Essay Review of The Public School Advantage: Why Public Schools Outperform Private Schools
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14507/er.v22.1875References
Arizona Department of Education. (2014). Empowerment scholarship. Retrieved from http://www.azed.gov/esa/
Belfield, C., & Levin, H. M. (2005). Vouchers and public policy: When ideology trumps evidence. American Journal of Education, 111(4), 548-567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/431183
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, Company, Inc.
Berliner, D. C., & Glass, G. V (2014). 50 myths and lies that threaten America’s public schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Braun, H., Jenkins, F., & Grigg, W. (2006). Comparing private schools and public school using hierarchical linear modelling (NCES, 2006-461). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Center for Education Reform. (2014). The last eight states without charter school laws. Retrieved from http://www.edreform.com/2013/01/the-last-eight-states-without-charter-school-laws/
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). America’s public schools: Choice is a panacea. The Brookings Review, 8(3), 4-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20080159
Cobb, C. D., & Glass G. V (1999). Ethnic segregation in Arizona charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v7n1.1999
Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books.
Coleman, J., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). Cognitive outcomes in public and private schools. Sociology of Education, 55(2), 65-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2112288
DiMartino, C., & Scott, J. (2013). Private sector contracting and democratic accountability. Educational Policy, 27(2), 307-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904812465117
Ertas, N., & Roch, C. H. (2014). Charter schools, equity, and student enrollments: The role of for-profit educational management organizations. Education and Urban Society, 46(5), 548-579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124512458118
Forster, G. (2005, May 12). “F” is for failure. National Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/214425/f-failure/greg-forster
Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2011). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 19(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v19n1.2011
Ginsburg, M. B., & Gorostiaga, J. M. (2001). Relationships between theorists/researchers and policy makers/practitioners: Rethinking the two-cultures thesis and the possibility of dialogue. Comparative Education Review, 45(2), 173-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/447660
Greene, J. P. (2014, March 26). Wolf takes on the big Lubienskis. Retrieved from http://jaypgreene.com/2014/03/26/wolf-takes-on-the-big-lubienskis/
Grogger, J., & Neal, D. A. (2000). Further evidence on the effects of Catholic secondary schooling. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs 2000, 1, 151-193. Brookings Institution Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/urb.2000.0006
Holme, J. J., & Richards, M. P. (2009). School choice and stratification in a regional context: Examining the role of inter-district choice. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(2), 150-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01619560902810120
Hoxby, C., Murarka, S., & Kang, J. (2009). How New York City’s charter schools affect achievement. Second report in series. Cambridge, MA: New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project. Retrieved from http://users.nber.org/~schools/charterschoolseval/how_NYC_charter_schools_affect_achievement_sept2009.pdf
Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. (2005). A new look at public and private schools: Student background and mathematics achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 696-699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003172170508600914
Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2006). Charter, private, public schools and academic achievement: New evidence from the NAEP mathematics data. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
Lubienski, S. T. (2006). Examining instruction, achievement, and equity with NAEP mathematics data. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 14(14). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v14n14.2006
Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. (2006a). School sector and academic achievement: A multilevel analysis of NAEP mathematics data. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 651-698. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312043004651
Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. (2006b). What NAEP can tell us about school achievement. Education Week, 25(26), 28-30. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/03/08/26lubienski.h25.html
Lubienski, S. T., Lubienski, C., & Crane, C. C. (2008). Achievement differences and school type: The role of school climate, teacher certification, and instruction. American Journal of Education, 115(1), 97-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/590677
Lubienski, C. A., & Lubienski, S. T. (2014). The public school advantage: Why public schools outperform private schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226089072.001.0001
Lubienski, C. (2014, April 2). The ongoing debate on public and private school effectiveness: Vouchers, representative samples, fundamentalism, and Wal-Mart. The Forum on the Future of Public Education. Retrieved from http://forum.illinois.edu/blog/109
Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2002). What’s public about charter schools? Lessons learned about choice and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Ni, Y. (2009). The impact of charter schools on the efficiency of traditional public schools: Evidence from Michigan. Economics of Education Review, 28(5), 571-584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.01.003
Peterson, P., & Laudet, E. (2006). On the public-private school achievement debate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Stossel, J. (2006, July 26). Smearing education choice. Townhall.com. Retrieved from http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2006/07/26/smearing_education_choice/page/full
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2014a). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
U.S. Department of Education. (2014b). Race to the Top fund. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf
Wenglinsky, H. (2006). On ideology, causal inference and the reification of statistical methods: Reflections on “Examining instruction, achievement and equity with NAEP mathematics data.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(17). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v14n17.2006
Wenglinsky, H. (2007). Are private high schools better academically than public high schools? Washington DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=121
Wolf, P. J. (2010). School vouchers in Washington, DC: Achievement impacts and their implications for social justice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(2), 131-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2010.484974
Wolf, P. J. (2014). Comparing public schools to private. Education Next, 14(3).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Education Review/Reseñas Educativas/Resenhas Educativas is supported by the Scholarly Communications Group at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review. Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Review, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
All Education Review/Reseñas Educativas/Resenhas Educativas content from 1998-2020 and was published under an earlier Creative Commons license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0
Education Review is a signatory to the Budapest Open Access Initiative.