Search

Market reforms in education are part of the educational policy landscape in many countries. Central to arguments for market reforms is the idea that competition and choice will spur changes in schools to be more innovative, which in turn will lead to better student outcomes. We define innovation in terms of a practice's relative prevalence in a local district context. A charter school is innovative in its use of a practice if the traditional public schools in its local school district are not using that practice. We explore factors based on arguments for charter schools that may affect a charter schools’ propensity toward innovation to explain variation in levels of innovation across charter schools. We find that, on the whole, charter schools do not fulfill their promise of innovation. Teacher tenure is the most notable exception. Parental involvement is the only characteristic of charter schools that significantly predicts variation in levels of organizational innovativeness.

Analysts have regarded education transitions research as revealing late stage educational egalitarianism in the United States (e.g., Stolzenberg, 1994 ) and as sufficiently robust to guide policymakers (e.g., Hout, 2007 ). However, critics suggest parameter estimates are contaminated by selection bias (e.g., De Graaf & Ganzeboom, 1993 ), key parameter differences are unidentified (e.g., Cameron & Heckman, 1998 ), cross-transition comparisons are faulty, and the data are inappropriate. Useful modifications have been offered, (e.g., Breen and Jonsson, 2000 , Hauser and Andrew, 2006 , Lucas, 2001 ), but analysts have yet to comprehensively address the challenges critics pose. In response, we propose a neo-classical education transitions approach that uses fuller sets of data and models that explicitly address the primary threats to proper inference. Using this approach we re-assess the educational attainment process for a baby boomer cohort, a Generation X cohort, and a Generation Y cohort. All cohorts fail to replicate the waning coefficients pattern. Methodologically, the study responds to criticisms in a way that offers methods for continued cross-national comparative research. Substantively, the study undermines confidence that standard education transitions research can provide policy guidance and the claim of late stage egalitarianism in the United States educational attainment process.

Scholars continue to debate whether persistent racial inequality flows primarily from differences in measured achievement [e.g., Cancio, A. S., Evans, T. D., & Maume, D. J., Jr. (1996). Reconsidering the declining significance of race: Racial differences in early career wages. American Sociological Review, 61, 541–556; Farkas, G., & Vicknair, K. (1996). Appropriate tests of racial wage discrimination require controls for cognitive skill: Comment on Cancio, Evans, and Maume. American Sociological Review, 61, 557–560], a debate pointing scholars toward the school. Yet, a look inside schools reveals conflicting evidence concerning students’ opportunities. Notably, analyses of race and track location have found Whites and Asians advantaged when compared to Blacks and Latino/as [e.g., Mickelson, R. A. (2001). Subverting swann: First- and second-generation segregation in Charlotte–Mecklenberg schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 215–252], Black–White–Latino/a equality [e.g., Lucas, S. R., & Gamoran, A. (2002). Tracking and the achievement gap, In J. E. Chubb, & T. Loveless (Eds.), Bridging the gap (pp. 171–198). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press], and Whites disadvantaged when compared to Blacks and Asians [e.g., Garet, M. S., & DeLany, B. (1988). Students, courses, and stratification. Sociology of Education, 61, 61–77]. Upon investigating whether schools actually vary in their racial/ethnic gaps in track location, we find important school-level differences. This variation is not random; the more racially diverse the school, the better Whites’ chances and the worse Blacks’ chances of college prep course-taking. Provocatively, predicted probabilities of college-prep course-taking are consistent with one-to-one substitution of Whites for Blacks as one moves from less to more diverse schools. The results suggest analysts must explore cross-school variation to discern when, where, and why comparable students have different placements. Further, the findings imply that pursuing diversity, the sole remaining acceptable justification for race-conscious desegregation efforts, may actually hinder Blacks’ access to demanding curricula.