Andrew Coulson

Voucher Group Defends Coulson’s Deception

Submitted by Anonymous on Thursday, 9/21/2006 1:31 pm
UPDATE: Within hours of this post, Cato removed the offending article from its website. A few days ago Right Wing Watch noted that Cato’s Andrew Coulson was caught falsely casting aspersions on an academic research center in Indiana. The Center for Evaluation and Education Policy recently released a survey that found falling public support for vouchers. Unwilling to believe the results, Coulson launched an untruthful ad hominem attack on CEEP claiming that their study couldn’t be trusted. Now, Clint Bolick’s Alliance for School Choice has stepped up to defend Coulson.
The folks over at PFAW's blog must have at least pulled a muscle when they stretched to take a swipe at Cato's Andrew Coulson. Here's PFAW's account: Earlier this month, Andrew wrote a column in the Indianapolis Star critical of Indiana University's Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. CEEP periodically polls Indianans on school choice, and recent poll results have shown declining support for school choice among respondents. Andrew's principal complaints: CEEP's financial ties to IU's Department of Education make the group biased against school choice, and the question design was flawed. CEEP's Jonathan Plucker fired back that CEEP is financially independent of IUDOE; that the costs of the poll are likewise paid by CEEP to prevent any hint of bias; and that CEEP works with outside polling experts to make sure the results are accurate and reliable.
Bolick’s group , does not dispute that “Andrew” was lying. Instead, they praise him for issuing a purported retraction, to which they provide a link.
However, PFAW oddly fails to mention that, five days after the column ran in the Indy Star, Coulson subsequently posted this on Cato's blog.
Sure enough, there is a post on Cato’s blog, dated 9/8, in which Coulson acknowledges his error:
In a recent op-ed for the Indianapolis Star, I wrote that Indiana University’s Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP) had a vested interest in finding school choice to be unpopular with voters — because it was a part of the University’s Department of Education, and that department could well be rendered obsolete under a large scale school choice program. As it turns out, the Center is largely financially independent of the Department, and so would not likely go down with the ship under a voucher or education tax credit program.
But on that same day, Coulson’s column, including the passage he admits is false, was posted on Cato’s website, where it still appeared without the correction nearly two weeks later. Coulson himself may have apologized, but Cato and the Alliance for School Choice don’t seem to have a problem perpetuating his false allegations.

Cato's Andrew Coulson is Entitled to His Own Opinion, but Not His Own Facts.

Submitted by Anonymous on Monday, 9/18/2006 1:20 pm
When a recent survey by Indiana University’s Center for Evaluation and Education Policy found declining support for vouchers among Indiana residents, Cato’s Andrew Coulson went on the attack. He said that the CEEP could not be trusted because they were funded by the vast public school conspiracy and accused the Center of deliberately manipulating the wording of the survey question to produce anti-voucher results. Coulson’s indictment of CEEP was damning, though not at all based on truth. As Jonathan Plucker, CEEP’s director points out:
Coulson's My View made two major errors. Although CEEP is part of the Indiana University School of Education, the center is not biased against vouchers because, as Coulson asserts, they would put the school -- and therefore CEEP -- out of business. To the contrary, the center is financially independent of the School of Education: We pay all of our costs, including our lease, salaries and materials. IU and the School of Education provide CEEP with a world-class support network, but IU administrators are strong supporters of the center's intellectual independence and would never attempt to influence our analyses or suggest positions for the center to advocate. Indeed, CEEP has a national reputation as a nonpartisan research center, and we (and the university) guard this reputation closely. In addition, Coulson states that CEEP's selection of questions for our annual poll of public attitudes toward education is somehow biased against vouchers. As he has since acknowledged, this could not be further from the truth. Late each summer, CEEP staff circulate draft lists of questions to a range of education stakeholders, including state policymakers in both parties, both advocates for and critics of public schools, and policy researchers from around the state. The staff who work on the poll hold a broad range of political views and attitudes toward education. CEEP works with the highly regarded marketing and polling firm, Stone Research Services, to ensure that the poll results are reliable and accurate. The poll is financed completely by CEEP, with no outside support (and, therefore, no potential for outside influence). The result is a set of questions and corresponding results that are widely respected. Policymakers of both parties, who hold diverse attitudes about public education, have used various poll results as evidence of public attitudes toward education. Indeed, the 2005 voucher questions Coulson criticizes were used by policymakers to support the need for vouchers during the 2006 legislative session.
It has been a rough several months for voucher pushers like Mr. Coulson: Two recent studies conducted by the federal Department of Education found that public school students outperform their peers in private and charter schools, a report by the pro-voucher Friedman Foundation and Coulson’s own Cato Institute found that the DC voucher program has produced no positive results for DC public schools, and another survey by the education honor society Phi Delta Kappa found that public support for vouchers continues to fall. Faced with more and more evidence against privatization, voucher pushers have been forced to find creative rebuttals. And, like Mr. Coulson, they often prefer not to let facts get in the way of their ideology.
Syndicate content

Andrew Coulson Posts Archive

Voucher Group Defends Coulson’s Deception
, Thursday 09/21/2006, 1:31pm
UPDATE: Within hours of this post, Cato removed the offending article from its website. A few days ago Right Wing Watch noted that Cato’s Andrew Coulson was caught falsely casting aspersions on an academic research center in Indiana. The Center for Evaluation and Education Policy recently released a survey that found falling public support for vouchers. Unwilling to believe the results, Coulson launched an untruthful ad hominem attack on CEEP claiming that their study couldn’t be trusted. Now, Clint Bolick’s Alliance for School Choice has stepped up to defend Coulson. The folks over at... MORE >
Cato's Andrew Coulson is Entitled to His Own Opinion, but Not His Own Facts.
, Monday 09/18/2006, 1:20pm
When a recent survey by Indiana University’s Center for Evaluation and Education Policy found declining support for vouchers among Indiana residents, Cato’s Andrew Coulson went on the attack. He said that the CEEP could not be trusted because they were funded by the vast public school conspiracy and accused the Center of deliberately manipulating the wording of the survey question to produce anti-voucher results. Coulson’s indictment of CEEP was damning, though not at all based on truth. As Jonathan Plucker, CEEP’s director points out: Coulson's My View made two major errors. Although... MORE >