation. This work is not suspect by any academic standard, but it’s always possible that their method is flawed. If you have a critique of the data or method of analysis that we present, please let us know.

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:47:46 +0000

Would you care to share that you are using research conducted by a group that caters to business interests? Or that the study was paid for by business interests? Would you care to share that these studies can hardly be reasonably compared or correlated with the larger volume of data within public schools since the basic criterion that this research group used differed significantly in both content and scope? Or would you care to share that this research is automatically discounted by the academic community because of its lack of ability to be compared and correlated for its accuracy?
The great question remains. I ask you to tell us, sir. Which Eric D Dixon are we to believe? As you are well aware, there are far more actual data that show charter schools do the same or worse than public schools: Are we to listen to the Eric D Dixon who actually knows this fact but won’t tell us, or should we hear the Eric D Dixon who is paid to report potentially bogus statistics that were provided and arrived at by the organization you are endorsing(KIPP).
You would much rather, of course, we buy into your trunkload of starched-white-shirt purchased taint. The tobacco companies employed very similar techniques for years and ended up compensating our citizens many billions of dollars. It is unfortunate that shams such as the “Show-me Institute” and its paid propagandists aren’t held responsible in such a way.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Thu, 28 May 2009 06:46:55 +0000

All of your bloviating about propaganda is simply false, so I’ll just note that and leave it aside for now.

But using the term “charter myth” reveals that you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to the data, either. Have you actually read the charter research? The National Bureau of Economic Research was able to compare students selected by random lottery, so the analysis controlled for variables like student motivation.

The results?

“We are able to compute effects in which we have a high degree of statistical confidence for the New York State tests that are administered in grades three through eight. For these tests, we find that the average effect of the charter schools on math is 0.09 standard deviations for every year that a student spends in his or her charter school. The average effect on reading is 0.04 standard deviations for every year that a student spends in his or her charter school. The math effect translates into about 3.8 scale score points and about 12 percent of a performance level (the exact translation depends on the grade). The reading effect translates into about 1.6 scale score points and about 3.5 percent of a performance level (the exact translation depends on the grade). … Keep in mind that the effects described are in addition to whatever gains students would have been expected to make in the traditional public schools, had they been lotteried-out.”

I ask you: Do you have a critique of this study, or other comparable studies? An analysis revealing flaws in its method? If you do, please let us know. It would be tremendously useful information.

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Thu, 28 May 2009 01:51:14 +0000

The difference, sir, is in SLPS we use criterion that is consistent in testing our students. This is the same testing that all public schools use and allows for fair data analysis, correlation, and comparison with other schools.
Charter schools, on the other hand, through the political influence of special interest groups such as your own, managed an exemption from using this criterion and therefore leave themselves wide open to criticism and doubt about their incredible ‘claims’. The fact that you, Eric D. Dixon, are a paid employee of the “Show-Me Institute”, a right-wing group that was established by outside political influences so they could lower their tax burden explains why you are a part and parcel of the perpetuation of this Charter myth(or shall we say urban legend, and speaks volumes for your agenda.
You so brilliantly point out that I am an employee of SLPS, as though somehow that takes away from my point. Yes, I am a teacher. I genuinely care about helping others and demonstrate my agenda of caring daily. I graduated with highest honors in college and chose to work in SLPS, even though I had numerous other offers. I have worked in this district for 10 years and I help others through teaching. You, sir, are merely a propaganda tool of special interests: Your argument is only allowed to reflect the neo-conservative special interest group you represent. I would also wager that you only possess your argument for motive of profit. Let’s not kid anyone. If you and your associates were not being paid a salary for this job of propaganda, would you not be out claiming global warming isn’t real or arguing any other number of right-wing political ‘agendas’?

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:57:18 +0000

Joseph, if you have contrary research to cite, we’d love to see it. KIPP’s self-study should certainly be subjected to rigorous external analysis, but the same can be said for your own opinions as an employee of SLPS.

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:59:21 +0000

You have one major problem, Sara Brodsky. You are funded by outside political forces that are trying to figure out a way to pay less taxes and change the face of education so that teaching is no longer a profession. Whatever you comment on this or any other topic, I trust the citizens of our fine city will see their way past the propagandization of your efforts to take a closer look at what you claim.
You love to allow us to dream about the world of learning according to KIPP. I wasn’t terribly shocked that according to KIPP, they are a tremendous success. I guess we were supposed to be surprised that research conducted by and tests administered by KIPP showed how terrific they are.
The citizens in this city are very aware that what is promised by these privately funded ’social experiments’ often ends in chaos at best or corruption at its worst. I would suggest you take your act back on the road, Ms. Brodsky. We are all too aware that appearances (i.e., “Show-me Institute”) are often far from showing reality.