Editorial: Facts about charters must be forthright

Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004 | 8:49 a.m.

The Nevada Legislature approved charter schools in 1997 and today there are five in Clark County, together enrolling about 2,300 students, or less than 1 percent of the school district's total enrollment. Nationally, about 600,000 students are enrolled in charters. Local and national educators expect to see the trend grow substantially over the next few years and decades.

The reason for the expected growth is the widely held assumption that charter schools outperform public schools. The argument sounds reasonable. Because they are so much smaller than most public schools, charters can provide more individualized attention. Because they are not under the direct control of local school boards, their teachers can be more creative. And because they are free of the uniformity that binds public schools, charters can lengthen the hours of instruction, alter the curriculum, offer more flexible schedules and adopt stricter discipline policies.

The assumption of higher achievement, however, is not panning out. Since charter schools in Nevada began opening in 1999, they have not, on average, demonstrated superiority over public schools and in many subject areas they are lagging well behind. Also, of the 14 charter schools in the state, six -- 43 percent -- are on the state's watch list for failing to show progress in 2003. This compares with 40 percent of public schools statewide (220 of 548) that are on the watch list.

The state's experience with charter schools is comparable to national findings. The New York Times on Tuesday reported on a study, based on statistics gathered by the federal government, that shows charter students "often doing worse than comparable students in regular public schools." The study was conducted by the American Federation of Teachers, which in the past has supported charter schools. The AFT based its findings on statistics culled from the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress, a federal testing program also known as the nation's report card.

Almost as alarming as the findings was the way the statistics proving them were "buried in mountains of data the Education Department released without public announcement," as The New York Times reported. The AFT was able to gather the statistics only after laborious research. "Though other results (of the National Assessment) were announced at a news conference with a report highlighting the findings, federal officials never mentioned that the charter school data were publicly available," The New York Times reported.

The Bush administration is holding up charter schools as a viable alternative to public schools that are not meeting standards. We hope the data was not buried to avoid criticism of that viewpoint. Charter schools may very well have a role to play in the future of education. But it's critically important that all of the information about them is readily available. Such knowledge could prevent school districts from trading one failing school for another.