The Bush administration’s Web site promoting charter schools is undeniably upbeat. It extols the benefits of charters, an alternative to public schooling that, while operating on public funds, offers parents wider choice and variety.

“Chartering” — I never even knew there was such a word — is “a radical educational innovation that is moving states beyond reforming existing schools to creating something entirely new,” says www.uscharterschools.org, paid for by the U.S. Department of Education. Readers are directed breathlessly to statistics about the movement’s growth, and information on how to start schools of their own.

But deep inside this cyberspace promotion lie stories not quite as inspiring. One-third of Minnesota’s charter schools are violating state law by failing to turn in financial audits on time. Judges in Missouri rule that Kansas City can take over some charter schools because they were so poorly run. Michigan’s charter schools are struggling to keep up with the new federal No Child Left Behind law, far more than their traditional counterparts.

And, not surprisingly, the site doesn’t mention the latest news: National data publicized this week showing that the performance of charter schools largely lags behind that of regular public schools, even when taking into account race, income and geography.

With the Bush administration seeking $318 million next year to support charter schools, no wonder the bad news is buried. It confounds the mind-set that says, “If we cut ties with those nasty government bureaucrats and turn schools over to the free market, all will be well.”

We’re learning it’s not that simple, especially in neighborhoods where the concentration of poverty and depletion of resources have made it so difficult to educate youngsters, no matter where they go to school. And, I hope, we are learning that without strict oversight and accountability, it is inadvisable and even dangerous for government to cede its responsibilities to the private sector.

The bad news doesn’t mean that the charter schools now operating in 41 states should be closed; some are successful, and for most, the jury is waiting for more evidence. The latest data that the Bush administration tried to repress are, as critics contend, a snapshot in time. Other research indicates that charter students improve at a faster rate than their public peers.

But this ambivalent and inconclusive picture is also not a new one. Back in 2002, an evaluation of Pennsylvania’s charter schools also found that achievement scores were lower than those in public schools, and that it would take years for charters to catch up.

Proponents of charters point to waiting lists and parental satisfaction as signs of the market’s wisdom. But that may be more a result of desperation rather than informed choice. A happy parent doesn’t always lead to an educated child. The Pennsylvania evaluation found no connection between parental satisfaction and student achievement, noting that “customer satisfaction is not a suitable proxy for academic quality.”

Public institutions have their limits, but so does unfettered choice in the marketplace. After reviewing the latest data, even a charter school stalwart like Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas E. Fordham Foundation, said these alternative schools needed more “tough love.”

“Someone needs to be watching over their shoulders,” he told reporters.

More important, someone needs to be watching out for the kids. California’s largest charter school operator announced this week it is closing 60 schools, stranding 10,000 students weeks before the opening bell.

Public education has huge shortcomings, but it’ll never go out of business. Charter schools — and other free-market alternatives — must show advantages that at least balance out their free-market uncertainty.

Jane Eisner is a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Her e-mail address is jeisner@phillynews.com.