I agree that the simple comparison of “ownership or management” of schools, charter vs. public, is not very meaningful. But, this invidious approach was established by those who made claims for simply moving from public to charter as going from inefficient to efficient, from neglecting children to caring about them, from failing to successful, from neglecting education to embracing it. Some of mine and your closest colleagues have made these claims and continue to make them. Then when researchers go out and try to test them, they are criticized for a lack of understanding, subtlety, and so on. But, the claims are far from subtle, so what do you expect?

With respect to taxonomies, you are also too hard on educational researchers. The Bloom and Krathwohl taxonomies have been around for years in terms of types of learning in both affective and cognitive domains. These may not be completely appropriate for comparing charter and public schools. But, when the claims become more concrete and detailed, a different taxonomy is likely to arise for evaluators.

Cordially,

Hank Levin

The most important contribution of charter schools (the good ones, anyway) is that they tend to keep the district schools on their toes by providing a competitor — something not previously available to the poor — breaking the pattern all monopolies suffer from for the public school system. Competition is the only guarantee for the pursuit of quality.

Are you talking about public magnet schools where districts hand pick each student? That’s what it seems like you are describing. Public charter schools that have a waiting list must admit students in a public lottery process. There are no applications, essays from the students, letters of recommendation, test scores, etc.. That is what private schools do. The difference between a public charter admission by lottery is vastly different than a private school’s process. The difference between a public magnet school (Boston Latin, Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies LACES and Sherman Oaks Center for Enriched Studies (SOCES), New York’s Test Schools:
see Wikipedia Article expert below.

Stuyvesant High School (pronounced /ˈstаɪvɨsənt/), commonly referred to as Stuy (/ˈstаɪ/),[3] is a New York City public high school that specializes in mathematics and science. It is one of the most competitive public high schools in the United States, sending more students to some of the nation’s most prestigious universities than most other public or private schools.[5] The school opened in 1904 on Manhattan’s East Side and moved to a new building in Battery Park City in 1992. Stuyvesant is noted for its strong academic programs, having produced many notable alumni including four Nobel laureates.[6] U.S. News & World Report ranked it twenty-third in their 2008 list of America’s best “Gold-Medal” high schools.[7]

Together with Brooklyn Technical High School and Bronx High School of Science, Stuyvesant is one of the three original academic Specialized High Schools of New York City. Run by the New York City Department of Education, the trio are open to New York City residents and charge no tuition. Admission to each is by competitive examination only, of which Stuyvesant has the highest cutoff score. A long-standing friendly rivalry between Stuyvesant and Bronx Science exists over the Intel Science Talent Search, with each school claiming dominance over the other at various times.

Mike

The point, and forgive me for getting to it after so long an intro, is that there has been nary a ray of hope in these communities education wise in 30 years. Traditional public high schools have 70 percent drop out rates and less than 10% of the students that enter the 9th grade go on to graduate from college. In these communities, where it is easier for a youth of color to pass through the eye of a needle, than graduate from high school, charter schools are sending thousands of our kids to college.

So all talk of studies are senseless if they don’t address this point.