by David Safier
In recent posts, I've cited a Stanford study showing mixed results from students at charter and traditional public schools. In some states, one group does better, in other states, it's the other way around. Pretty much a wash.
Now there's a new study, also from Stanford though by different people, that says New York City charters outperform the city's traditional public schools.
It looks like a credible study. Since NYC has a lottery to decide who gets into charters, a comparison of those who got in with those who didn't creates a strong random sample. And according to the authors, the charter school students outperform their equivalents who stayed in traditional schools.
As with all studies, I take this one with generous grains of salt. That being said, if NYC has created a group of strong charter schools that are getting the job done, congratulations. Let's see if we can replicate their successes at other schools, traditional, charter and private.
I have to add this caveat: the principal author, Caroline M. Hoxby, is a big supporter of "school choice." And the two funding agencies for the study are the federal government's Institute for Education Sciences (probably under the Bush administration) and the Center on School Choice. (I checked the other Stanford study and could find nothing to indicate bias.) Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the findings, but information about possible biases should always be considered.
Hoxby also published a recent article which said the other Stanford study contained serious statistical mistakes that unfairly lowered the scores of charter students, skewing the results in the traditional schools' favor. Her analysis of their analysis is so far over my head, I can't begin to say who's right, so I won't try.