Fact-checking "Waiting for Superman": False data and fraudulent claims

[proud2BlibKansan]

In the movie Waiting for Superman, nominated for an Oscar as the best Documentary of 2010, the following statement is made:
" ...in Illinois, 1 in 57 doctors loses his or her medical license, and 1 in 97 attorneys loses his or her law license, but only 1 teacher in 2500 has ever lost his or her credentials."
While looking for the source of this claim, which is repeated without citation in the movie and its companion book, I came upon a 2007 newspaper article by Scott Reeder of the Small Newspaper Group:

During the past six years, 1 in 2,500 Illinois educators have lost their teaching credentials through suspension, revocation or surrender. By comparison, during the same period 1 in 57 doctors practicing in Illinois lost their medical licenses and 1 in 97 Illinois attorneys lost their law licenses.

"Either Illinois teachers are 43 times better behaved than doctors or they are being held to a considerably lower professional standard than other professions,'' said Jeff Mays, executive director of the Illinois Business Roundtable and an advocate for educator accountability standards. ``Just like doctors and lawyers, teachers are members of an important and demanding profession. It's time that they be held to the same professional standards."

Since the movie was released, these figures have been repeated frequently, sometimes with and without the reference to Illinois. They take up five pages in the Google search engine, were cited in the NY Times review of the film, the British newspaper the Independent, as well as Brian Williams of NBC in the television program Education Nation.

But apparently not a single one of these news outlets, or the makers of Waiting for Superman, ever bothered to check them.

In an effort to verify these claims, I first consulted the annual summary put out by the Federation of State Medical Boards. In reality, only 121 doctors lost their licenses in Illinois in 2009, out of 43,670 physicians, rather than 1 in 57, as the movie claims. That means an average of 0.3% of doctors per year lost their licenses; or 3 out 1,000 per year - about one tenth of the figure claimed in the film.

more . . . http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2010/12/fact-checking-waiting-for-superman.html

[DCKit]

1. When I lived in Orlando, FL thirty years ago, they censured the "abortion providers"....

When I left, in 1986, there was one, non-hospital affiliated womens health clinic.

RW central. Don't provide them sanctuary when, and if, the flood comes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. I live in Kansas. I hear ya.

:hi:

[Luminous Animal]

2. It seems more and more people feel free to proclaim bullshit as fact.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. It's a right wing habit being used by too many Democrats

[Hannah Bell]

39. especially ed deformers. they pay people to lie & spend millions on websites full of lies.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Oscar nominations haven't been announced yet. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

6. It's on the short list.

[pipoman]

68. That could pass as irony, right there...

:rofl:

[starroute]

7. The figures from the film are over 6 years -- not 1 year

If there are 43,670 doctors in the state and 1 out of every 57 loses their license in a year, then over 6 years you should see 6 out of every 57 losing their license.

6/57 x 43,670 = 128

Which is pretty close to the figure of 121 doctors that you give for 2009.

So the problem is not with the statistics. The problem is that it's a false analogy.

The real difference is that doctors and lawyers are subject to charges of malpractice while teachers are not. Some teachers are admittedly not too good at their job, but it takes something a lot more extreme than that (child molestation, alcoholism) to amount to the equivalent of letting patients die or clients be falsely convicted.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. That's false. Teachers can be fired. And they can be sued.

And when sued, they can lose everything they own, including their pension. I personally know teachers that has happened to.

You're falling for the hype.

[starroute]

9. So is the real issue than many more teachers are fired than lose credentials?

I was taking issue with your statement that "in reality, only 121 doctors lost their licenses in Illinois in 2009, out of 43,670 physicians, rather than 1 in 57, as the movie claims." The quotes you cite show that the figure of 1 in 57 is over 6 years, not over a single year.

But there's obviously something skewed in the comparison of teachers to doctors and lawyers. I thought at first it was that teachers don't literally have lives in their hands, so that the standards for terminating them are higher.

But from what you've said now, it sounds like the real bias in the film is that it focuses on the small number of teachers losing their credentials -- not the presumably much larger number who simply lose their teaching positions.

It isn't easy to find information on what it takes for a teacher to actually lose their credentials -- but one page on California law indicates it tends to be for things like criminal convictions in felony cases, particularly those involving violent crimes or sex and drug offenses. In other words, it's much stricter than the malpractice standards applied to doctors and lawyers.

So again, it's the comparison that's false -- not the numbers.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. The issue is the movie is using bullshit statistics to make a point

[msanthrope]

10. Don't bring facts into this. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Especially when they aren't really facts

:eyes:

[msanthrope]

17. Funny how you haven't been able to refute starroute's statistical analysis

that corrects the fundamental error in the piece you posted.

I am sure that if you had the numbers to dispute starroute, you would share them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. I didn't write the OP

It's from a blog.

Surely you're smart enough to see that?

But then again . . .

[msanthrope]

22. It is your name on the OP. Surely--this is not what you tell your students, right?

I mean, if you had a student who submitted information from a blog on the Internet in order to support their point, wouldn't you expect them to proof it for accuracy?

Or would you accept their excuse that since they didn't write the blog, merely reprinted it as support for their argument, their grade shouldn't suffer?

I'd give the student a D and Statistics for Dummies.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. So now this is about my teaching??

You're a piece of work.

[msanthrope]

41. You question my intelligence in one post, then play victim in another?

That's precious.

[Hannah Bell]

51. what's precious is that you disappear when the data you insist you wanted shows up. lol.

[msanthrope]

57. Some of us have lives and family, Hannah--fyi--can you give a direct link

to what you actually cited?


Because I hit your link and it just brings me to a homepage.

Have you corrected your data for a six year period--which is what the original blogger claimed???? Because it seems that you are merely taking a six-year average, which is NOT what the blogger in the OP was doing.

And have you contrasted that with how many teachers in Illinois who lost licensure? Not got fired, but lost credentials.

[Hannah Bell]

73. lol. sorry you can't be bothered to read the page i linked.

"have you contrasted that with how many teachers in Illinois who lost licensure"

you're the one who supposedly has the authoritative citation for that factoid, dear.

you won't produce it, but you sure as hell keep defending it.

it's a lie in my estimation, but since you think it's gospel, produce the evidence.

ed deformers lie constantly, don't you know?

they also make constant personal attacks.

[Hello_Kitty]

27. I just corrected them with my calculator!

He's overestimated the percentage of doctors decertified by a factor of 10! It's 3 out of a 1000, not 1 in 57.

[msanthrope]

29. You missed the part where it's over 6 years, right?

Well, I can see from your post 28 you understand what starroute was calculating.

[Hannah Bell]

32. not in the film. different claim was made. no source cited.

" ...in Illinois, 1 in 57 doctors loses his or her medical license, and 1 in 97 attorneys loses his or her law license, but only 1 teacher in 2500 has ever lost his or her credentials."


no source for the "6 years" no source for the "ever".

show me the data.

the only person who actually cited verifiable data = the person who checked on the rate for doctors in 2009.

it's well-known that ed deformers lie constantly. the examples are multitudinous. so until you show me the data, i call bullshit.

if that newspaper article saying "6 years" (uncited) was the source, the film changed the charge, i.e. lied.

[msanthrope]

36. Dude--the OP provided the source. Take it up with her.

Others merely pointed out that the blogpost compared a 6-year figure with a one-year one....

[Hannah Bell]

37. dude: since the lies in the film are the topic, i point out that the film makes claims

that have no source whatsoever.

nor do the claims from the original news article.

however, the author of the article posted actually looked at the illinois medical figures and found that for one year the rate of license-losing was magnitudes smaller than implied by the ed deformers.

ed deformers lie constantly.

it's a well-known fact.

[msanthrope]

40. Dude, the author of the article compared a 6-year data set to a 1-year data set.

The mistake was pointed out.

Take it up with the OP or the blogpost writer if you would like them to more accurately reference the film.

[Hannah Bell]

43. dude, you can repeat that as many times as you like. fact is, there's no

source for any of it; not the six-year claim, not the "ever" claim.

the only data that's sourced is the data that shows the 1/57 to be a bald-faced lie.

ed deformers lie all the time, blatantly, willfully.

[msanthrope]

58. The OP used the source, Hannah, not me. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

76. So let's be clear, then: you agree that the claim in "Superman" is bullshit, right?

Since "ever" is quite different from "six years"?

On their own terms, one or the other of the claims is false. which ed deformer is lying?

[Hannah Bell]

20. can you read? 1/57 is FALSE.

In reality, only 121 doctors lost their licenses in Illinois in 2009, out of 43,670 physicians, rather than 1 in 57, as the movie claims. That means an average of 0.3% of doctors per year lost their licenses; or 3 out 1,000 per year - about one tenth of the figure claimed in the film.

[msanthrope]

25. Of course, you have the six-year figures that refute the six-year data set, right?

Because that's the point--using a 1-year data set to refute a 6-year data set doesn't make your argument.

[Hannah Bell]

31. you link me to the authoritative source for the claim made in the original newspaper article, or the

claim made in the film, which is different:

" ...in Illinois, 1 in 57 doctors loses his or her medical license, and 1 in 97 attorneys loses his or her law license, but only 1 teacher in 2500 has ever lost his or her credentials."


and i'll link you to the same data for doctors: from an authoritative source.

because the only sourcing for any of the claims came from the person who checked the data for doctors.

[msanthrope]

35. Dude--the OP provided the source....

Note where the OP calculated a six-year data set against a one year data set--

[Hannah Bell]

46. what was that authoritative source?

[msanthrope]

59. Ask the OP. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

77. The OP doesn't believe the claim either. Nor does she believe there is any authoritative source.

It's only you who is defending the numbers in the article posted -- and refuted -- in the OP.

But if you don't believe them either, no problem.

Because they're lying bullshit.

Glad we agree on this point.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. 6/57ths of 43670 would be 4597 doctors, approx. That would be over 10%.

1/57 of that would be 766 doctors. 1/6 of that is 127, which would work for the 6 year assumption.

[msanthrope]

30. So starroute is correct, then--

even if he/she isn't showing you all of his/her lines of work?

[Hello_Kitty]

33. You and starroute should read the rest of the article in the OP

I have tried hard to find independent verification for the number of teachers who lose their credentials each year. According to the NY Daily News, over the past three years, 88 out of about 80,000 New York City schoolteachers have lost their jobs for "poor performance." This represents an annual rate of about 30 per year out of 80,000, or .03%, or about the same as attorneys who are involuntarily disbarred nationally.

According to the Houston Chronicle, over the last five years, 364 teachers have been fired, out of about 12,000. "Of those, 140 were ousted for performance reasons, a broad category that generally covers teachers not fulfilling their job duties."

So the rate of Houston teachers who lost their license to teach is about 3% per year - far higher than the rate of either doctors or attorneys in Texas removed from their profession. For example, only 32 Texan attorneys were disbarred in 2009 out of 75,087; an annual rate of.004% -- a rate nearly a hundred times smaller.

Looks like in 2 major metro areas the rate of teachers getting fired is consistent with that of doctors and lawyers. What's the basis for the "1 in 2500" rate WFS is using?

[msanthrope]

38. But again, there's the problem of using different time periods to calculate.

In one example, a three year period is used. In another, a five year. In another, a single year.

Further, the Houston example doesn't clearly state if fired teachers ALSO had their licenses pulled--as in, they could not work elsewhere. So I can't tell if being fired by a Houston school is equivalent to disbarrment. The point being, of course, that the OP blogpost wildly conflates firing with losing a license.

[Hello_Kitty]

44. So make the appropriate corrections.

In the case of NY, if it's 88 in 3 years it should be around 176 for 6 years. With 80000 teachers that works out to 5.5 per 2500, a figure 5 and 1/2 times higher than what WFS claims.

As far as firing vs license revocation goes, where are the data on doctors and lawyers who have simply been fired but still have their licenses? Can we include clients or patients who change their lawyers or doctors because they didn't care for the service they got? If so, the "firing" rate in those professions would go up considerably.

[Hannah Bell]

47. that person has no interest in facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=84839&mesg_id=89154

[fascisthunter]

48. and it's pretty obvious it doesn't want anyone else to know the facts

every OP regarding education and boom.... and I have yet to see any convincing argument or truth from it.

[Hannah Bell]

50. yes. and has suddenly vanished.

[msanthrope]

61. I'm still waiting for you to provide a direct link to what you cited. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

71. lol. sure, that's the ticket.

[msanthrope]

63. Well, how does one make the appropriate corrections if you are comparing apples and oranges?

If a person blogger cannot distinguish between a firing and a license revocation, then how am I to correct improprely presented data?

[Hello_Kitty]

69. Exactly! Comparing teachers to doctors and lawyers is apples and oranges!

It was the bullshit strawman that WFS and business leaders threw up to denigrate teachers.

[msanthrope]

70. No--comparing loss of licensure to firing is. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

74. So why not compare teachers with CPAs too?

How many CPAs lose their licenses in 6 years? How about nurses? How about hairdressers and nail techs? Long distance truck drivers?

[Starry Messenger]

11. Recommend.

[msanthrope]

12. Posting an incorrect statistical analysis to defend teachers only does two things:

1) It suggests that you could not catch what leapt off the page--that one set of figures was based on 6 years and that the other was based on a single year, which undermines whatever point you are trying to make to people who actually understand Math and Statistics, or,

2) You did catch the mistake, and you think the people reading and recc'ing this don't understand Math and/or Statistics.


On edit--starroute already showed you the incorrect application of statistical principles. Do you think that it helps the cause of educators to post this as support for your political goals?

[Reader Rabbit]

13. K&R to counter the teacher bashers.

:hi:

[grahamhgreen]

16. The film is simply a hit piece against unions and teachers. If they really wanted to change the

system, they would have suggested going to the Finnish model (which is cited frequently in the film), not in making the schools for profit enterprises.

[msanthrope]

19. This tells me you haven't seen the film---

the Finnish model is cited in the film as one possible solution, among many. The film, however, does point out why the Finnish model would NOT work with our current teacher's unions...

In Finland, the teaching profession is far more difficult to get into than it is, here. So you have higher standards from the outset, and better candidates. Further, the teachers' unions are strong because they self-police--they winnow out the chaff long before they are in positions of responsibility. It is this combination of increased self-discipline, and committment to professionalism that makes the Finland model work--it's why their self-run evaluation system is trustworthy.

That is not the model that happens here, under a typical union contract.

[Hannah Bell]

21. all finnish teachers are unionized & the finnish model is nothing like the "solutions" proposed by

the ed deformers.

furthermore, finnish educators themselves say that the US ed deform model is a horror.


http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9751272&mesg_id=9751272

[msanthrope]

24. Um, yes. They are unionized. And they do a good job. That's the point.

Let me try again.

The film deftly pointed out that the Finnish unions--and teachers--are unionized and do a good job. American systems where teachers are unionized generally don't have the same degree of success.

According to the link you provided "In Finland, unions aren't an obstacle."

Which begs the question--what are they an obstacle to, here?

I suggested that Finnish unions self-police a lot better, and it's far more difficult to get into the teaching profession in Finland than it is, here.

So, what about the union model works in Finland, but not here?

[Hannah Bell]

26. You're good at selective quotes:

In Finland, unions aren’t an obstacle. Ninety-eight percent of teachers are unionized. And this is very important to the success of our system. I wouldn’t buy the argument that unions are a problem.

The Finnish education administrator in the article shot down every ed deform measure mentioned.

PS: you do realize that states where teachers are non-unionized have worse outcomes, don't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=25987&mesg_id=25987


and that the rate of firing is no different from unionized states?

In Georgia, where 92.5% of the teachers are non-union, only 0.5% of tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired. In South Carolina, where 100% of the teachers are non-union, it’s 0.32%. And in North Carolina, where 97.7% are non-union, a miniscule .03% of tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired—the exact same percentage as California.

http://www.counterpunch.org/macaray03202009.html

[msanthrope]

34. Do you have a link for those employment figures that doesn't come from a playwright?

I'd love to read them.


And I agree with your Finnish guy--Finnish unions clearly are not the problem in Finland.

But what the heck a dude from Finland knows about American unions, you still haven't shown.

And conflating Finnish and American unions really isn't helpful to either, is it?

[Hannah Bell]

42. link me to the source for the data you defend as i asked you first.

the states in which there are no teachers covered under binding agreements score lower than the states that have them. Moreover, even though they appear small, all but one of these (8th grade math) are rather large differences.

[msanthrope]

60. Um, dude--I don't defend any data. I'm merely pointing out that using two different data sets isn't

good statistical practice.

You should see the OP about her sources.

[Hannah Bell]

78. There are no different data sets for the bar figures. There's only one,

I'm the only one who linked it, & it doesn't support the claims made in "superman".

and i understand you have no interest in facts, just in fucking with people.

i post the facts for those who might be misled.

they should be cognizant of the facts:

ed deformers lie constantly.

when called on their lies they never take responsibility, they just move on to the next lie.

[grahamhgreen]

54. Yes I did see the PR propaganda hit piece on unions.

Definitely not a film. It is propaganda.

They never mention modeling our system after Finland - if they do, please cite it for me.

Finland class sizes max out at 20. Why don't we start there?

[Hannah Bell]

45. Six year figures in the same report series:

Average number of MD licenses revoked in Illinois 2002-2007 = 112.8

Average practicing licensed physicians 2002-2007 in Illinois = 33,428

% of licenses revoked 2002-2007 = 0.34%


http://www.fsmb.org/pub_basummary.html

Ed deformers lie constantly, through their teeth.

and when you call them on it they just move on to the next lie.

darned quiet in this thread now.

[fascisthunter]

49. thank you for the info

[Hannah Bell]

52. you're welcome. i'll kick it so the person who professed to be interested in it sees it.

[Reader Rabbit]

53. Hey, Hannah, have I told you lately that I love you?

:hug:

[msanthrope]

56. Can you give link to what you are actually citing? I clicked on your link and it takes me to the

homepage.

Also, I am assuming that you have added all 6 years, right?

Becuase that's the claim--the data set is over 6 years. Not the yearly average.

I also was expecting you to contrast that with teachers in Illinois who lost their licensure. Not fired--lost their licensure. Over the exact same six year time period.

[Hannah Bell]

64. The yearly average for six years *is* the dataset for six years.

It's 1/3 of 1% per year. That's how many lawyers lose their licenses in Illinois every year, and it's less than the percent of tenured teachers fired every year in Illinois.

You can dance around the facts all you want.

If I multiply that number by 6 it = 1.98%. Also not the number cited in the article, & a bullshit meaningless number to boot. Six years was chosen for no reason whatsoever except to make the average yearly percent sound bigger.

The claim in "Waiting for Superman" was not "6 years". That is the claim in a 2007 article which was the only thing the blogger could find remotely similar to the claims made in "Superman".

And there's no citation whatsoever for the statistic of 1/2500 given for teachers in either "Superman" or the 2007 article. Nor is there any public database showing the percent of tenured teachers fired or having certificates revoked. Not that tenure means crap in illinois.

But there are certainly lots of news articles about teachers being fired, e.g.:

Chicago Teacher Fired for Dismembered Doll Project

Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley commented on the firing of Morty Finjaro from the Forest Glen Public school, saying; “this guy is sick and there is no place for that type of twisted thinking in our schools”.

It seems ‘work-shop’ teacher Morty Finjaro brought in a box of old dolls and told his grade nine class to ‘rip ‘em apart and build something cool’, below is an example of what student Jerry Fumme brought home to the horror of his parents!



http://allweirdnews.com/chicago-teacher-fired-for-dismembered-doll-project/



If you can't figure out how to get to the pages with the data when the links saying "2007" "2006" "2005" etc. are in front of your face, I can't help you. It requires the minimal effort of clicking on the link for the year & scrolling to the page for Illinois.

But you're not interested in facts, as you demonstrate.

[msanthrope]

66. In the other thread you started on this topic, (and downthread, here) your math mistakes

were patiently explained to you.


I hardly need to reproduce that thread to you, nor do I need to point out your reply downthread.

Instead, as was suggested by the other poster, you should feel free to kick this thread at will, since I think your 'calculations' highlight the need for education reform more eloquently than I ever could.

[Hannah Bell]

67. There are no math mistakes, dear. No matter how often you repeat that falsehood.

This thread & the other certainly illustrate the tactics used by ed deformers, however.

The fact is clear: Every year, 1/3 of 1%, i.e. 0.34% of MDs in Illinois lose their licenses.

There is no way to derive the rate for 6 years from the numbers published by the Illinois medical authorities.

And the ed deformers have given no source whatsoever for any of their statistics.

Nor have you or your buddy the mod.

[msanthrope]

72. My buddy the mod? Okay--it's a conspiracy against you. The numbers are in on it, too. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

75. i'm the only one who's put up any numbers, dear. all you've put up

is your defense of bullshit, citationless ed deform propaganda.

and some random personal attacks.

[Robb]

62. Ah! I think I see the problem you're having. Same as in the other thread you began on this.

When you see the phrase, "During the past six years ... 1 in 57 doctors practicing in Illinois lost their medical licenses" you, in your mind, add the phrase "every year."

Your interpretation: "Every year during the past six years, 1 in 57 doctors practicing in Illinois lost their medical licenses."

Yes? That would make your calculations sensible.

[Hannah Bell]

65. I see what your problem is too. And your friend's.

[LWolf]

55. Should I hope this POS "documentary" ends up with an Oscar nomination

so that we can publicly, loud and long, debunk it as a legitimate documentary, or...

do I hope it doesn't, because the nation would probably cheer it on to win?