As it happens, Hoxby and her colleagues stuck with their standard practice of releasing a summary of findings and methods, to be followed by a more detailed technical report. The press treated Prof. Hoxby as an accomplished empirical researcher, which she is. If the published technical report reveals substantial methodological problems, that should 1) make its own headlines and 2) affect the press treatment of Hoxby’s future studies.

If a critic doesn’t find that satisfying, I could understand him immediately calling for the press to withhold judgment. I could also understand waiting until the technical report is out to “apply academic peer review standards,” as the Project that published Prof. Reardon’s paper describes its mission.

But to wait for weeks, then publish a critique just *before* the technical details are released, while still cautioning that the final details aren’t available? Let’s not pretend that’s just a disinterested scholar being “careful.”

If a debate over the results is healthy and inevitable, wouldn’t it have made sense to release the technical report which details the study’s “actual methods and assumptions” concurrent with the study and its associated press releases?

A debate over the details of the NYC charter school study is healthy and inevitable. Professor Hoxby and her coauthors will soon release their technical report, which details the study’s actual methods and assumptions. No surmising necessary. If Professor Reardon did not know the technical report’s release schedule, he could have walked across the Stanford campus and asked.

For whatever reasons, he chose not to wait. Someone inclined to speculation might speculate on that.