Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Policy and News » mathed-news

Topic: [ME] Awful Alliance: Media and School-Critics
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Jerry P. Becker

Posts: 13,282
Registered: 12/3/04
[ME] Awful Alliance: Media and School-Critics
Posted: May 25, 1999 1:11 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

From The Education Digest, January, 1999, pp. 4-10.

The Awful Alliance of the Media and Public-School Critics

By David C. Berliner and Bruce J. Biddle

We think that, too frequently, a story is found interesting to news
reporters only if it is critical of public schools or has some scent of
blood about it. in news lingo, "If it bleeds, it leads." We also believe
that most editorial opinions from the so-called liberal press are, in fact,
quite conservative. Thus, to us, the newspapers have become a natural ally
of those believing public education has failed.

The critics believe that public schooling should be abandoned or should
reform itself to find some way of returning to those halcyon days of
yesterday, a time better described as the halcyon haze of yesterday-much
better recalled from memory than actually lived.

We will not explore in depth the problem of who speaks for education to the
press. We note only, for example, that some of those who write op-ed
articles and are widely quoted are not necessarily objective and have
something to gain from, say, approval of vouchers that could be used at
nonpublic schools. It serves their interests to promote the belief that
public education is a failure and that privatization is the only sensible
solution. Why, when they write or talk, aren't they identified as
individuals who may be compromised in their objectivity?

Others who criticize public schools hold strong fundamentalist religious
beliefs that lead them to want their children segregated from those in
secular schools. They seek vouchers to fund such schools, and by attacking
public schools, come a little closer to their goals. Critics with such
strong views or with pecuniary interests should be identified by the press
when their comments are reported, just as are representatives from the
National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

It appears to be great sport to draw blood when reporting the unseemly, the
negative, and the absurdities that necessarily occur in a system with
nearly three million public-school teachers in about 100,000 public
schools. But schools are about something bigger than the public-relations
nightmares that inevitably occur.

Public schooling is really about ordinary people trying to make reasonable
decisions in the best interests of their communities-decisions that will
help their young people grow to be knowledgeable, economically productive,
decent citizens. Those noble intentions are commonly ignored. Missing from
the reporting is a modicum of caring, sympathy, and understanding about
what the schools were trying to accomplish, even though they appeared to
have bungled it.

Public perceptions, particularly student perceptions, are shaped by the
media through the respect or derision they display for different groups.
Can the routine and undiscriminating ridicule of school teachers and
administrators be good for the nation? Could the press not find the
absurdities of individual educators newsworthy-subject to criticism,
laughter, or outrage-and find ways to preserve the dignity of a few million
other professional educators who work so hard for the good of the nation?

In our opinion, the press, on educational issues:

- Is biased and covers the negative side of news stories much more
diligently than the positive side;

- Presents too simplistic and in-complete a view of the educational
problems and issues they are reporting;

- Is more critical of the schools in its editorial policies than it is
complimentary;

- Has editorial policies that are biased against public schools, school
change, and, in particular, schools that serve the poor;

- Displays a lack of understanding of the complexity of school life in
contemporary America;

- Shows an appalling lack of understanding of statistics and social science
research, without which reporters cannot properly interpret the huge amount
of data that the educational system produces; and

- Shows an ignorance of the role of poverty as a root cause of many of the
difficulties in our schools.

The press seems either too scared, too controlled, or too uninformed to
raise what we consider the most basic issue confronting education in the
United States-achieving a fair distribution of opportunities to succeed.
This issue, however, is a close relative of issues associated with
redistribution of wealth in our society, a topic the mainstream press too
often avoids.

Over the past few years, we have kept some files about the news reports
that have shaped our perceptions. We will use one major recent news event
to illustrate why we feel as we do. Then we note further problems with the
coverage of education stories.

The TIMSS Study

Extensive news coverage of TIMSS-the Third International Mathematics and
Science Study-followed the first public release of test data in November
1996. We read more than 100 news stories to get a feel for how the press
handles a contemporary, important education story.

The objective facts are clear: In a well-run, 41-nation study of seventh-
and eighth-graders, the United States ranked about average, with Singapore
a runaway winner and other Asian nations outscoring us. (The recently
released twelfth-grade data painted a more negative picture of our
performance. But that data is quite difficult to interpret and needs
further debate.)

Data on achievement in eighth-grade math and science was presented by TIMSS
researchers as three statistically homogeneous groups of nations-those
ahead of the U.S., those tied with us, and those behind us. More
interesting to the education profession was the data about curriculum and
instruction for each nation. But, as expected, more press coverage went to
the multi-nation horse race in science and math, a search for winners and
losers.

The New York Times, along with many other newspapers, provided perfectly
sensible stories based on the release of the data. The Times story was
thorough and in our estimation its headline was accurate and descriptive:
"Americans Straddle the Average Mark in Math and Science."

But others had different approaches to reporting the same data, provided at
the same press conference called to announce the results of the study. For
example, the San Diego Union-Tribune actually found cause to celebrate,
announcing: "Global Test of Pupils Shows U.S. Improving." This
interpretation was an accurate one, but apparently not worth featuring in
any other report we could find.

The St. Petersburg Times coverage was less positive but thought-provoking
nevertheless. It proclaimed: "Science, Math Study Renews Calls for Reform."
And that is true, too. There is much of interest in the study that can
guide our school improvement efforts.

The Chicago Sun-Times, however, created a much harsher and unsubstantiated
headline to report the same story: "U.S. Schools in Crisis; So What Else Is
New?" Most of the reporting was closer to the negativism expressed by the
Sun-Times than to the single positive and the few thoughtful responses to
the study generated by the press.

As we read these stories, we no-ticed quickly that nobody liked to be
average, including Education Secretary Richard Riley, quoted in the Orange
County Register as saying that "for U.S. students, average is just not good
enough." No reporter or government official noted the inevitability of some
nations having to be about average.

Moreover, that position in an international comparison of educational
achievement almost always will go to one of the more heterogeneous nations,
say a country like the United States, which provides for the study a random
sample from 15,700 designed-to-be-different school systems. These school
systems operate independently. They receive support through vastly
different funding formulas that yield great disparities in per-pupil
support. They have created different curricula, use different texts, and
serve families heavily segregated by social class and ethnicity.

Under conditions such as these, if a fair sample is drawn, it should be
obvious that it will combine both the excellent performance of children in
superb school districts and the abysmal performance of children in awful
school districts. A nation such as the United States inevitably will be
described by its central characteristics-losing its ability to showcase its
pockets of excellence, although hiding as well its genuine disasters.

The Tampa Tribune, however, was not dealing with this subtlety, apparently
not even understanding the basic meaning of average, since it proclaimed in
a headline: "U.S. Eighth-Graders Far Back in Math." The San Francisco
Chronicle said: "American Eighth-Graders Are Average, at Best." It added
the little zinger at the end to be sure that a negative tone was attached
to the headline. The San Diego Union-Tribune carried an article by a state
legislator noting that such terribly low scores on tests like these are old
news. All this negativism was associated with being average in
mathematics-a position that statistically tied us with such equally
inadequate and equally average countries as Thailand, Israel, Germany, New
Zealand, England, Norway, Denmark, Scotland, Spain, and Iceland.

Good Company Unnoted

In science, being about average statistically tied us with the inadequate
likes of England, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Canada, Norway, New Zealand,
Thailand, Israel, Hong Kong, Switzerland, and Scotland. It also tied us
with the Russian Federation. That was the awesome economic and military
competitor that, 40 years ago, Admiral Hyman Rickover predicted would bury
us because Russian schools taught rigorous science courses whereas our
schools were too lenient. No reports we saw noted the remarkably good
company that we were in with "merely" an average score. Apparently, it is
the dream of the American press and the American people to have children
like those in the Lake Wobegon schools-all above average.

The most obvious distortion of the TIMSS data, however, was offered to the
public by the Orange County Register. Since the nations were placed into
three statistically homogeneous groups-above us, tied with us, and below
us-this newspaper could honestly say to its readers that "the United States
scored in the second lowest group," not even calling it the middle group.
The Register took a cheap shot in this regard. It is like the description
of an Olympic footrace in which all but two runners drop out. The winner
could then be described as coming in next to last, and the second fastest
runner could be described as coming in dead last!

Scrap the Medals

Rankings were used by most reporters to describe the TIMSS data. But none
of the reporters noted any analogy to an Olympic running competition. That
is, no one thought that you can be a very competitive racer at the
Olympics, come in a few seconds behind the winner of the 10-kilometer race,
and rank twenty-fourth, though perhaps only a few seconds off a world
record. So another way the data from TIMSS might have been looked at was to
ask how the United States actually scored, not how the country ranked in
the race to mathematics and science gold medals.

When that is done in mathematics for the twenty-eighth-ranked United
States, eighth-graders are seen to have correctly answered 53% of the math
items, which placed them within 10% of 30 other nations. Only six nations
achieved scores higher than those in the United States by 10% or more.
Newsweek reported this as "finishing way out of the money" in an article
describing the mediocrity of the American educational system.

Actually, mediocrity was a word used a lot during the week the TIMSS
eighth-grade data report was released, and it was technically used
correctly, since mediocre has the same root as median. But we think this
adjective was chosen less for technical appropriateness and more for its
connotation of failure, which is easier to attach to the rankings but much
less convincing if anyone chose to look at the actual scores achieved by
the various nations.

The science test showed a similar pattern. U.S. students answered an
average of 58% of the items correct. Thirty-three other nations had scores
within 10% of what American students attained, and only one scored more
than 10% above the U.S. In rank, the U.S. was seventeenth, a long way out
of the money. Nevertheless, only one country exceeded the American average
science score by more than 10%, suggesting that the U.S. ran a pretty good
race alter all. These kinds of interpretations were lacking in the reports
we read.

All that mediocrity on the TIMSS tests led citizens and news reporters to
propose solutions. An editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune suggested
that students should use rulers to make every mathematical problem neat and
ensure all the equal signs were lined up perfectly. The logic was that if
students used the rulers in this way, they would slow down and think more
about the mathematics problems they were doing.

On the other hand, the Los Angeles Times reported that American students
needed to be speeded up, developing the facility to do simple
multiplication problems in their heads in eight-tenths of a second or less.
The Orange County Register claimed the TIMSS study provided empirical
evidence that the new math standards and teaching methods were a total
failure. But the St. Petersburg Times reported correctly that the TIMSS
data supported the use of the new mathematics standards and teaching
methods.

Slowing them down or speeding them up, throwing out the standards or
putting them in, seems to be a sad kind of search for magic bullets and
Holy Grails, a search to assure parents that their children's test scores
will be high and competitive with those of other nations. But a little
study of the previous international mathematics survey, reported less than
a decade ago, reveals most of what we need to know about the causes of high
and low U.S. math performance.

What We Learned

We learned, in the international mathematics study of 1991-1992, that
public school children in such states as Iowa, South Dakota, and Minnesota
proved they were the equal of their Asian counterparts who scored so well
on average when taking a comparable math test. American public school
children of middle- and high-income families also were competitive with
students in the highest-achieving nations in the world. The average math
performance of white children in the U.S. was quite high, as well.

Added to this, and a bit amusing, was that students of Asian origin in
American public schools scored above the average of Asian students in the
Asian nations that participated in that study. So we know that the American
public system of education, as diverse and incoherent as it is, can turn
out world-class young mathematicians if they are raised in certain states,
are of a certain income level, and are of a certain ethnicity. But the
average performance was low in that study because some students in the
United States were not achieving well at all.

Who were these low performers? Poor children in general, Hispanic and
African-American children in particular, and the children living in some of
the poorest states in the country, particularly Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi. In our estimation, there is only one major difference between
the schools and students that score well and those that score poorly in the
U.S.-the wealth and social conditions that characterize the families, the
neighborhoods, and the districts involved.

We saw little evidence that report-ers knew any of the history of testing
achievement across nations, and no TIMSS report we saw even hinted at the
fact that poverty might be the single greatest barrier to high achievement
in American public schools.

We also are concerned about the problems when an uncritical press promotes
myths that serve to demonize youth. Examples of this include distortions
about sexual activity of teenagers and their high pregnancy rate. Almost
all early sexual activity and ensuing pregnancies of young females is the
result of predatory, fully adult males, often family members. It Is not
necessarily female teenage sexual morals that are our national problem but
rather adult male morality to which we need to attend. But one would never
know it from the news coverage.

Moreover, the well-publicized violence of youth is almost fully explained
by the poverty of youth in the U.S. America is the undisputed leader in the
industrialized world in percentage of youth in poverty. It is the
pernicious effects of this poverty and the easy availability of weapons,
not the uncontrollable hormones of puberty, that result in youth violence.
But one would never know It from newspapers, because few reporters know how
correlations and other statistics really work.

The great youth drug culture is another myth promulgated widely. Yet 99% of
the illegal drug deaths recorded in the U.S. In 1993 were of adults;
teenagers accounted for only 1%. All these deaths are tragic, but it Is
hardly a teenage drug problem the nation faces.

What the Harm Is

What harm is there in demonizing youth? We think it does more than sell
papers. Either by implication or sometimes quite directly, the schools are
held to blame for our youths' alleged licentiousness, violence, and drug
use. Those schools are thus deemed unworthy of support. Demonizing
teenagers through lurid headlines and vivid prose results in a loss of
confidence in the public schools and helps those who promote privatization.

We think it is inappropriate to expect a democratic free press to be
anything but highly critical of the society in which it exists. That is one
of its functions. But it is not inappropriate to ask for balance. And we do
not think we have that. It seems to us that democracy depends just as much
on a free and efficient public school system as it does on a free press.

It would be ironic, as well as tragic, if the imbalance in the reporting
that exists were to lead to the abandonment of public schools and a
dramatic rise in private-school enrollment. We are sure this would result
in greater privilege for a few and less chance for success in life for the
many. And when those circumstances occur, the press is always captured by
the power of the few, and no longer can claim to be totally free. We may be
well on the way to that sad state now, as recent critics contend.

By continuing the unfair, unremitting negative characterization of the
nation's schools and youth, by searching for the blood and too often
avoiding the more reasonable interpretations that are possible, and by
failing to describe the magnificent achievements that also characterize
public education, the nation's free press may ultimately become less free.

The natural alliance between the media and public school critics could
destroy both the free press and the free public educational system that we
now enjoy in this nation. It may be in the interest of those in the press
to ponder this line of reasoning and think about providing more balance in
educational reporting-not just because it is justified, but because it is
in their own self-interest.

-------------------------
David C. Berliner is Regents' Professor and Dean, College of Education,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287. Bruce J. Biddle is Professor of
Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. Condensed from The
School Administrator, 55 (September 1998), 12-18, published by American
Association of School Administrators, 1801 N. Moore St., Arlington, VA
22209-1813, where the article was adapted from and is here condensed by
permission of the publisher, Teachers College Press, from its book Imaging
Education: The Media and Schools in America, edited by Gene I. Maeroff. ©
1998 by Teachers College, Columbia University. All rights reserved. Order
the book from Teachers College Press, P.0. Box 20, Williston, VT 05495-0020
(phone: 800-575-6566).

***********************************************
*
Jerry P. Becker
Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901-4610 USA
Fax: (618)453-4244
Phone: (618)453-4241 (office)
E-mail: jbecker@siu.edu






Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.