Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, wrote in The Progressive about the role of the conservative Hoover Institution as a reliable advocate for charters, vouchers, and all kinds of school choice. (When I was a conservative, I was a Senior Fellow at Hoover.)

Burris writes:

One of the original intentions of creating charter schools was to improve student learning—which is why it’s telling that proponents of “school choice” now justify charter-school and school-voucher expansion by saying they are necessary to provide parents with options other than traditional public schools.

Choice for choice’s sake—originally a secondary rationale for charters—has become the go-to line of charter school proponents. Meanwhile, measures of academic performance have faded into the backgroundas a justification for school options. Nevertheless, for years, the question of whether or not charter schools academically out-perform traditional public schools has gnawed at the industry like an annoying uncle who insists on having the last word in every family debate.

The latest attempt to prove the supposed superiority of the charter industry comes from the Center for Research for Education Outcome, or CREDO, which has taken prior stabs at the question with results that were far from convincing.

“Remarkable” was how Margaret “Macke” Raymond, CREDO’s director and author described the results of CREDO’s latest national charter school study. Her enthusiasm was infectious. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board proclaimed that CREDO’s new evidence showed charter schools are now “blowing away their traditional school competition.”

But despite the headlines that popped up in pro-charter media, the only thing “blown away” was the truth. Like prior national studies, CREDO’s latest report, “As a Matter of Fact: The National Charter School Study III,” shows tiny average differences between charter and public school students—0.011 standard deviations in math and 0.028 standard deviations in reading. These are differences so small that the Brookings Institution’s Tom Loveless once likened them to standing on a few sheets of paper to increase one’s height.

And CREDO knows it. The organization characterized nearly identical differences in their 2009 national study as inconsequential—referring to them as “meaningless,” “small,” and possibly derived from “measurement error.”

How could “meaningless” suddenly become “remarkable” once a tiny statistical tilt in outcomes favors charter schools? The answer lies in who runs CREDO, who funds it, and the methodological problems inherent in its reports.

We tackle these points in our new Network for Public Education report, “In Fact or Fallacy? An In-depth Critique of the CREDO 2023 National Report.” Here’s a brief summary.

Who runs CREDO?

Although reporters refer to CREDO at Stanford University or Stanford’s CREDO, the relationship between CREDO and the prestigious university is complicated.

CREDO is based in the conservative, pro-charter Hoover Institution, a private think tank on the Stanford University campus. The Hoover Institution governs and finances itself without oversight or control by the university. In fact, Hoover has a “long and fraught relationship” with Stanford’s faculty and students who have objected to its lack of diversity, controversial scholarship, and conservative ideology.

What all of these funders have in common is a vested interest in charter schools and—at least in Pearson’s case—profit.

Expanding school choice is a focus of the Hoover Institution. For example, in 2021, Hoover hosted Betsy DeVos in a stop on her book tour. Secretary DeVos was introduced and praised by Raymond, who, along with her role at CREDO, refers to herself as the education program director at Hoover in the video.

Please open the link and read the rest of the article.