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.
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.
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.
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.