The Fordham Institute recently published a report contending that the state’s charter schools have outperformed traditional public schools and implying that they merit continued or expanded state investment. The report’s tone is assured, prompting readers to expect an analysis demonstrating substantial, robust evidence on multiple achievement measures. However, the report’s evidence does not match its emphatic claims. Instead, it relies on previously critiqued methods and provides findings that lack the strength to suggest meaningful differences between charter and traditional public schools. These findings recycle the flaws of past arguments and offer nothing new to the literature on charter school achievement.