Charter Schools: An Alternative Option in American Schooling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found the manuscript interesting, well organized and written and contributive to my knowledge of school choice generally, but also as to how charter schools situate within the broader offerings of school choice. The manuscript was appropriate in length, established useful points with appropriate citations and offered direction for future research. One point needing attention exists on lines 21-22. The authors state that traditional public schools are publicly funded and publicly operated. On the next line they report that charter schools are publicly funded but privately operated. Because both school types operate on public funds, I don't see the distinction between privately and publicly operated. I recommend that the authors define the term private or privately. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Summary: This article provides a brief history of the charter school movement in the US. The article provides a concise review of the history and current state of charter schooling.  The key factors that would be of interest to a reader like motivation, development, controversy and effectiveness are all touched on.  This would make a fine introductory piece for undergraduate students who have no knowledge of what charter schools are.

Review & General Suggestions: I think more should be said about the diversity of charter schools.  Arts, STEM, Sports, work-based, remedial, college prep, longer/shorter school day/year, etc. I think it bears emphasizing to anyone unfamiliar with charters that they are not a single behemoth looming over the educational landscape, but rather very heterogenous mix of schools.  I think more is needed with some data outlining what these alternatives look like would be useful.  It is noted in the final sentence of the conclusion, but I think this heterogeneity is often lost when people focus on "charter schools" as a single policy.

The chartering systems can vary significantly between authorizers.  I didn't find any examples of how the reduction in regulations can vary between chartering bodies.  To this end I'd like it if the paper made sure to be clear from which state/city each piece of empirical evidence comes from.

I would also consider emphasizing why some of the findings are disparate.  For example, lottery studies find positive effects, while broader non experimental studies are less conclusive. Again heterogeneity in charter school missions and effectiveness.  See following reference for details:

Dallavis, J. W., & Berends, M. (2022). Charter schools after three decades: Reviewing the research on school organizational and instructional conditions. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.7634

Specific comments

- The recurring references to neoliberalism is distracting in the first several paragraph.  After the first context driven mention in line 43, subsequent use could demean the credibility of the article. The concept is clear without using the label.  Revision suggested.

- I would not classify "No excuses" explicitly as a "corporate" practice per se any more than any other policy at a CMO or EMO managed charter is "corporate."  Perhaps note that it is credited with originating with the KIPP network of schools.  

- Line 181-184.  Tie this back to the notion that charters enter in areas where schools are underperforming which empirically tend to have high proportion BIPOC.   And explicitly to the conversion charters mentioned in line 129.

- I am unaware of evidence in Texas that the charter closures were driven by the accountability system (forced closure) as opposed to closing due to low enrollments or operational concerns (market driven closure).  Unless a citation says otherwise, I'd remove the parenthetical expression in line 243-4.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good edits.