The American Federation of Teachers has written in to The Wall Street Journal to respond to this piece (which pointed out that the same data the AFT used to claim that charter schools were falling behind traditional public schools also shows that religious schools are trouncing traditional public schools):
‘Cheerleaders’ Should Accept AFT’s Homework
August 26, 2004
The trio of charter-school cheerleaders who attacked the American Federation of Teachers for uncovering federal data unfavorable to charter schools tried but failed to undermine our findings (”Dog Eats AFT Homework,” William G. Howell, Paul E. Peterson and Martin R. West, Aug. 18).
Indeed, the authors acknowledged they were able to replicate our results for charter schools included in the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress. This comports with the comment of Darvin Winnick, the Bush administration-appointed chair of the board governing the federal test, that “there shouldn’t be any question about the results.” And even charter school enthusiast Chester Finn calls the charter school scores “low, dismayingly low.”
Forgotten in the frenzy to discredit the findings is that the AFT did not manufacture these data. They come directly from the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, well-hidden on a federal government Web site.
The authors protest that charter schools must contend with “challenging situations. . . and students.” Yet the evidence does not support the assertion that disadvantaged students in charter schools are more “challenged” than those in regular public schools. For starters, you’ll find comparatively few special-education students in charter schools.
AFT was an early supporter of the charter concept — allowing public schools greater autonomy to explore promising reforms and innovations, while maintaining high standards for achievement and accountability. While there are some effective charter schools, the charter-school movement as a whole unfortunately has taken a very different turn, embracing the freedoms of the idea but all too often flouting the accountability that should go with them.
The AFT does not accept the NAEP’s results only when they suit us. We have heeded (and even publicized) the NAEP’s warnings when it held disappointing news for public schools. If only the charter school crowd could be equally honest.
Edward J. McElroy
President
American Federation of Teachers
Washington
Now, there’s a ton to respond to here. I’ll try to pick out only the most glaring idiocies.
First up, no one ever said the AFT’s data were bad — just the way they interpreted the data (and The New York Times reported the data) was bad. As has been rehashed so many times before, they claimed there was a gap between public and charter schools, but that gap disappears when you take into account how many more black and Hispanic students charter schools educate.
Second, the AFT quotes Chester Finn (as quoted, in turn, by The New York Times). Let me quote him in The New York Post, a few days after the AFT study came out: “The war over charter schools is being waged on many fronts, so beware teachers unions bearing ‘gifts,’ especially in an election year.” This is not, I suspect, a man who feels he was quoted in context the first time around.
Third, the AFT says that special-education numbers indicate that charter-school students are not more challenged than other public-school students. It’s a nice bait-and-switch, moving the issue away from race and poverty. But even taking things on the ground McElroy’s chosen, there’s a pretty simple explanation: Since charter schools often don’t get extra money for special-ed students (as public schools do), they have less incentive to designate children as special-ed.
Fourth, we have the AFT’s “more in sadness than in anger” routine (phrase-tip, Eduwonk) about how they really wish charter schools were succeeding. Let’s just say they’re counting on the public’s ignorance there.
And, finally, fifth. The AFT says that it heeds the NAEP data on public schools just as much as it heeds the data it uncovered recently about charter schools. Well, to continue the trend of hanging the AFT by its own argument here: If one year of negative data has convinced the union that it’s time to shut down the entire charter school experiment, surely 20+ years of data on inner-city public schools has convinced it that it’s time to try something new there as well!
Vouchers, perhaps?
Recent Comments