IN THIS ISSUE

Federal Report #1: Charter School Students Trail Their Peers
Results from the highly regarded NAEP assessments refute the myth that charter schools serve a disproportionate number of low-income students (and the myth that charter schools serve them well). More . . .

Federal Report #2: Low-Performing Charter Schools Are Rarely Shut Down
This government-issued report refutes the myth of charter school accountability. More . . .

I'll Take "Early Childhood Education" for a Thousand, Alex
Two recent studies provide additional evidence that early childhood programs help prepare young children for school and give taxpayers a terrific return on investment. More . . .

The Connection Between Health and Learning
Inaction by Congress is endangering the health, education and lives of 200,000 American children over the next three years. More. . .

The Department of Education: On Message But Off the Mark
When students in U.S. schools scored poorly on international tests, the U.S. Education Department had a response: Hype the administration's second-term agenda. More . . . 

Federal Report #1: Charter School Students Trail Their Peers

The long wait for the official release of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2003 pilot study on charter school student results is over—and the news is not good for those who see the proliferation of charter schools as the cure for all that ails public education.

The newly released NAEP results reaffirm NAEP charter school achievement data unearthed by the AFT in August 2004 showing charter school students, on average, perform worse than other public school students in math. The results also showed that charter school students who were not identified as having special education disabilities did not achieve at the same level in reading as similar students in other public schools.

But even more troubling is charter school zealots’ continuing excuse-making for charter schools because of who attends them—even in the face of this release, which finds that the percentage of low-income students in charter schools is not significantly different from the percentage in other public schools. And, as the AFT's Bella Rosenberg noted at a press conference announcing the NAEP results, the data show that low-income children who attend charter schools do not perform as well in reading and math as comparable public school students.

Other important NAEP findings:

• Students in charter schools that have been in operation for several years performed no better than students in recently opened charter schools.
• Charter school students eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program did not perform as well in reading and math as comparable public school students.
• Students in charter schools with teachers having fewer than four years’ experience performed worse than their public school counterparts who had teachers with the same experience.

Officials at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) have used NAEP public school data when it suits their purposes, but when it doesn’t, as in the case of the charter school data, they distance themselves from the NAEP data. ED's statement on the release of the NAEP charter school data hypes a warmed-over study from Caroline Hoxby as an alternative. By arguing that student achievement in charter schools is unimportant, ED officials demonstrated that the Bush administration won't let mere facts interfere with its agenda. By arguing that student achievement in charter schools is unimportant, outgoing Deputy Education Secretary Gene Hickok makes it clear that he won’t let mere facts interfere with his agenda, which he recently described to reporters "in case there's any doubt."

Federal Report #2: Low-Performing Charter Schools Are Rarely Shut Down

The NAEP release (see above) comes on the heels of another long-delayed report on charter schools, which only saw the light of day after the New York Times filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the material from the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The ED report, conducted by California research group SRI International, analyzes the federal Public Charter Schools Program and finds the performance of students in charter schools is significantly worse than the performance of students in public schools.

But poor student performance isn't the only troubling finding of the report:

"Charter schools rarely face formal sanctions (revocation or nonrenewal). Furthermore, authorizing bodies impose sanctions on charter schools because of problems related to compliance with regulations and school finances rather than student performance [emphasis added]. Authorizers have difficulty closing schools that are having problems."

This government-issued report highlights the charter school movement's failure to embrace accountability and live up to its original bargain: more autonomy in exchange for higher academic achievement. Too many charter schools have abused the autonomy—to the point, as ED's report notes, that authorizers struggle to enforce sanctions against charter schools. And yet, on average, charter school students' achievement is poor.

I'll Take "Early Childhood Education" for a Thousand, Alex

How would Jeopardy brainiac Ken Jennings respond if Alex Trebek said, "This investment of public dollars is both effective and cost-effective"? Jennings, who was right almost every time during his $2.5 million Jeopardy streak, likely would have come up with the correct response: "What are early childhood programs, Alex?"

Policymakers should take note of the large body of research demonstrating that early childhood education programs (ECE) help prepare young children for school and give taxpayers a terrific return on their investment. Further evidence comes from several studies released in recent weeks:

• A report from Georgetown University researchers finds that Tulsa's prekindergarten program produces a 52 percent gain in letter-word identification, a 27 percent gain in spelling and a 21 percent gain in applied problem-solving. The authors describe the results for Hispanic students as "especially impressive."
• A study from the Economic Policy Institute evaluates the costs and benefits of high-quality ECE programs. The conclusion: Publicly financed, comprehensive early education for 3- and 4-year-old children who live in poverty would result in an annual budget savings of more than $31 billion within 25 years.
• The latest installment of the Perry Preschool Study brings further evidence of the long-term benefits of early care and education. Begun decades ago, the program provided high-quality early care and education for poor, at-risk African-American children and established a control group of children who received no intervention. The subjects who received early care and education in the 1960s now have higher graduation rates, personal savings, lifetime earnings and home ownership, and lower incidences of mental illness, unemployment, and arrests for violent crimes and drug crimes.

In responding to the strong evidence in support of ECE, educators and policymakers should take a cue from the medical community. When a medical breakthrough shows unambiguously positive results, researchers stop the trials so all patients can receive the treatment. But that doesn't seem to be how things work in the field of education. Instead of taking quick action, policymakers have taken none. This policy failure, if it continues, will harm future generations of schoolchildren and limit our nation's economic growth.

More Information:

• Center for the Child Care Workforce/AFT Educational Foundation
• An AFT policy brief on early childhood education
• A report from University of Chicago researchers making the case for ECE investment
• A reform brief from Education Writers Association focusing on ECE teacher quality
• A National Head Start Association survey finds problems caused by budget cuts
• The National Institute for Early Education Research's annual report on preschool
• Media coverage of the Perry Preschool Study: USA Today, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Times and Knight-Ridder.

The Connection Between Health and Learning

Sometimes the terms "early childhood education" and "early childhood care" are used interchangeably. If the confusion is partly due to carelessness, it's also due to a fundamental truth: Healthy children learn better.

A recent Washington Post editorial noted the connection between health and learning in its condemnation of Congress for failing to support the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which provides healthcare for poor children whose families aren't eligible for Medicaid. The problem, write the editors, is getting worse: "Between now and 2007, 18 states . . . are projected to have insufficient federal funding, which would require them to drop some children or find money elsewhere."

No policymaker has offered a compelling reason for Congress's inability to come up with the desperately needed funding for SCHIP—a sin of omission that endangers the health, education and lives of 200,000 children over the next three years. Members of Congress always say they care about children. But the words are meaningless if people who have the power to help children don't act.

The Department of Education: On Message But Off the Mark

Results of two recent international tests—the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)—have created plenty of fodder for spinmeisters at the U.S. Department of Education (ED).

The results show American students improving (TIMSS/eighth-graders), staying the same (TIMSS/fourth-graders), and doing worse (PISA/15-year-olds). Even though there are some signs of improvement, it's clear there is a lot of work to do to prepare U.S. students to enter an increasingly international workforce.

But what kind of work needs to be done? Don't look to ED for answers to that question.

Outgoing Education Secretary Rod Paige told fellow conservatives at the Heritage Foundation that the increases found in the 2003 TIMSS were the result of the "principles of No Child Left Behind"—legislation enacted in 2002, just a year before the TIMSS tests were taken. It would be easier to overlook such hyperbole if this administration hadn't broken so many promises in its education policies and funding.

If you have a comment or suggestion for AFT's Closer Look, let us know.