People Are Saying

Front Page News?

In a front-page article that smells a lot like finding something to write about, Los Angeles Times education writer Howard Blume reports on public sentiment regarding public education based on a U.C. Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll partially funded by the Times and conducted more than two weeks ago. 

From the subhead: "Poll shows decline in trust by parents who say education suffered during the pandemic." Not exactly breaking news.

In a startling combination of "duh, tell us something we don't know" and "wait, I don't think the data mean what you think they mean," Blume goes on to describe the poll as asking "voters to give schools a letter-grade rating from A to F" and then comparing the responses to the same question from 2011! Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll, concedes that "'the impact of COVID has probably contributed to it.'" You think?

A quick Google search of "pandemic impact on schools and education" yields 292,000,000 hits. Now, that's not always an indication, but anyone who has been alive for the last two years has been inundated with reports about the negative impacts of the pandemic on students and schools. Search "covid pandemic education" in Blume's own paper and  the L.A. Times coughs up over 280,000 results. 

From Blume himself: 

• February 10: "New threat to COVID-era education: Black and Latino teachers are leaving the profession."
• January 7: "LAUSD determined to open amid increase in infections; Montebello schools will delay term."
• January 6: "Omicron stresses schools across California to the limit as they fight to stay open."
• January 4: "Omicron wave is inundating California. How to protect yourself and others."

That's just a selection from this year alone. Big hits from times gone by:

• November 2021: "About 44,000 LAUSD students miss first vaccine deadline and risk losing in-person classes."
• October 11, 2021: "Facing major campus disruption and firings, LAUSD extends staff COVID-vaccine deadline."
• July 25, 2021: "Austin Beutner’s tenure as L.A. schools chief marked more by crisis than academic gains."
• On September 7, 2021 The Times Editorial Board weighed in: "Learning loss is real. Stop pretending otherwise." 

Sounds bad, right? And that's just the COVID stuff. There's no shortage of related doom-and-gloom:

• From Blume February 2: "Economic segregation in schools has worsened, widening achievement gaps, study says." 

And a bonus track--a re-release of an oldie but a goodie:

• From Mackenzie Mays January 11, 2022: "California schools face funding crisis as student population declines."

Public Education, you really need a new press agent. I haven't even mentioned fake "CRT" outrage and the erasure of history, or the war on LGBTQ+ youth. Book bans? Seriously? It's no wonder "parents have overwhelmingly concluded that the quality of education worsened during the pandemic."

But have they? How might people have reached that conclusion? Blume reports the polling as if it is based solely on parents' experiences with their own schools, ignoring the impact of his own reporting on pubic opinion. Even if the results of the poll were meaningful, the only person who thinks the decline in "trust" is surprising or noteworthy appears to be Blume. Maybe DiCamillo.

And then there's the poll itself. Let's check off the misleading and useless "A to F" grade framing. It obliterates nuance and prevents respondents from differentiating among different functions of their schools--for example "A" for instruction, "F" for safety. Next, notice the crossed out "their" because the poll asks about California public schools, and for the gazillionth time in a row, people rate their local schools more highly than schools in other parts of the universe. Oh, and while we're at it, some of the worst grades for public schools came from parents with their kid in religious, private, or charter schools. Which is surprising. Said no one ever. 

Even though respondents identified as "Black" in the survey rated California schools overall more highly than those identified as "White non-Hispanic," the question of why Black voters are more critical of their local public schools is a really good one and could have been further explored in the survey. It was not. There is a tantalizing little tidbit, though, in the fact that Black voters are "more likely than... voters in other racial or ethnic subgroups to view standardized testing as hurting rather than helping education." Maybe it's because their schools are subjected to a more burdensome testing regime, and they see first-hand the deleterious effects. Just thinking out loud, here.

A word about the "voter" - "parent" conundrum. The poll seems to have included responses from 8937 registered voters and was conducted in English and Spanish online from February 3-10. However, although it does break down some responses according to "Parent of a school-age child," it seems to combine the demographics in its overall statistics. Hence, the significant support actual parents have for their schools is diluted by attitudes more likely formed through interaction with media reports. 

For example, if I'm reading Table 1 correctly, and I like to thing that I am, 69% of parents with a child in school rate the school an A, B, or C, while 56% of voters with no child in school do so. That's still a pretty high percentage for people whose sources of information are out of date and/or indirect (i.e. strongly influenced by this kind of reporting), but since the raw data indicate--again, if I'm reading correctly--that 77% of respondents were "not a parent/legal guardian of school-age child," the difference is significant and skews approval downward.

And even more important, if you look carefully, you'll note that the table shows parents whose child is enrolled in an actual "traditional public school," and who therefore presumably know something about it, rate the school at 77% positive (A, B, or C). Yet somehow Blume still concludes that the sky is falling.

The problem with the article is not so much its accuracy as its tone. Instead of comparing "trust" from a survey from over ten years ago, an equally accurate account of the actual, unmediated poll results might read, "Even after two years of crisis, most parents still favor their local schools." 

Or, although the raw data is a bit confusing to this lay person, it looks like this one might fit: "In spite of manufactured outrage, Los Angeles County voters see teacher unions improving schools."

One of my favorite results:

Suggested Headline: "California Voters Reject Standardized Testing: Declare 47% to 42% that tests 'Hurt Education.'"

There's more. 

A not-so-brief word about charts. Although the online version of the article includes a comprehensive chart plotting attitudes in 2011 against those in 2022:

The chart in the print version of the Times included only data broken out by race and region. Passers still mostly outpace failers, but it looks close, right? See if you can spot what's missing:

 

Hint: A "C" is a passing grade. If the "C"s had been included the results wouldn't even look close. That was my conjecture, so I created a chart that does include them, along with the "no opinion"s.

Here it is without the "no opinion"s, the way the Times printed theirs:

I was unable to find the complete data from the 2011 poll for comparison, but even if we stipulate that yes, public confidence has weakened, there is no reason to manipulate the data or massage the charts to be extra scary. By omitting the substantial number of respondents who only gave their schools a "C" because, I don't know, two years of a pandemic, the Times makes the decline more dramatic. If the "C"s are included on the positive side of the ledger, readers get a different, more accurate picture.

There's more. 

In a forty-one paragraph article, we find out in paragraph twenty-eight that "A different California poll [PACE/Rossier] found voters giving the state's schools higher marks." Blume's answer? Certainly not to acknowledge that the poll on which he relies for the entire article may not be as authoritative as advertised. 

Blume does not address the conflicting results or attempt to reconcile them. He simply drops in a barely relevant quote from U.S.C.'s Rossier School of Education education policy professor Julie Marsh with a potential explanation: pandemic fatigue! I taught English for twenty-five years, and this is the lamest wink at a potential counter-claim I have ever seen.

As I've written, the purpose of the multifaceted, sustained assault on public education is to destabilize and enfeeble public schools, clearing the way for privatizers and profiteers to pick up and exploit the pieces. In paragraphs thirty-one and thirty-two of Blume's article we arrive at what I suspect is the point. 

I'm concerned about the eroding public trust we have in our public schools, [Professor Marsh] added.

Voucher proposal advocates hope to capitalize on that discontent.

This is followed by seven paragraphs on teachers unions. The first two quote the chief of the "American Federation for Children" without identifying the organization as a "dark money group that promotes the school privatization agenda via the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and other avenues." The next paragraph refers vaguely to "disenchanted L.A. Unified parents" who are promoting a voucher initiative because they "fault teachers unions and district officials for what they regard as inadequate education during the pandemic." 

We're granted one paragraph of rebuttal from an Eagle Rock parent who praises unions for "'looking out for students.'" Then it's right back to bashing, as someone identified as a "Contra Costa County parent" has a lot to say. Like the first detractor, this critic is given two full paragraphs in which to accuse teachers--through their union--of actually advocating for "'policies that are detrimental to students'" and "'harming the kids with their fear-driven advocacy.'" If that sounds like canned criticism to you, give yourself a "more astute than big-time journalist" merit badge. 

That these anti-public school activists are given such outsized space to promote their ideological agenda is unfair and reeks of bias. That these individuals and organizations are not properly identified is outrageous. 

Perhaps the most potent superpower journalists possess is the framing of a story. Selecting what to report and how to report it shapes the argument and determines the reader's understanding of an issue. The data behind colorful charts and assertions put forth as facts can be difficult to parse. What every reader can understand, however, are headlines like these:

Public schools given poor grades by voters

and

Poll shows decline in trust by parents

and

A third of voters give L.A. schools a D or F

(which is itself an embellishment, as the number is 27%)

and online, a headline double whammy with a new modifier:

Confidence in California public schools declines sharply; a third give L.A. a D or F

Again, returning to where we started, "Poll shows decline in trust by parents who say education suffered during the pandemic" is not news. What hasn't suffered? Who hasn't suffered? In a cynical demonstration of creating the news rather than reporting it, the Times funds (in part) the survey that tells us what we already know, cherry-picks the results, slaps on a sensationalized headline or four, and then prints it all as if it's front-page news. 

After a decades-long relentless assault on public education, Blume and the Times (and DiCamillo?) are shocked! shocked! to report that public confidence has eroded. Except they're not really. The narrative of "declining confidence" in "failing" public schools is essential for their destruction. It doesn't have to be honest. It just has to be effective. 

With friends like Howard Blume and the L.A. Times... Well, actually we need better friends. In the meantime, the beat goes on.