There are LOTS of people out there who DO want charter schools, per se.

Some see charters as a way to weaken teachers unions. Some see the public sector has inherently inferior, and therefore see choice and markets as intrinsically the superior model. And some have ideological issues with public services and would prefer more privatized providing of services, even if it might at times be inferior.

What is your standard for calling this an “excellent study”?

I’ve pointed out some fundamentally flawed aspects of the study’s basic methodology, some of which simply are not fixable without entirely abandoning what it’s authors call “The Gold Standard.”

Are there errors in my critique?

Furthermore, why do you believe that allowing previously successful charter school operators expand as fast as they want to would not have any impact on quality? Haven’t we seen organizations in every other sectors expand too quickly and suffer for it? Why would charter schools be immune from that?

I would note that you left out “small class size” from your list. I hope that wasn’t intentional.

Let’s use this study as an opportunity to praise and replicate excellent schools, and learn from what they’re doing similarly (long day,data, accountability, structure, culture, teachers, etc.) for all schools.  

The attacks on an excellent study are counterproductive towards the goal of better schools, as that’s what we need more of no matter what they’re called!

For example, how did the Stanford researcher decide how well the charter school children did? Did she do her own testing or did she use tests handled and administered by school personnel?

Well, I think that that kind of thinking might be behind it, but it does not justify it.

“Proven providers” may not be equipped to expand. And unproven providers may be better able to run a new charter school.

I think that this kind of provisions aims to prevent the worst schools from opening, the complete disasters. But that’s usually the goal of regulation, anyway. That is, to prevent the lowest quality.

Charter proponents generally take issue with regulations, calling laws more regulation “weak charter school laws” and those with less “strong charter school laws.” To the extent that charter schools are supposed to little laboratories of innovation — a topic for another day — they are probably right.

“But on a policy level, we need to be concerned with charters more generally than that. If we raise or lift caps on charter schools, or approve new charter schools, we have to expect an average charter school to result, not an exceptional one. But these studies really tell us nothing about the majority of charter schools that are not oversubscribed.”

explains why the new charter school cap legislation in Massachusetts currently calls only for expansion of charter schools run by “proven providers” (though what that means is very vague).

In my experience the charter school applicants are parents with far greater social capital.

2. In addition to the lottery, do the schools require interviews, and, how many children are refused admission for failing to attend the interview, or are dissuaded at the interview from attending?

3. How many students are accepted after the lottery process? 4. How many Special Education and LEP students are admited? Does the lottery have a separate category for LEP and Spec Ed applicants? Do the schools comply with NYS law, in enrolling numbers of LEP and Spec Ed kids “eqaul to or greater than those enrolled in schools in the district.” 5. What categories of Spec Ed and LEP are enrolled? Self-contained classes, Students with Interrupted Formal Education (SIFE)?

The even playing field is quite bumpy!!