Your comment would be more persuasive is it were accompanied by evidence that the errors described in the article were not, in fact, pervasive and that there were real data to indicate that charter schools outperform ordinary public schools. As it is, your comment reads like a similar attempt to nip a nasty threat to charter schools in the bud.
Your comment indicates that you didn't really even read or attempt to think about mine. You're asking me to nitpick statistics that frame the exact worldview the article was pushing.
I'm saying that in the big picture, those probably aren't the specific statistics that many people even care much about at this point.
It's like an article comparing a Tesla to a Ford pickup truck that focuses solely on 0-60 speed and fuel costs but never bothers talking about towing capacity, load capacity, ability to refuel anywhere, etc.
I still don't get it. The article only points out that, in determining whether a Charter School provides a superior education to ordinary public schools (which is the claim made by the Economist and many other sources in the media) we need to know more than raw test scores. We need to control for a number of variables, such as the resources of attendees, etc.
If Charter Schools are attended by (e.g.) wealthier students than public schools, or students with more involved parents, then a charter school's superior aggregate performance on a standardized test tells us precisely zero about the educational quality of the school unless one can somehow compensate for this confounding variable. Yet this is routinely overlooked in the media.
You seem to be saying that we shouldn't care about controlling for variables like this and should, instead, look at other ones. OK. But you don't tell us why, or what statistics would be preferable, or give any evidence to suggest that publications like the Economist actually consider your preferred measures in lieu of those suggested by the article (remember: the article is about how to evaluate the claims made in the media about charter schools, not about the merits of charter schools themselves -- though I readily grant that the author clearly has a view on the latter topic as well).
Meh, I'll let TokenAdult post the very long and detailed refutation of the statistics themselves and the validity of the questions being asked.
You seem to be saying that we shouldn't care about controlling for variables like this
I'm saying that those variables and the questions that this "expert" chose to put forth miss the mark on the questions that should be asked and the variables that should be examined.
But you don't tell us why, or what statistics would be preferable
I did tell you why. My guess is that if you thought that choice was important in education then my thinly veiled sarcasm about choice would have caught your attention.
Regarding statistics, the statistic alone that typically Charter schools receive less per student than mainstream public schools renders questionable every other statistic that this article mentioned.
