Correspondence - Letter to the Editor

The American Federation of Teachers' report Do Charter Schools Measure Up? has been sharply criticized by special-interest groups advocating on behalf of charter schools. In "Lobbying in Disguise" (Check the Facts, Winter 2003), Robert Maranto joins this discordant chorus. But Maranto and the AFT agree on a number of points:

* Charter schools are no panacea, and legitimate concerns exist about the effectiveness of for-profit education.

* Charter schools generally do not cream off brighter students.

* The achievement of students in charter schools has not lived up to expectations.

* Charter schools are not hothouses of innovation. Instead, they modify and disseminate existing reform practices to a greater degree than other public schools.

* Charter schools employ many inexperienced teachers at pay that is competitive with other public schools. However, senior charter school teachers often are paid less than their public school counterparts. Virtually all are at-will employees.

* Charter schools are somewhat more likely to use merit pay, although the practice is fairly limited. Most use a traditional salary schedule.

The AFT report states that charter schools do spend less money than other public schools. However, Maranto implies that we think charter schools are underfunded. In fact, the AFT study finds "general funding comparability;' even though charter schools receive less funding for facilities. Public schools spend more than charter schools because public schools do more. School districts bear higher costs for special education, low-income students, transportation, and food services, as well as activities not typically found in charter schools, such as community outreach, services to private schools, and adult education.

Despite our many areas of agreement regarding charter schools, three fundamental differences remain.

First, the evidence does not suggest that parental choice and market competition necessarily lead to improved student achievement. In November 2002 the Texas Education Agency ordered the shutdown of five charter schools (all open for at least three years), citing persistent low academic performance. Despite the poor track record of these schools, large numbers of students were still enrolled.

Second, the AFT does not believe that parental satisfaction surveys are a substitute for student achievement. Surveys do not include the large number of families who leave charter schools-- some of whom are presumably dissatisfied. Furthermore, as the surveys performed by Phi Delta Kappa reveal, parents consistently give high ratings to the public schools their children attend.

Third, Maranto is not persuaded by the research cited in our report showing that charter schools have had only a limited competitive effect on other public schools. Yet in "Small Districts in Big Trouble: How Four Arizona School Systems Responded to Charter Competition;' a study cited in the AFT report, Maranto and his colleagues found" that market competition varies depending on local environments," Our review of the research revealed few examples of charter schools' having an impact on districts that could be attributed to market forces.

Finally, we are attacked for our recommendation that policymakers "should not expand charter school activities until more convincing evidence of their effectiveness and viability is presented." Is this an extreme position taken because of union politics? We don't think so. It doesn't differ from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation's decision, regarding its investment of more than $1 million in charter schools in Dayton, Ohio, to shift "our efforts from starting charter schools to ensuring that they are effective. We intend to develop outside services that will help struggling schools improve their business management operations, their delivery of special education, and, we hope, their academic results."

JOAN BARATZ-SNOWDEN JOAN DEVLIN

American Federation of Teachers Washington, D.C.

Robert Maranto responds: Alas, the AFT still seems to be spinning the facts. They cite the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in support of their proposed moratorium on the opening of new charter schools, yet the foundation strongly favors further national expansion of charter schools. There is a world of difference between one organization's decisions to focus on its existing investments and a decision to place a nationwide moratorium on the opening of new schools. In fact, foundation president Chester E. Finn Jr. wrote that the AFT'S report" reeks of error, distortion, and untruth about charter schools."

Further belying the AFT'S logic is the fact that 18 percent of Dayton public school children now attend charters, about 15 times the national average. Would the AFT agree that charter growth should slow only when they enroll 18 percent of Amencan public school students?

The AFT seems to have misinterpreted my own work. My team of researchers did in fact find that "market competition varies depending on local environments." But this is a long way from saying that charters have had no effect. The point was that competition was most effective in areas where a fair number of charter schools had sprouted up. Arizona school districts where a significant number of children left for charter schools responded with leadership changes and other attempts to draw students back to the district.