6 ms·

Of course it was taken into account. Why do you think researchers would miss sth so obvious? If you click links in the article, you will see they compared to k

by xname 12y ago

Of course it was taken into account. Why do you think researchers would miss sth so obvious? If you click links in the article, you will see they compared to kids who failed in the lottery. And how they address other methodological concerns.

vinhboy 12y ago
Not winning the lottery is not the same as not even participating in the lottery. One could argue that simply participating in the lotter shows that those kids had active parents, and therefore are self-selecting as the OP stated.
- glenra 12y ago
  Your logic doesn't work. Of those people who simply participated in the lottery, the ones who won it and went to charter school did better than the ones who weren't selected and didn't. This means the groups being compared - the winners and losers - both "had active parents"; this factor does not constitute a difference between the two groups.
- jeffdavis 12y ago
  "One could argue that simply participating in the lotter shows that those kids had active parents, and therefore are self-selecting as the OP stated." Exactly the point: comparing students with equal motivation and parental involvement, who are separated only by luck, is a convenient way to control for the self-selection bias.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- vannevar 12y ago
  Your objection shouldn't be so lightly dismissed. It's possible that merely being placed in an environment populated with other students whose parents are supportive is enough to account for the gains. The students who failed to win the lottery were placed back into a general population whose influence (direct and indirect) could be the reason for their poor performance relative to the charter school kids.
  - vinhboy 12y ago
    I didn't reply to the others because I didn't want to get into a whole fight about it. But the OP's original message about selection-bias is still correct. The article's original claim is that charter schools does work for disadvantage and black students. But that is NOT what the data supports. The data supports that it works for disadvantaged and black students who have active parents. That conclusion raises more questions than it answers. I think your theory makes a lot of sense. Thank you for sharing that.

by xname 12y ago

vinhboy 12y ago

Not winning the lottery is not the same as not even participating in the lottery. One could argue that simply participating in the lotter shows that those kids had active parents, and therefore are self-selecting as the OP stated.

glenra 12y ago
Your logic doesn't work. Of those people who simply participated in the lottery, the ones who won it and went to charter school did better than the ones who weren't selected and didn't. This means the groups being compared - the winners and losers - both "had active parents"; this factor does not constitute a difference between the two groups.
jeffdavis 12y ago
"One could argue that simply participating in the lotter shows that those kids had active parents, and therefore are self-selecting as the OP stated." Exactly the point: comparing students with equal motivation and parental involvement, who are separated only by luck, is a convenient way to control for the self-selection bias.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
vannevar 12y ago
Your objection shouldn't be so lightly dismissed. It's possible that merely being placed in an environment populated with other students whose parents are supportive is enough to account for the gains. The students who failed to win the lottery were placed back into a general population whose influence (direct and indirect) could be the reason for their poor performance relative to the charter school kids.
- vinhboy 12y ago
  I didn't reply to the others because I didn't want to get into a whole fight about it. But the OP's original message about selection-bias is still correct. The article's original claim is that charter schools does work for disadvantage and black students. But that is NOT what the data supports. The data supports that it works for disadvantaged and black students who have active parents. That conclusion raises more questions than it answers. I think your theory makes a lot of sense. Thank you for sharing that.