SUCKER PUNCH: BOGUS STUDY AIMS TO CHOKE CHARTERS

These tactics are no surprise -- but despicable nevertheless...

Why is NYSUT so eager to squash the expansion of charters, even to the point of embarrassing itself with this political "hit" masquerading as a study? Because it can't abide more competition from successful, accountable charter schools that work with less money but are free from union mandates like tenure and dictionary-length labor contracts. Thus the union has used all its political muscle to stack the deck against reform, ever since public charter schools were first proposed in New York in the mid '90s.

It's shameful to see this powerful statewide organization denigrate the achievements of so many children, teachers and administrators in New York's charter schools.

State legislators, who often portray themselves as standing up for the proverbial "little guy," should see NYSUT's bullying tactics for what they are - and do the right thing this week by allowing for more public charter schools.

-------------------

SUCKER PUNCH

BOGUS STUDY AIMS TO CHOKE CHARTERS

By PETER MURPHY

December 12, 2006 -- THE issue of whether to expand the number of New York charter schools - public schools which are independent of school districts and mandatory unionization - is again in the political thicket during the special session of the Legislature that starts tomorrow.

State law caps new charter schools at 100, a level reached early this year. Gov. Pataki has since tried to raise this cap to 250 and is expected to demand a charter cap-lift (along with other items on his agenda) in return for a pay raise sought by legislators. Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer also is on record supporting a cap-lift.

In an apparent effort to derail all this the state teachers union (NYSUT - New York State United Teachers) last week released an 11th-hour "study" purporting to show that - surprise! - virtually all charter schools in 2004-05 (86 percent) did no better than nearby district-run schools with similar low-income student bodies.

These findings fly in the face of state test results, compiled each year by the state Education Department, which show that most charters outperformed their local districts' averages during that school year. (The key measure was the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state performance standards in English language arts and mathematics.)

Moreover, the most recent state test scores from the 2005-06 school year - which NYSUT's study conviently ignored - showed even more charter schools outperforming their respective districts in more grade levels.

In short, plenty of evidence contradicts NYSUT's claim that most charters are really no better district schools.

So how did NYSUT arrive at its lopsided findings? It rigged its study by comparing each charter school against a single, cherry-picked district school. Yes, the rates of student poverty were similar, but NYSUT ignored the many other district schools that performed below those same charter schools.

In other words, the study does not show that most charters are no better on average than regular public schools, but simply that most districts with a charter have at least one "traditional school" that's at least as good as the charter.

For example, NYSUT compared the Buffalo United Charter School to PS 65 in the same city; one did better in English, the other in math. Fine; call that a tie. Yet NYSUT ignores other schools, like PS 43 - with an identical poverty rate to Buffalo United, but lower scores in both subjects. Indeed, the study omitted the 13 other district-run schools with lower scores than Buffalo United's, even though all 13 had lower student poverty rates.

In short, NYSUT set out to deceive lawmakers and the public on the eve of a possible vote to give New York's children more charter schools.

In releasing his group's report, NYSUT President Richard Iannuzzi claimed, "The numbers don't lie." But blatant manipulation of numbers bears false witness just the same. NYSUT's transparent "cherry-picking" methodology wouldn't pass muster in a high-school economics class - and it's as dishonest as Big Tobacco claiming evidence that nicotine isn't addictive.

Again, the state Education Department does a much sounder analysis each year in its report on charters, comparing test results at each charter school to schools in its district - as well as looking at the improvement in the charter's performance over time. Bottom line: Eight years after our state allowed charters, these schools' academic results are very favorable overall.

Charters are in demand by parents across the state. They've been held accountable by SUNY and the Board of Regents through a rigorous approval and oversight process - a process that has closed several charter schools for low academic performance.

Why is NYSUT so eager to squash the expansion of charters, even to the point of embarrassing itself with this political "hit" masquerading as a study? Because it can't abide more competition from successful, accountable charter schools that work with less money but are free from union mandates like tenure and dictionary-length labor contracts. Thus the union has used all its political muscle to stack the deck against reform, ever since public charter schools were first proposed in New York in the mid '90s.

It's shameful to see this powerful statewide organization denigrate the achievements of so many children, teachers and administrators in New York's charter schools.

State legislators, who often portray themselves as standing up for the proverbial "little guy," should see NYSUT's bullying tactics for what they are - and do the right thing this week by allowing for more public charter schools.

Peter Murphy is director of policy for the New York Charter Schools Association, a statewide advocacy group based in Albany.