Quotes versus Facts

NCLBlog's John praises AJC blogger Patti Ghezzi, but I'm not sure the post he links to backs up his case. Ghezzi describes her conversation with Andrea Spreter, a young high school science teacher in New Orleans who works at "Math and Science High," which Ghezzi reports was a selective magnet program prior to Katrina (this gets a little confusing--at times Ghezzi makes it sound as if the school is still selective, and John clearly read it that way, but, as is almost always the case for charters, the school is not selective). And here's where I start getting irritated: It's a tiny quibble, but the name of the school isn't actually Math and Science High; it's New Orleans Charter Science and Math High School--like I said, tiny quibble, but if she's going to write a post on it, you'd think she could at least bother to get the name right. Further, even before Katrina, the school wasn't "selective" in the typical sense of the word. A quick glance on its website turns up the following:

For over 12 years, the New Orleans Center for Science & Math has operated as a district school providing an open door to any New Orleans high school student with an interest in pursuing the study of science, mathematics and technology. There were no barriers in the form of test, grade point requirements, or student fees for admission. This positioned the school as one of only two specialty science and math schools in the country with an open admissions policy and with a majority of African American students.

Sure, an ostensibly non-selective school can manipulate the system to choose its students, but this suggests Ghezzi didn't check out what her source told her at all. Again, I'm being pretty nitpicky, but I'm pointing these things out because Ghezzi then goes on to draw broad conclusions about the problems with charter schools--which make up most of the public schools open in New Orleans since Katrina:

So she [Spreter] is leaving Math and Science and speaking out about problems she sees with charter schools, such as lack of consistent policies, lack of oversight, absence of veteran teachers. She also craves the kind of professional development a school district can offer.

These things may very well be true--in fact, given the larger context in New Orleans and the problems any school has getting off the ground in its first year, I'd be shocked if they aren't. But to draw all this from the comments of one individual--who can really only speak for her experience and the individual school in which she works--is irresponsible.

I'm not trying to pick on Ghezzi here. Several of the posts on her blog provide interesting perspectives and/or thoughtful analysis. And I think it's important to bring the voices and experiences of individual educators into the public debate--as what they are. But this post illustrates a common and, to me, very troubling, phenomenon in education coverage.

It's simply incredibly common to read a news article about charter schools, or NCLB, or a host of other educational topics, in which someone quoted--either directly or indirectly--says something that is inaccurate, misleading, just plain wrong, or something that their personal experiences and knowledge really don't give them the authority to say. But no information is offered to prevent the reader from thinking it's the absolute truth. The attitude seems to be "if someone said it, and it's attributed to them, then it's ok to write it, and it's not the reporter's job to figure out or explain what the reality actually is." To be fair, this isn't a trend restricted to education coverage; it's an approach that's come to dominate coverage of political and policy debates to, I think the detriment of both. (If you're interested, this Jonathan Chait piece is well worth reading.)

In a related note, John and Patti are both upset that Ms. Spreter doesn't have health or retirement benefits. I'll be the first to acknowledge that, in our screwed up healthcare and social insurance system, that's an incredibly crappy position to be in. But it's important to note that Ms. Spreter is NOT in this position simply because she works in a charter school. In fact, Louisiana law requires charter schools to participate in the state retirement system. But, as Ghezzi notes, Ms. Spreter is not a full-time employee of the school. It's possible the school deliberately avoided making Spreter's job a full-time position because it didn't want to pay benefits--something a lot of private businesses do all the time--and I would also find that wrong. But it's equally possible current enrollment didn't justify a full-time physical science teacher. The point is it's impossible to judge based on the information Ghezzi presents.