Where is this stat coming from?

Isn't this already happening to an extent with charter schools vs. traditional public schools? Seems there are mixed opinions from teachers as to which is better. Not a clear answer that unions are bad like this suggests.

Wouldn't some kids get stuck in failing schools that are scrambling to re-organize in this scenario? Doesn't seem like any better of a situation for the students than having them in a failing school with money being injected.

Agree that this is very optimistic. Obviously "strategically" is the key word here, but technology is not a panacea, and there are many ineffective technology products and services already on the market that may not deliver the promised results or may not be easy enough for teachers to implement to achieve these results.

How do charter school admissions processes currently work? I have seen conflicting reports about whether schools use random lotteries or whether factors go into the decisions that involve academic aptitude (in the interest of keeping test scores high enough to maintain demand and remain open).

I believe de Blasio's new policies for NYC guarantee public space or compensation for charter schools.

Is this view accepted by everyone, or is it a pretty controversial idea? Is this currently a policy?

I wonder what Moe and Hill's ideal breakdown by percentage of students in district, private, charter, and homeschools would be, in comparison to the current breakdown. How much change are they advocating ultimately?

Reminds me of how controversial the shift to the Common Core is, and that doesn't come close to the kinds of structural change involved in switching to a mixed model.

And how are the students doing within this model compared to how they were doing before Katrina? In other words, does this system produce or enable educational success?

Again, Hess's argument echoed here.

This echoes what Hess writes in "The Same Thing Over and Over" about how the fundamental structure of the American educational system has not changed in decades, despite innovations that make extreme paradigm changes and improvements possible. In this paragraph, Moe and Hill note that markets were not understood well when the government-based education system was built, so Hess would likely argue that systemic changes should be made based on our current deep understanding of markets rather than allowing tradition to continue to structure the education system.

This is the crux of Moe and Hill's argument. Government and markets can work as allies—not inherently opposing forces—to improve education, as they have when partnering in other industries.

Yes—like Scott and Wells in their article. Their arguments against charter schools are based on findings that free market reforms exacerbate inequality. Their argument is more focused on inequality than privatization though.

Don't value-added assessments already exist as measures of teacher performance? Then, are they not included in websites about schools because schools do not want to share this data?