A federal Education
Department analysis of test scores from 2003 shows that children in
charter schools generally did not perform as well on exams as those in
regular public schools. The analysis, released Wednesday, largely
confirms an earlier report on the same statistics by the American
Federation of Teachers.
The department,
analyzing the results of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress test for fourth graders, found charter students scoring
significantly lower than regular public school students in math,
even when the results are broken down for low-income children and
those in cities.
In reading, the
report said, over all there was no statistically significant
difference between students in charters and in regular public
schools. However, when students in special education were
excluded, charter students scored significantly lower than those in
regular public schools.
When broken down
by race, the results show charter students generally lagging behind
those in regular public schools in reading and math, but the
differences were not statistically significant, the report said.
The report, which
included responses to a questionnaire administered with the test,
shed light on the nature of charter schools and their performance.
They showed, for example, that the only charter schools that
outperformed regular public schools in reading were those that had
been in operation for less than a year. Otherwise, test scores
generally declined the longer a school had been operating as a
charter.
Also, schools that
were not chartered by a school district but functioned as
independent districts tended to do worse than those over which
districts exercised some oversight.
The data were
released at an unusual news conference, at which the deputy
education secretary, Eugene W. Hickok, who is resigning, pronounced
the Education Department a defender of charter schools and described
the results as encouraging.
"In case there's
any doubt, we are big supporters of charter schools," Dr.
Hickok said. "So as I read these studies on charter schools, I
read them through that lens."
He noted that in
specific areas, charter students did not do significantly worse than
those in regular schools, and said the results portrayed only a
"snapshot in time," not a measure of growth. He noted that
charters tended to enroll more black students, and were
disproportionately located in cities.
Given those
differences, he said, the scores were "not a bad sign." He
added, "While the study does point out some differences, it
also points out that in many ways charter students are holding their
own."
After the release of
the report, the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees
the test, sponsored a discussion with Jeanne Allen, president of the
Center for Education Reform, which supports charters, and Bella
Rosenberg, an author of the teachers' union report. That report,
released in August and based on the same test scores released
Wednesday, prompted a storm of criticism from charter advocates.
Ms. Allen, citing
studies that purport to show stronger results for charters in
comparisons that are statewide, rather than national, said,
"Charter school students in the aggregate are in a dead heat
with students in regular schools."
She also rejected the
survey questions that found that charters with district supervision
performed better than those without.
"Autonomy is not
accurately measured by asking are you part of a school district or
not," she said. "It does not take into account the wide
variety of ways" in which charters operate, she said.
Ms. Rosenberg
differed. "If our much-maligned regular public schools are
failing," she said, "then charter schools, the very
schools that promised to deliver higher achievement in return for,
and as a result of, freedom from rules and regulations, are failing
too, and often at significantly worse levels."
In a statement,
Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of
Ohio and chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Work
Force, described the new report as a refutation of the teachers'
union report, although the results were largely the same. He
highlighted findings showing that in comparing students of the same
race, charter students were not doing significantly worse than
students in regular schools.
But Ms. Rosenberg
rejected that analysis, borrowing a line from President Bush in
calling it "a standard of success otherwise known as the soft
bigotry of low expectations."
"We don't
tolerate that from regular public schools," she said, "and
we certainly shouldn't tolerate it from a movement whose schools
flourished because it promised elected representatives - and more
poignantly, poor and minority parents - that charter schools could
and would do better, not the same or worse."
For the first
time, the survey also collected national data comparing the
performance of students in charters managed by nonprofit
organizations with those run by commercial companies, the largest of
which is Edison Schools. Those results showed no difference in
performance between the two types of schools.
Adam Tucker, a
spokesman for Edison, said that while the quality of companies that
managed charter schools varied widely, he doubted the survey's
findings. He cited a study by the Brookings Institution, which found
that schools run by commercial companies did somewhat better than
other charter schools.
