The Media Needs to Get It Right (or at least be fair)
Well, this is disturbing.
It appears that some of the media are going to subtly help the charter movement. I thought it was a blip but it is happening more and more.
#1 Brian Rosenthal at the Times wrote this on July 2nd:
In the 41 states where they exist, charters have sometimes outperformed regular schools.
That's the entire sentence. Now Mr. Rosenthal says he "struggled" with that sentence but he felt the inference was there that some didn't outperform schools.
Really? When you stack the sentence with "41 states" and "outperformed", I think the inference is that they did perform well everywhere at a good rate. And we all know that charters do NOT outperform traditional schools in any district, in any state in the union.
#2 Then, in another story, he again uses bland language to make this same point (although he manages to stick in a counterpoint):
While the schools sometimes have proved more effective than traditional schools in the 41 states where they exist, opponents criticize their use of nonunion teachers and argue that money shouldn't be diverted from traditional schools.
Again, pretty vague on that "sometimes" stuff and he keeps the 41 states part.
#3 Then, we have the curious case of KING 5 news and their story on 1240. They interviewed Shannon Campion of Stand for Children and Dora Taylor of the Seattle Education blog. When you watch it, you know something is off but it wasn't until I counted the number of times each appeared on camera that I got it.
Folks, I have done many of these interviews and we have all watched them. Basically, it's some close-ups and then long shots with the reporter talking over the long shots.
In this piece, there are 6 close-ups of Campion; there is 1 of Taylor. No long shots of Campion and two of Taylor with Taylor's voiceover (not the reporter's who in this case is Robert Mak). Very odd.
#4 Lastly, we have an AP story from reporter Donna Blankenship that is riddled with errors and assumptions. She also says "research" without ever citing what research.
The campuses offer options for parents frustrated with regular public schools.
First of all, not all parents who choose charters are "frustrated" with traditional schools. Many go for the program.
Some research have found these independent public schools are especially good at helping minority and low-income students improve their learning, close the achievement gap and head to college.
Helping out with Yes on 1240 much? There is NO definitive proof that charters close the achievement gap and get kids to college. Even KIPP won't say they can do that all the time.
One of her biggest errors? Getting the CREDO stats wrong AND not stating what research she was referencing in this paragraph.
Some research shows charter schools have been either OK, good or great for students in 41 other states and the District of Columbia. But a study of the impact of the charter school movement from Stanford University also found about half of charter schools were no better than traditional public schools, a quarter were worse and a quarter improved student achievement.
In her first sentence there, I'd have to see that research that leaves out poor results as an answer. In the second sentence she just has the rest wrong.
She gets details of the initiative wrong or only partially right:
- Religious charters would not be allowed. True but only partially so. It would allow religion as part of a "themed" school that is ethnically-themed. There are several of these in Minneapolis and, as well, the largest charter group in the country is Turkish-based and imports Turkish teachers. Part of their curriculum includes religion in Turkey.
- The other possible charter "authorizer" would be a statewide board. She leaves out that there is no oversight of the Charter Commission by anyone nor is there any way to remove members. But voters don't need to know that information.
- School districts could turn over low-achieving schools to a charter operator. I believe this is wrong and I'd like her to tell me the section because I haven't found it. This is about the Conversion Charters and the district has NOTHING to do with it. It's all about a petition that has to be signed by a majority of parents OR teachers and it allows the charter to take over ANY school, failing or not.
I guess voters don't need to know that information either.
Is this sloppy researching, writing or editing? I don't know but if you are a voter, based on the writing, you would believe that charters do well a lot more of the time than they do.
Maddening and disappointing.
It appears that some of the media are going to subtly help the charter movement. I thought it was a blip but it is happening more and more.
#1 Brian Rosenthal at the Times wrote this on July 2nd:
In the 41 states where they exist, charters have sometimes outperformed regular schools.
That's the entire sentence. Now Mr. Rosenthal says he "struggled" with that sentence but he felt the inference was there that some didn't outperform schools.
Really? When you stack the sentence with "41 states" and "outperformed", I think the inference is that they did perform well everywhere at a good rate. And we all know that charters do NOT outperform traditional schools in any district, in any state in the union.
#2 Then, in another story, he again uses bland language to make this same point (although he manages to stick in a counterpoint):
While the schools sometimes have proved more effective than traditional schools in the 41 states where they exist, opponents criticize their use of nonunion teachers and argue that money shouldn't be diverted from traditional schools.
Again, pretty vague on that "sometimes" stuff and he keeps the 41 states part.
#3 Then, we have the curious case of KING 5 news and their story on 1240. They interviewed Shannon Campion of Stand for Children and Dora Taylor of the Seattle Education blog. When you watch it, you know something is off but it wasn't until I counted the number of times each appeared on camera that I got it.
Folks, I have done many of these interviews and we have all watched them. Basically, it's some close-ups and then long shots with the reporter talking over the long shots.
In this piece, there are 6 close-ups of Campion; there is 1 of Taylor. No long shots of Campion and two of Taylor with Taylor's voiceover (not the reporter's who in this case is Robert Mak). Very odd.
#4 Lastly, we have an AP story from reporter Donna Blankenship that is riddled with errors and assumptions. She also says "research" without ever citing what research.
The campuses offer options for parents frustrated with regular public schools.
First of all, not all parents who choose charters are "frustrated" with traditional schools. Many go for the program.
Some research have found these independent public schools are especially good at helping minority and low-income students improve their learning, close the achievement gap and head to college.
Helping out with Yes on 1240 much? There is NO definitive proof that charters close the achievement gap and get kids to college. Even KIPP won't say they can do that all the time.
One of her biggest errors? Getting the CREDO stats wrong AND not stating what research she was referencing in this paragraph.
Some research shows charter schools have been either OK, good or great for students in 41 other states and the District of Columbia. But a study of the impact of the charter school movement from Stanford University also found about half of charter schools were no better than traditional public schools, a quarter were worse and a quarter improved student achievement.
In her first sentence there, I'd have to see that research that leaves out poor results as an answer. In the second sentence she just has the rest wrong.
She gets details of the initiative wrong or only partially right:
- Religious charters would not be allowed. True but only partially so. It would allow religion as part of a "themed" school that is ethnically-themed. There are several of these in Minneapolis and, as well, the largest charter group in the country is Turkish-based and imports Turkish teachers. Part of their curriculum includes religion in Turkey.
- The other possible charter "authorizer" would be a statewide board. She leaves out that there is no oversight of the Charter Commission by anyone nor is there any way to remove members. But voters don't need to know that information.
- School districts could turn over low-achieving schools to a charter operator. I believe this is wrong and I'd like her to tell me the section because I haven't found it. This is about the Conversion Charters and the district has NOTHING to do with it. It's all about a petition that has to be signed by a majority of parents OR teachers and it allows the charter to take over ANY school, failing or not.
I guess voters don't need to know that information either.
Is this sloppy researching, writing or editing? I don't know but if you are a voter, based on the writing, you would believe that charters do well a lot more of the time than they do.
Maddening and disappointing.
Comments
--Times = cheerleader for the monied candidates and iniatives. Distortion or neglect of facts is easier than actually reporting on substance to inform the electorate
Try the following from the Times on the Supreme Court races:
Owens has two challengers: Douglas McQuaid, a sole practitioner in Seattle, and Scott Stafne, who has a law office in Arlington. Neither has been attending candidate interviews and, the last we checked, neither had raised a nickel, which says something about how seriously they take a statewide campaign for the high court. Owens has raised $41,525.
Gonzalez's challenger is Bruce Danielson of Kitsap County, who ran for judge in 2006 and 2008 and prosecutor in 2010, and lost all three times. He filed for the Washington Supreme Court at the last minute and, last we checked, he had not raised any money either. Gonzalez has raised $215,880.
====
Notice how the Times completely fails to discuss anything about the challengers .... other than NO MONEY.
--------
This says something about how seriously the Times takes accurate thorough reporting.
So will the Times correct its mistakes?
Can you blame these movers and shakers? There's just too much temptation. It needs to be controlled by entrepreneurs and self-proclaimed innovators. Our public courts, roads, parks, and higher eds are being co-opt by such folks too. In this Darwinian world where government is bad, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are idols, and Madoff is a loser because he got caught, you grab first, ask questions later, and leave the common good to the dust. Many people dream they too can be one of the lesser gods. So they are good with that.
Our tax dollars are paying for a separate and most definitely unequal world.
voter
Public School Parent
Maybe Brian isn't to blame. He has an editor. That sounds like the passive voice of someone who doesn't want to ruffle feathers. Brian's been straight before.
And remember Scigliano's hit piece on schools on Crosscut? How does Crosscut get away with being 504(c... whatever)
Sometimes I think we don't have a fourth estate anymore. Just a group high-profile propagandists.
n...
There is very little on his program that challenges or questions. He's a soft-baller much like Eric Liu. They are interviewers more than hard-hitting journalists. I think there's a difference. Like Barbara Walters ended her career as an interviewer rather than as a journalist. We need to start noting those differences when we talk about journalists and journalism today.
n...
by Jerry Cornfield at the Everett Herald
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120628/NEWS01/706289949/0/SEARCH
Public School Parent
The Times will do a story analyzing the research on the effectiveness of charters. But these stories - both short; one focused on the initiative's fundraising and paid signature drive, the other rounding up all six of the voter measures that made the ballot - was not the time. In these cases, we quickly summarize the facts of the arguments on both sides.
That's exactly what I did. Charters do exist in 41 states, and they have sometimes outperformed traditional schools on student indicator measures (and yes, any readers got the implication that they have sometimes not outperformed traditional schools...If I wrote, "The food at Bob's sometimes tastes good," you would get that it sometimes doesn't, right?).
Anyway, those are two of the main argument for charters (there are others, but those are two of the main ones). So I wrote it. What Melissa is ignoring is that I also wrote the main arguments against charters, that they divert money from traditional public schools in need of support, and they hire nonunion teachers, which can undermine the system).
No, I don't think that makes for a thorough analysis of whether charters would be good for Washington state. But this wasn't he place for that.
As for the comment from Dan Dempsey - you linked to an editorial, Dan. Expect it to take an opinion. That's its job. We on the news side operate completely independently of the editorial department. We have separate bosses, we have separate editors, we don't talk to them and we (I at least) don't often read what they write - especially if we're covering it.
Thanks for stepping up and responding.
Are you implying that editorials can disregard factual evidence to make a point? Is misleading readers OK?
See Stafne's response.
====
Having taught at a California charter school in LAUSD, I look forward to your complete analysis of the Charter Initiative, which I trust will be more factual than the referenced Times Supreme Court candidates editorial.
Solvay Girl
If you suggest "sometimes outperform" then you should also suggest "sometimes (frequently?) under-perform" if that's accurate. Anything else leaves an impression . . . that is bias.
n...
n...
Don't some opponents criticize public funds for failing charter schools? You make this sound very self-interests oriented for those of us in the profession. And yes, I am sensitive to such mischaracterization.
Perhaps the line between "reporting" and "opinion" has become so blurred we've lost the distinction almost entirely.
n... (who once wanted to be Nancy Dickerson!)
or
"In the 41 states where they exist, some have underperformed regular schools."
What does that mean? That is a good test for determining if you've really anything of substance at all. In this case, it was irrelevant.
IMO
So what's the reality? Both public schools and charter schools perform along a broad spectrum. Well then say that.
And what are we comparing? Are we talking about some suburban charters outperforming some urban publics? If so wouldn't that be the common sense expectation? Just as we would expect some suburban publics to outperform some urban charters?
There's way more smoke that light here, and the choice of phrasing, while denotatively accurate in its unhelpful vague way, seems designed connotatively to leave a more positive impression about charters for the typical hasty reader. That's the point that Melissa and others are making, I think.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/01/16/seattle-times-voters-were-stupid-when-they-rejected-charter-schools/
Public School Parent
In fact, I'm the sort of person who read the first sentence, and thought, "Wow, 41 states have tried charter schools and the best we can say is that they *sometimes* outperform traditional schools? That's pretty bad." In no way did I interpret the language to be some sort of "front" for a pro-charter movement.
I'm coming at this as someone who is dispassionate about the charter school issue so maybe that influences how I read news stories. I'm not a fan of charter schools but given my limited time to be an activist and my limited ability to fight more than a few battles at a time, it's not an issue I'm vocal about. I know some of the studies, and I know the generally poor results.
To me, Brian's phrasing was damning charter schools with faint praise. It certainly didn't sound like a pro-charter rallying cry. I suspect we're all influenced by our preconceived notions on the issue.
YOU decided those were the main two arguments (or someone at the Times did). I never said that and I'd like to know your source.
Sorry using inference like that is nonsense.
Lori, sometimes is a bigger amount than 17% - that makes a difference.
I didn't say Brian was pro-charter; I said the reporting is not neutral. There's a difference.
And I'm going to continue to call him, Donna Blankenship and any other person who is a "professional" journalist out for it.
Who decides how the word "sometimes" should be quantified? How much bigger would the percentage have to be for the word to apply? 25%? 40%? 75%?
I think this is the continuum fallacy in action. Melissa rejects Brian's statement because it's vague and doesn't live up to her expectation of how to define "sometimes." But in reality, the word "sometimes" is subjective. Some here have viewed Brian's sentence to have a pro-charter spin, while others, like me, viewed it as neutral, and possibly even as a way to highlight how poorly charter schools have performed despite being evaluated in more than 40 states so far.
It's an interesting discussion. I'm not posting this response to be offensive or make people defend their statements and beliefs. I truly find it interesting how one simple sentence can have vastly different interpretations.
Be sure at some time in the near future to post a blog article about your political leanings and how you post only favorable items related to the current administration (and dems and their policies in general - or omit items from your posts that could be detrimental to those parties). It should start like this: "It is obvious that I am not a journalist and it appears that I am going to overtly help the leftist movement in this country by posting only favorable things for their causes".
While it is certainly your right to express your views and think anything you want (especially since this is your blog), you shouldn't pretend that you are a journalist, and you shouldn't pretend that you have any credibility in criticising the way real journalists choose to cover a topic or event.
As Rosenthal said, editorials are opinions. You either agree or disagree with their opinions. If you are claiming that you can be mislead by an editorial, then you are saying you don't do your own thinking and rely completely on others to form your opinions and positions. Which means you don't do your own research. Which means.........
There are no laws regarding newspaper editorials, and no laws saying that newspaper editorials need to agree with your opinion. So, thankfully, we won't have to be subjected to you repeatedly citing laws that have no bearing on anything you are talking about.
If that word is not objective in nature, it should not have been used.
Dan, I'm not sure I understand your post. Brian said he was reporting and not editorializing. Did you understand that?
n...
Her analysis of media bias is hardly earth shattering. News reporting and its delivery has changed tremendously from the days of Murrow, Cronkite, Judith Miller, Benstein and Woodward, and Helen Thomas. As a newsjunkie, I've watched that change as we are losing more and more diverse and independent news outlets. We may have more voices out there, but in truth, I feel we have less hard analytical news and more of the same message delivered by many messengers. Don't believe me, just view evening ABC, NBC, CBS news on the same night in succession. It never fails how many stories are the same even the daily interest story narrated in the format of "person or pet of the week" and You Tube downloads (yes, it's all news now).
So I'm thankful for the independent voices out there. They force people to be on their toes and that's not a bad thing for "real" journalists or hacks.
Besides, the world can use a few more Hunter S. Thompson and his gonzo journalism.
voter
from the Huffington Post (bias alert):
A piece by Will Bunch on "What Woodward and Bernstein Got Wrong About Watergate."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-bunch/what-woodward-and-bernste_b_1605208.html
voter
I tend not to read Associated Press articles, as the AP has become increasingly conservative. It is hardly just this one story. One of my favorite AP stories is from 2010, with the headline "AP-GfK Poll: Nearly Half Oppose Tax Hikes for Rich." In the poll, 54% supported letting the Bush-Obama tax cuts expire for the rich, and 44% opposed. Typical AP "journalism."
-- Ebenezer
If you look back through the archives, you'll see that Melissa actually did quite a journalistic job of objectively laying out the cases for and against charter schools--just the facts, ma'am. Then, in a separate post, posted her opinion about charters.
She is consistent about reporting all the facts, and she does a good job of reporting accurately when she's reporting on news.
When she's posting on her opinion, she labels it as such. Which, as you pointed out, is her right because it's her blog.
_______________________________
As to the use of the phrase "sometimes outperform" in Mr. Rosenthal's article:
I agree with many who have said that it can lead some who do not read closely to an inference that charter performance has been stronger than their record actually shows.
Could he have used a different phrase? Of course. Is his sentence accurate? Yes, it is.
Whether we like it or not charters HAVE outperformed "traditional schools" (according to certain measures) about 17% of the time. Contrary to Melissa's assertion, that DOES qualify as sometimes.
Let us all take a moment to rembember that the general consensus in the education community has been that Mr. Rosenthal is the best reporter we've had on the education beat for quite some time. Cruicifying him for one sentence that we view as "weak" is a little extreme. Perhaps Mr. Rosenthal should take it as a compliment that our expectations of him are so high that some of us freak out when we feel his writing is weaker than we'd like on a controversial point.
________________________________
Sign me:
Fair is Fair
I exist in the brave new world of Internet journalism which is recognized everywhere. Not on the same terms and there certainly is differing opinions about its usefulness but yes, it is recognized as part of the media landscape.
Yes, I am a Dem and yes, I support Obama but look it up. Oh, the many times I have dinged and damned him (and Arne Duncan). I have publicly stated that I will vote for him this time but not give money or time to his campaign. That's not so leftist.
This blog supports people who support public education and want to learn/to more in more directions than the ed reformers want. I make no apologies for looking for other alternatives.
Kathy, is right; Brian could have just as easily (and some might say) fairly written the sentence her way (with worse than better) in either article. He did not.
And that word "sometimes" - yes, no one can define it. I think it's it's an in the middle word and when the actual number is less than 17%, sometimes isn't valid to use.
But yes, it is open for discussion.
Mr. Rosenthal is now NOT the ed reporter for the Times and now we have someone new. He's on the campaign beat for the foreseeable future.
Where there's smoke there's fire. Better to have left it out.
n...
Just reading Jared Bernstein on Huffington about ACA and it's effect on the budget. I noted that he linked every fact he gave that was supported by evidence. If "sometimes" is correct by evidence, then that should have been linked to the study showing it so people can check for themselves the meaning.
I'm done. I think... :)
n...
sculptical
Let me paint a little picture.
I have cancer. Left untreated, it will spread and I will die. My doctor has an "idea" of an experimental treatment. Without getting into the "true" intracacies of what goes into "informed consent," let's say the treatment he is thinking of puts 17% of its patients into remission within a year, kills 34% of them, and -- leaves the disease burdened "unchanged" for the remaining 49% (meaning they will have to still figure out a way to get well later, after spending a lot of money on THIS treatment). There are, of course, other treatments (also expensive) to consider, some better than others. The doctor walks in and says -- "this treatment outperforms standard treatment sometimes." True? Well, technically, yes. Accurate in any sense that actually conveys the available data to the patient? No. Not really.
But what bothers me even more than the fact that, with 10 or 15 more words, Brian could have MUCH more accurately conveyed the CREDO results is the fact that this is much more like the first Costco liquor store privatization attempt -- where there was an entire analysis to do of the actual flaws in the legislation! I think it was Danny Westneat, in that case, who first blew the whistle on the fact that the legislation contemplated the state just "giving away" valuable assets that belonged to the public, and for which private businesses would (and should) happily pay.
Regardless of whether one wants to see charter schools in Washington, I have not talked to ONE person, not ONE, who -- when presented with the chaos that this could cause to public schools -- when entire buildings, possibly the most popular and populated, can simply be removed from a District without any thought to where the District will put those kids, when the buildings can be removed permanently for less than fair market value, when there is no assurance that underperforming charters can or will ever be closed -- or that teachers or families in a charter could convert that charter to a different one if they dislike it -- Brian -- it is HORRIBLE legislation. It is simply flawed. If Washington is to do this -- why are there not clearer ways for charters to be shut down (or "converted" by parents and/or teachers into a DIFFERENT charter, or back to public schools)? Why is it not legitimate, at this point, to point out the obvious failings of this legislation? Will NO one in the 4th estate dare to speak truth to money and power?
A less biased sentence on this report would be "Sometimes charters outperform traditional schools, but more often charters perform worse." Because that's what the report shows, and this summarizes ALL the data, not just that favorable to charter (cherrypicking) schools.
There is nothing I would like more than a series of lectures/debates on (1) the problems of education (ST could include funding, unions, testing, high stakes testing, more/less/lack of testing, accountability, whatever); (2) whether charters (and if so, what kind) are a reasonable solution, and why or why not (ST could include success stories of kids who have thrived, horror stories of kids expelled or "counseled" out, current investigations re ELL and Special Ed exclusion, stories of charters that specifically include those kids, successes in shutting charters down, failures in being able to shut bad ones down, charters that have packed up and quit abruptly leaving kids stranded, demographics of charters vs. publics in places that have both, teacher retention or turnover, public schools with charter-like transformations, etc.; and (3) the problems, good points, etc, of THIS charter legislation (its proponents claim that they took so long to draft it because they wanted to get the benefit of all the experiments, good and bad, in other states -- did they? This would presumably include discussions of how the proposed law creates public space for charters, the diversion of public assets for private benefit (if charters do, in fact, buy assets at less than fmv), the process (or lack of one) for shutting down charters that don't pan out or that parents/teachers no longer support, the kinds of policies that charters can and cannot opt out of, the lack of any ability to use charter legislation to focus on underserved kids, the ability (or not) for a nonprofit charter to essentially "contract out" all services (management, staff, curriculum purchases, etc.) to for-profit entities -- so that the charter is essentially a "shell" for diverting public funds to private contractors, etc.
The Times could do this -- both as a lecture series AND as a series of investigative articles. It would be a fascinating series, if done right. But would the ST ever do this? And if they did, would they involve the real voices on the anti-charter side? Diane Ravitch? Parents Across America? People like Dora? The authors of the CREDO study? The folks in Louisiana who are NOT happy with the way New Orleans charter schools have panned out? Credible folks who see (or have been involved in investigating) the huge downside to high stakes testing? Educators from Finland, Singapore, and/or Korea, who have a very different, but successful, model for educational excellence? Or would they throw in a few ringers like Chris Eide and Jonathan Knapp and call it a day?
Personally, I started as a charter proponent, seeing charters as community-based, home grown schools that simply needed more freedom from downtown staff, and more locally sited governance than school districts and OSPI would permit. Having read up on the Turkish-based charters, and having watched other national charter organizations siphon off assets (through expensive building leases, high priced contracts with CMOs, sweetheart curriculum deals with "captive" book publishers, etc.) and then fail to do any better (and usually succeed in doing worse) than comparable public schools, while excluding ELL kids, SPED kids, kids without significant family support, etc. -- I can live without them. BUT -- IF we are to have them, it needs to be under far better, more accountable legislation, and with far more attentiveness to how to site and fund charters without destroying districts, than this legislation proposes.
C'mon, Seattle Times! Be "The Press," -- not just The Seattle Times Corporation!
Many of those studies have found much worse results for charters.
And many have found much better results for charters.
-More complicated than it seems
Considering the amount of energy some of us have invested in this issue, we'all do not have these factual facts at our fingerprints. If you have them, cough them up. Don't if they're set in one district in upper north southwest east Kentucky. In that case I'll take CREDO.
No charters until they're better
Do you have cites for other studies that do this? I'd love to read them. (It would help if they had a 'name' like Stanford (and not TfA, for example) behind them as well.)
If Blogger will cooperate tonight, here’s a The Bunkum Awards highlight nonsensical, confusing, and disingenuous education reports produced by think tanks. They are given each year by the Think Twice think tank review project to think tank reports judged to have most egregiously undermined informed discussion and sound policy making. Have fun reading.
CT
Here’s a brief article on quality control on charters from the NEPC - you’ll note they link to another reputable charter school study by Mathematica.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/quality-control-charter-school-research
NEPC has lots of charter school studies in the article database, as well as reviews of some of the often cited ones.
By far my favorite part is is the Bunkum Awards, where they award the think tanks awards of dubious honor for crappy research.
Their description:
The Bunkum Awards highlight nonsensical, confusing, and disingenuous education reports produced by think tanks. They are given each year by the Think Twice think tank review project to think tank reports judged to have most egregiously undermined informed discussion and sound policy making. Have fun reading.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/think-tank/bunkum-awards
CT
BioFit