With few exceptions, much of the research on school choice has neglected school structure and processes as they relate not only to student outcomes but the three key aspects of schools that the choice movement intends to improve—autonomy, innovation, and accountability (see Austin & Berends, in press; Berends, 2015; Gill et al., 2007; Lubienski, 2003, Oberfield, 2017). 1 Central to advocates’ argument for choice is that these aspects of reform will produce changes in organizational innovations that promote curriculum, instruction, and learning, which in turn will lead to better student outcomes (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Walberg & Bast, 2003). As Lubienski (2003) states, “choice, competition, and innovation are cast as the necessary vehicles for advancing academic outcomes” (p. 397). Moreover, the argument goes, practices and conditions related to autonomy, innovation, and accountability will differ across schools (and school types), thus responding to parental and community preferences and further promoting student achievement (Walberg, 2011). According to Chubb and Moe (1990, p. 67), choice schools

operate in a very different institutional setting distinguished by the basic features of markets—decentralization, competition, and choice—and their organizations should be expected to bear a very different stamp as a result. They should tend to possess the autonomy, clarity of mission, strong leadership, teacher professionalism, and team cooperation that public schools want but except under very fortunate circumstances are unlikely to have.