The Education Gadfly Weekly

Erica Frankenberg, Chungmei Lee and Gary Orfield, The Harvard Civil Rights Project
January 2003

Every year around Martin Luther King's birthday, the Harvard Civil Rights Project disgorges another in its interminable series of reports purporting to show that American education is growing more segregated and should, therefore, return to the days of compulsory busing for purposes of racial balance, preferably on a regional basis that ignores district lines. While I am persuaded that VOLUNTARY student movement across district lines in pursuit of better schools would be a good thing for American education, while I'm appalled by the barriers that many school systems erect to prevent that from happening, and while I have no doubt that racial and S.E.S. integration would be a valuable corollary to such movement, I see no appetite in the United States today for a return to involuntary desegregation via court order or administrative fiat. Orfield and company are living in cloud cuckoo land. The thrust of No Child Left Behind is that predominantly minority schools can be excellent schools if held to high standards, well staffed, well led, etc. And we can spot numerous examples of such schools across the land today. My impression is that most minority parents are more concerned that their child attends a safe, caring and effective school where every pupil acquires basic skills and fundamental knowledge, than about the skin color of the kid in the next seat. (Some, indeed, would just as soon have their child attend school with others like him/herself - and even be taught by people from the same race or ethnicity.) In any case, this time around the Harvard team doesn't even make a persuasive case that things are getting worse. They say, in fact, that "white students are attending public schools with more minority students than before" and that "a substantial percentage of students now attend schools where at least three races are each 10% or more of the total student population respectively." The average black student attends a school in which 45 percent of pupils are NOT black, with very similar figures for Latino youngsters. And the average Asian is in a school where more than three-quarters of his/her fellow pupils belong to other ethnic groups. Only five percent of U.S. students now attend what the authors call "apartheid schools," i.e., schools that are 99-100% minority. This isn't to deny that many schools serving poor and minority youngsters (and more than a few white children) still have a long way to go to become effective educational institutions. It is only to say that the Harvard Civil Rights Project is now felling trees in a forest where few are around to hear the crashes. You can obtain your very own copy, however, by surfing to http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/reseg03/reseg03_full.php.

Charles S. Clark
CQ Researcher
December 20, 2002

Are charter schools a promising innovation or damaging distraction? This is the big question that Congressional Quarterly reporter/researcher Charles Clark seeks to disentangle in this recent CQ report. Emotions can run high when discussing charter schools, and for this reason data and quality research are crucial in disentangling the actual impact these schools are having. With ten years of charter experience under our belts and nearly 680,000 pre-K-12 students attending these schools in 39 states and Washington DC, data are starting to emerge. Clark's report shares some of what is known and some that's familiar: charters serve minorities, disadvantaged children and those who speak English as a second language; they operate with less per pupil funding than traditional public schools; parents like them; and many use innovative instructional strategies. It is not clear, however, whether charter schools are more effective academically than traditional public schools. As Clark notes, "conclusions are complicated because there are no uniform tests or year-to-year data." With the implementation of No Child Left Behind and its focus on measurable academic gains, we should start seeing more and better data that can be used to compare student achievement in traditional public and charter schools over time. Over the next decade, charter schools will increasingly be judged by their performance rather than their potential. With luck, that'll be true for traditional public schools, too. To access this report, go to http://www.cqpress.com (requires subscription) or call 1-800-638-1710 to order.

Public Agenda
January 2003

In this new report, Public Agenda presents the results of a survey of over 1,000 foreign-born adults now living in the United States. It documents immigrants' views on a variety of topics, including education: 73% said that students should be taught English as quickly as possible, even if that means falling behind in other subjects, and 62% said that all public school classes should be taught in English. (Support for English immersion in public schools among immigrants closely mirrored support for this policy among the general public.) To browse more education results, please see http://publicagenda.org/specials/immigration/immigration4.htm. A full copy of the report can also be downloaded from the website http://publicagenda.org/ (registration required) until February 11, or can be ordered for $10, plus $2 shipping and handling.

David Myers and Mark Dynarski, Mathematica, Inc.
January 2003

The Education Department's new Institute of Education Sciences has published this ten-page Q & A style brochure to explain why "random assignment" is a desirable attribute of education research and program evaluation. Written by David Myers and Mark Dynarski of Mathematica Policy Research, it serves as a decent beginner's guide to this timely and contentious topic. You will find it on the web at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/randomassign.pdf.

Etta Kralovec
February 2003

Etta Kralovec, a former teacher and education professor, has a new book arguing that U.S. schools waste time and money on non-essentials (e.g., sports, dental health) and should radically refocus their budgets and energies on teaching and learning academics. She's probably right about most of this, though her continuing campaign against homework probably isn't. The book argues for an ambitious form of "zero based budgeting" as the way to bring about this diminution of secondary roles and a renewed focus on schools' chief mission. The ISBN is 080703150, Beacon Press is the publisher and you can learn more at http://www.beacon.org/f02cat/Kralovec.html.

Achieve, Inc.
November 2002

Staying on Course is a short report published by Achieve, Inc., the organization founded by governors and CEOs in the wake of the 1996 National Education Summit to help states raise academic standards for all students. The report reviews the accomplishments of the states (and of Achieve) since 1996 and explains what states need to do next, including cross-state standards, more state oversight over local systems, more teacher accountability and sustained emphasis on student achievement. The report is a sincere plea for more determination among citizens and more action by states toward the reform goals that Achieve believes will renew our education system. For your copy, visit:
http://www.achieve.org/dstore.nsf/Lookup/5YearReportfinal/$file/5YearReportfinal.pdf.

After The New York Times ran a front-page story on an anti-testing study by Audrey Amrein and David Berliner last month, there was an immediate response from researchers across the political spectrum noting the many shortcomings of the study. [See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=6#412 for one example.] In a column for the Rocky Mountain News, Linda Seebach takes a close look at the data used in the report and finds even more problems with the conclusions drawn by Amrein and Berliner.

"All the Marbles," by Linda Seebach, Rocky Mountain News, January 11, 2003

New Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty announced last week that he planned to kill the state's wimpy "Profile of Learning" - a set of academic standards that focus more on hands-on discovery learning projects than academic content - and that he had appointed Minnesota native Cheri Yecke as his education commissioner. Yecke, a strong backer of state academic standards in Virginia, where she served as assistant secretary of education, most recently worked in the U.S. Department of Education on projects related to teacher quality and public school choice. She shares Pawlenty's goal of jettisoning the Profile of Learning and replacing it with academic standards that focus more on content. In an excellent column, Kathy Kersten shows just how bad the Profile of Learning really is.

"Pawlenty promises new course for schools," by Norman Draper, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 17, 2003

"No amount of tweaking can repair the Profile of Learning," by Katherine Kersten, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 15, 2003

Just as the teacher shortage has been declared over [see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=6#414], states are reporting shortages of qualified candidates to become principals. It's not that there aren't enough certified principals to go around; in Indiana, which is struggling to fill principal positions, the state issued licenses to 975 new administrators last year though there are only 1,882 schools in the entire state. The problem is that many teachers get administrator licenses in order to receive an increase in pay based on the salary schedule, not because they have any interest in becoming a principal. And given that principals generally work longer hours and years than teachers, experienced teachers often make more money on an hourly basis than do principals. Instead of trying to make the job of principal more attractive, Indiana has responded to its principal shortage by instituting a new licensure test.

"Schools struggling to fill principal's jobs," by Kim Hooper, Indianapolis Star, January 21, 2003

When Michael Bloomberg ran for election as mayor of New York City, he pledged to make the improvement of the public schools his first priority. After he was sworn into office on January 1, 2002, he said that he wanted to be judged by whether the public schools improved.

Most elected officials, recognizing how contentious school reform is and how long it takes to show results, are happy to be insulated from education policy debates by a lay board. Not Bloomberg. To his credit, he stepped up to the plate and said, "Give me control and hold me accountable." His readiness to take over the biggest municipal problem--the uneven quality of the city's public school system - was due in no small part to Bloomberg's remarkable self-confidence. This is a man who built a massive communications empire, whose personal fortune is estimated to be well in excess of $4 billion, who flies his own jet to his many vacation homes and regularly socializes with stars from every field of endeavor. Having conquered the world of American business and high finance, and having been elected the Mayor of the City of New York on his first try at elected office, Bloomberg surely thought that fixing the schools was a not terribly difficult challenge.

When he took office, confidence in the city's public school system - and especially its creaky, convoluted governing structure - was at a low ebb. State tests showed that large numbers of students were not meeting state standards in reading and math. In some districts and schools, the number of students who failed to demonstrate competency in basic skills was truly alarming. Certainly there were some excellent schools, including several esteemed high schools with competitive admissions. But the system as a whole was no better (and surely no worse) than a score of other distressed urban school systems that must educate large numbers of children who are poor, non-English-speaking, or in need of special education.

What was unusual about New York, in contrast to other cities, was its bizarre governing system, the result of a legislative compromise in 1969. In order both to placate and to fend off demands for "community control" (which was championed at the time by black and Hispanic activists), the legislature created a complex decentralized system. At the top was a central board of education comprised of seven people appointed by six different politicians (the mayor appointed two, and five borough presidents each appointed one). The central board acted not on behalf of the city as a whole, as it should have, but in response to the needs of the person or region that appointed them.

In addition to the central board, there were 32 community school districts, each run by an elected local board. These boards were responsible for K-8 schools, and each board selected its own superintendent and principals. To make matters even more confusing, the central board retained control over the high schools.

Over the thirty-plus years of decentralization, participation in local school board elections was meager, usually less than 10 percent of eligible voters. Some local boards were corrupt, dispensing jobs and contracts to friends and relatives of board members.

Meanwhile educational reform flourished, along the lines of letting a million flowers bloom. So many were blooming, in fact, that it was difficult to tell which were roses and which were weeds. Any educational reform that was happening anywhere in America was likely happening somewhere in New York City's public schools, but good ones didn't spread and bad ones remained forever. With regard to reform, the schools were akin to an archeological site, with reform piled on reform, programs proliferating without end, many added and none subtracted. One chancellor after another introduced signature reform programs, all of which co-existed side-by-side. New York did not lack reform. What it needed was leadership, coherence, direction, standards, and accountability, as well as a real commitment to choice among the buzzing array of offerings.

Along comes Michael Bloomberg, who never saw a problem that he could not solve. First he persuaded the State Legislature to abolish the central board and local community boards and give the mayor control of the school system. Previous mayors had sought this change without success. Rudy Guiliani had tried for years to gain control of the school system, but the Democrat-dominated State Assembly did not trust him with that power. Bloomberg, stubborn and adamant, won it.

Having gained control, Bloomberg conducted a highly secretive search for a chancellor. The press was dying to find out what was going on, but the mayor's staff let it be known that any candidate whose name appeared in the press was finished. Sure enough, Bloomberg surprised the world by picking Joel Klein, a lawyer who had previously served as President Clinton's White House Deputy Counsel (after the suicide of Vincent Foster) and had prosecuted Microsoft for antitrust matters as assistant attorney general at the Justice Department. Klein's biography suggested that he could keep his mouth shut (a necessity for anyone who works for Bloomberg) and that he was prepared to dismantle a giant monopoly.

Klein in turn assembled his own unconventional team, headed by Diana Lam, who had been superintendent in several smaller urban districts (Chelsea, San Antonio, Providence, RI) and had built a reputation for imposing pedagogical reforms, shaking things up, producing quick test score increases, then leaving with an angry school board baying at her heels. (In San Antonio, after she left, 80% of the elementary teachers voted to drop "Everyday Math," the NCTM-math program that Lam had installed.) The other members of Klein's leadership group do not have school experience; they come from the worlds of foundations, government, the military, and business.

Klein spent several months assembling his "Children First" program of reform. The first part was announced on December 11, 2002, when he revealed that he was creating a "leadership academy" to train school principals along the lines of the General Electric executive program. For this, he gathered an advisory board composed of Richard Parsons, the chief executive officer of AOL TimeWarner, John (Jack) Welch, the former CEO of GE, and Anthony Alvarado, a former chancellor of New York City who now works for the San Diego school system. The academy itself is to be directed by a corporate executive; several foundations pledged $15 million to get it started.

Bloomberg announced the rest of his "Children First" program on January 15, 2003. It focuses on changes in governance and pedagogy. The mayor said that he would close the 32 community school districts along with their staffs and replace them with a streamlined, top-down, command-and-control structure. The mayor appoints the chancellor, and the chancellor appoints 10 regional superintendents, each of whom will oversee 12 supervisors, each of whom will be responsible for a cluster of 10-12 schools. Instead of 32 community district superintendents, there will be 112 regional and cluster supervisors. The only mechanism for public involvement will be the chance to vote (or not vote) for Mayor Bloomberg at the next election. (In lieu of a conventional board, the legislature did create a "panel on education policy" appointed by Mayor Bloomberg, but it has no discernible authority, serves at the pleasure of the mayor, and has apparently been instructed to remain silent for the duration of its term.)

As part of his plan, the mayor announced that he would install a "standardized curriculum" for schools in which large numbers of students have not met state standards. Of the city's 1200 schools, only 200 will be free to select their own curriculum, while the rest must use the programs selected by Klein and Lam. On January 21, the chancellor announced that he had selected "Everyday Math" and "Month by Month Phonics" as the "standardized curriculum" for those hundreds of schools.

Neither of the latter programs is an obvious choice: Everyday Math is controversial among university-level mathematicians; it was twice rejected by the California State Board of Education on the ground that it skimps on the basic operations of math. Few reading experts that I contacted had ever heard of Month by Month Phonics. The few that know the program said that it is a whole language program with incidental phonics. No one was aware of any research base to demonstrate its effectiveness. No one knew of any large district that uses it. The urban districts that recently won the Broad Award for most improvement do not use this program. Houston, the top Broad winner, uses Open Court, as does Los Angeles; Atlanta, another finalist, uses Scholastic materials.

Now surely it will be a huge step forward just to know that there is a serious effort to coordinate what schools across the city are teaching. A common curriculum is likely to have some real benefits: children who change schools mid-year will encounter consistency, teachers will know what is expected of them, teacher training and professional development can become coherent. For these reasons, it is puzzling that what is proposed is not really a common curriculum for the city's schools, but a curriculum only for unsuccessful schools, which would seem to vitiate the rationale for doing it in the first place. I suspect that those who chose these programs are not making a distinction between a curriculum (what is taught) and a pedagogy (how to teach). In general, it is best to set common expectations and then leave schools free to meet those expectations with the methods they find most effective for their circumstances. By mandating both curriculum and methods, the city will drive out some very effective, research-based programs like Open Court, Core Knowledge, Harcourt, and Scholastic, replacing them with programs whose effectiveness has not been demonstrated.

The style and substance of the reform program pose other problematic issues. One is the elimination of external checks and balances in the school system. There is no role for the public at any point, no boards to which the chancellor must report, no outsider to monitor the accuracy of data, no one to question the leadership. Imagine a corporation that operated without a board of directors. We know that many boards of directors have gotten into trouble lately for their failure to exercise adequate oversight of the corporate leaders, but how much worse it would be if the leaders reported to no outside board at all.

Second, what seems to be emerging is a perfect government monopoly. One elected official appoints a leader, who then selects everyone else. Far from demolishing the monopoly, Chancellor Klein - the experienced trustbuster - has strengthened it. Before 1969, when the school system was decentralized, there was always a lay board, a place to which whistle-blowers could turn. No longer.

Third, it is hard to see how it will help to train principals to be leaders when they have so little control over their staff, resources, or discipline policy. Unless the mayor can sunset the burdensome and detailed "chancellor's regulations," and unless he renegotiates the contracts that limit the principals' authority to lead, this training will be a waste. No corporate leader could be a successful manager with as little authority as most school principals have.

Fourth, all deliberations about policy and curriculum to date have taken place in an atmosphere of total secrecy. The new team seems to believe that public discussion will only mess up a great plan. The administration has remonstrated against "leaks" that reveal what they intend to mandate. Secrecy is prized. In a democracy, however, leaks and previews serve a valuable purpose. They allow the public to comment and react before it is too late to make changes. Some officials even plant leaks (called "trial balloons") to find out what the flaws in their plans might be. But the dedication to secrecy in this school administration is unprecedented. As one public official said to me, "These guys don't know what transparency is, and if they do, they don't believe in it."

Fifth, at no point in the Bloomberg plan is there any proposal to allow families to choose the public school their child attends. Vouchers, of course, are out of the question. Not only is there no interest in helping children attend non-public schools, but the last teachers' contract seeks to lure experienced teachers from the city's beleaguered Catholic schools with extra steps on the salary scale, even though this would have the effect of crippling this sector. The mayor's speech did mention charters as a good idea, but none has actually been proposed or created even though the chancellor has unlimited power to do so.

This is, in essence, a military-style reform program. Maybe that is what NYC needs, at least as a transition from a period of decentralized educational anarchy. And yet, one cannot close without noting in the pronouncements of the Department of Education an undercurrent of suspicion if not hostility towards principals, the key instructional leaders in every school. In December, headlines warned that 50 or 150 principals would be fired. Without naming names, Chancellor Klein made it clear that a significant number of principals were incompetent or stupid. Then he compiled "grades" for every principal based on data, and some of these grades were leaked to the press, imperiling the reputation of some decent school leaders who are working in difficult situations. Even teachers (whom the administration has courted due to the political power of their union) complained that the administration was giving poor grades to principals who had a high suspension rate, and that this would compel principals to withhold discipline when it was needed. The result would be a lower suspension rate, but less safe schools.

Beyond the Tweed Courthouse where the inner circle sits, many experienced leaders in the school system are scared. They don't know who will be fired or moved tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. They know that their views have not been solicited. The school system that they have given their lives to and love to complain about is being dismantled before their eyes by people they hardly know and do not have reason to trust. So far, in the new school administration's public statements, respect for working professionals has been conspicuously absent and the danger of demoralization on a wide scale is not a small one. This will encourage many excellent principals to retire early and imperil future recruitment of replacements.

The day after the mayor's speech, I was talking to a first-rate principal, who admitted to trepidation about the impending changes. She had read what CEO Jack Welch told the New York Times. He said, "We used to say in the corporation, `Any one of you jerk managers who's got a dull crowd hanging around with you don't deserve your job,' &Well, we'll say that to principals." In response, the principal said, "Mr. Welch will think I hang around with a dull crowd. They don't go to theater or dinner parties or important events. They haven't traveled abroad. Most of them can't read or write. They are New York City school children. I don't think they are dull, but maybe he will."

We will keep a close watch on the grand experiment in New York City. The mayor and chancellor are set to prove that corporate-style changes, imposed from above without consultation, without public participation, without "buy-in" from the professionals, and without any form of school choice, are the answer. Let's see.

Diane Ravitch is a Research Professor at New York University and a trustee of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation

This first-hand account of a recent Yale graduate's first - and last - year teaching in a DC public school paints a frightening picture of the chaos that has become an accepted part of daily life in an urban school that lacks effective leadership. Among the challenges encountered by the author were a principal who refused to support his disciplinary policies and who undermined his attempts to hold students to high standards; black parents who were suspicious of a white teacher; and district policies that forced teachers to either stand back and watch while students inflicted bodily harm on others, or be subject to investigation for corporal punishment.

"How I joined Teach for America - and got sued for $20 million," Joshua Kaplowitz, City Journal, Winter 2003

Several articles in the January 2003 Phi Delta Kappan are worth a peek. The special section on teacher education includes seven articles addressing the challenges faced by education schools in the 21st century. While some seem to recognize that university-based teacher education programs face a serious crisis of legitimacy, most of the solutions offered by various authors reveal a breathtaking lack of creativity or entrepreneurship, suggesting that ed schools may not be able to rise to the challenge of reinventing themselves. Other articles in the issue include a piece by Joe Nathan and Bill Boyd on lessons from Minnesota's experience with all sorts of school choice and an ambitious effort by David Ackerman to synthesize the principles of traditional and progressive education. At this point, the Ackerman article is the only one available online.

"Taproots for a New Century: Tapping the Best of Traditional and Progressive Education," by David Ackerman, Phi Delta Kappan, January 2003

Achieve, Inc.
November 2002

Staying on Course is a short report published by Achieve, Inc., the organization founded by governors and CEOs in the wake of the 1996 National Education Summit to help states raise academic standards for all students. The report reviews the accomplishments of the states (and of Achieve) since 1996 and explains what states need to do next, including cross-state standards, more state oversight over local systems, more teacher accountability and sustained emphasis on student achievement. The report is a sincere plea for more determination among citizens and more action by states toward the reform goals that Achieve believes will renew our education system. For your copy, visit:
http://www.achieve.org/dstore.nsf/Lookup/5YearReportfinal/$file/5YearReportfinal.pdf.

David Myers and Mark Dynarski, Mathematica, Inc.
January 2003

The Education Department's new Institute of Education Sciences has published this ten-page Q & A style brochure to explain why "random assignment" is a desirable attribute of education research and program evaluation. Written by David Myers and Mark Dynarski of Mathematica Policy Research, it serves as a decent beginner's guide to this timely and contentious topic. You will find it on the web at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/randomassign.pdf.

Erica Frankenberg, Chungmei Lee and Gary Orfield, The Harvard Civil Rights Project
January 2003

Every year around Martin Luther King's birthday, the Harvard Civil Rights Project disgorges another in its interminable series of reports purporting to show that American education is growing more segregated and should, therefore, return to the days of compulsory busing for purposes of racial balance, preferably on a regional basis that ignores district lines. While I am persuaded that VOLUNTARY student movement across district lines in pursuit of better schools would be a good thing for American education, while I'm appalled by the barriers that many school systems erect to prevent that from happening, and while I have no doubt that racial and S.E.S. integration would be a valuable corollary to such movement, I see no appetite in the United States today for a return to involuntary desegregation via court order or administrative fiat. Orfield and company are living in cloud cuckoo land. The thrust of No Child Left Behind is that predominantly minority schools can be excellent schools if held to high standards, well staffed, well led, etc. And we can spot numerous examples of such schools across the land today. My impression is that most minority parents are more concerned that their child attends a safe, caring and effective school where every pupil acquires basic skills and fundamental knowledge, than about the skin color of the kid in the next seat. (Some, indeed, would just as soon have their child attend school with others like him/herself - and even be taught by people from the same race or ethnicity.) In any case, this time around the Harvard team doesn't even make a persuasive case that things are getting worse. They say, in fact, that "white students are attending public schools with more minority students than before" and that "a substantial percentage of students now attend schools where at least three races are each 10% or more of the total student population respectively." The average black student attends a school in which 45 percent of pupils are NOT black, with very similar figures for Latino youngsters. And the average Asian is in a school where more than three-quarters of his/her fellow pupils belong to other ethnic groups. Only five percent of U.S. students now attend what the authors call "apartheid schools," i.e., schools that are 99-100% minority. This isn't to deny that many schools serving poor and minority youngsters (and more than a few white children) still have a long way to go to become effective educational institutions. It is only to say that the Harvard Civil Rights Project is now felling trees in a forest where few are around to hear the crashes. You can obtain your very own copy, however, by surfing to http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/reseg03/reseg03_full.php.

Etta Kralovec
February 2003

Etta Kralovec, a former teacher and education professor, has a new book arguing that U.S. schools waste time and money on non-essentials (e.g., sports, dental health) and should radically refocus their budgets and energies on teaching and learning academics. She's probably right about most of this, though her continuing campaign against homework probably isn't. The book argues for an ambitious form of "zero based budgeting" as the way to bring about this diminution of secondary roles and a renewed focus on schools' chief mission. The ISBN is 080703150, Beacon Press is the publisher and you can learn more at http://www.beacon.org/f02cat/Kralovec.html.

Public Agenda
January 2003

In this new report, Public Agenda presents the results of a survey of over 1,000 foreign-born adults now living in the United States. It documents immigrants' views on a variety of topics, including education: 73% said that students should be taught English as quickly as possible, even if that means falling behind in other subjects, and 62% said that all public school classes should be taught in English. (Support for English immersion in public schools among immigrants closely mirrored support for this policy among the general public.) To browse more education results, please see http://publicagenda.org/specials/immigration/immigration4.htm. A full copy of the report can also be downloaded from the website http://publicagenda.org/ (registration required) until February 11, or can be ordered for $10, plus $2 shipping and handling.

Charles S. Clark
CQ Researcher
December 20, 2002

Are charter schools a promising innovation or damaging distraction? This is the big question that Congressional Quarterly reporter/researcher Charles Clark seeks to disentangle in this recent CQ report. Emotions can run high when discussing charter schools, and for this reason data and quality research are crucial in disentangling the actual impact these schools are having. With ten years of charter experience under our belts and nearly 680,000 pre-K-12 students attending these schools in 39 states and Washington DC, data are starting to emerge. Clark's report shares some of what is known and some that's familiar: charters serve minorities, disadvantaged children and those who speak English as a second language; they operate with less per pupil funding than traditional public schools; parents like them; and many use innovative instructional strategies. It is not clear, however, whether charter schools are more effective academically than traditional public schools. As Clark notes, "conclusions are complicated because there are no uniform tests or year-to-year data." With the implementation of No Child Left Behind and its focus on measurable academic gains, we should start seeing more and better data that can be used to compare student achievement in traditional public and charter schools over time. Over the next decade, charter schools will increasingly be judged by their performance rather than their potential. With luck, that'll be true for traditional public schools, too. To access this report, go to http://www.cqpress.com (requires subscription) or call 1-800-638-1710 to order.