All the superintendant's men
Suggesting that the state of education journalism is weak is, among us aspiring wonks, as uncontroversial as suggesting that the Earth revolves around the Sun. However, this piece by Lori Aratani in today's Washington Post caught my eye because it is just so gut-wrenchingly poor, and indicitative of how the Fourth Estate (of which I am currently a card-carrying member) is too often failing the public with regards to education news.
Set aside for a moment the stilted writing style (more on that in a second), but: What drama? A new school is opening, and some parents want their kids to go while others don't. Far as I know, that's standard operating procedure. Moreover, there's a good point right there in the first sentence -- it's December! Without relevance or timelineness, why in the world is this story being written? Of course, here comes the whopper:
Ok, first of all, now it's fair to say this looks like it was written for a high school journalism class, not one of the most respected and widely read newspapers in America. Secondly, why "especially when it involves Clarksburg"? Is there something special about Clarksburg that makes this any different than an article that could have been written about dozens of new schools opening around the nation or just in the area? Do any of those schools not have issues involving boundaries, scholarships and the academic futures of thousands of children?
The rest of the article is more of the same, but my overarching point here is not to skewer Aratani for writing a cruddy piece. Having been immersed in the journalist's world, I know it's entirely possible this was a second- or third-option space-filler story handed off at the last minute. My overarching point is that education journalism tends to be the space-fillers, and education journalists tend to be the ones who drew the short straw.
There are two veins in which the paucity of quality education reporters shows itself most clearly -- story selection and the more technical aspects of depth and conveyance of information. The latter needs little elaboration, and story selection can be summed up in one point: The Post decided to write about the Sept. 2006 opening of Clarksburg H.S., a non-story on its own merits, in December. The majority of education stories seem to be (just anecdotally speaking) focused around school administravia and school board meetings. It is the exception rather than the rule to find an article that is actually about the classroom; about actual pedagogy; about actual teachers; about the effects of policies on the ground, on the readers' kids. This, in turn, seriously hinders the publics' ability to comprehend the practical problems in education or the actual impact of policy debates -- and that lack of understanding helps no one.
The media's position is at least understandable: Education as it's traditionally covered, while consistently considered a national priority, is not a particularly good read. Except in the case of scandal, people don't dash to the nearest newstand to read about last night's school board meeting. That seeming contradiction -- readers being interested in education but not interested in reading about it -- suggests to me that there's a large flaw with the coverage.
At some point soon, then, there needs to be a significant revolution in education journalism. It's just one piece of a much larger puzzle, and far from the first item on the agenda, but any serious reform is going to have to slog that much harder through the mud if the media continues to give education such short shrift.
It's still eight months before Clarksburg High School opens its doors to students, but already there is much drama surrounding the debut of Montgomery County's newest campus.
Lori Martin said she and other families want their kids to go to the newly renovated, state-of-the-art, 175,000-plus-square-foot Clarksburg.
At the same time other parents like Tammy Hertel, whose children are slated to go to Clarksburg, are hoping to keep their children out of the new school and on their current campuses.
Set aside for a moment the stilted writing style (more on that in a second), but: What drama? A new school is opening, and some parents want their kids to go while others don't. Far as I know, that's standard operating procedure. Moreover, there's a good point right there in the first sentence -- it's December! Without relevance or timelineness, why in the world is this story being written? Of course, here comes the whopper:
How the dispute will end remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: Change is never easy, especially when it involves Clarksburg. And when change involves school boundaries, potential college scholarships and the academic futures of thousands of children, it can get downright ugly.
Ok, first of all, now it's fair to say this looks like it was written for a high school journalism class, not one of the most respected and widely read newspapers in America. Secondly, why "especially when it involves Clarksburg"? Is there something special about Clarksburg that makes this any different than an article that could have been written about dozens of new schools opening around the nation or just in the area? Do any of those schools not have issues involving boundaries, scholarships and the academic futures of thousands of children?
The rest of the article is more of the same, but my overarching point here is not to skewer Aratani for writing a cruddy piece. Having been immersed in the journalist's world, I know it's entirely possible this was a second- or third-option space-filler story handed off at the last minute. My overarching point is that education journalism tends to be the space-fillers, and education journalists tend to be the ones who drew the short straw.
There are two veins in which the paucity of quality education reporters shows itself most clearly -- story selection and the more technical aspects of depth and conveyance of information. The latter needs little elaboration, and story selection can be summed up in one point: The Post decided to write about the Sept. 2006 opening of Clarksburg H.S., a non-story on its own merits, in December. The majority of education stories seem to be (just anecdotally speaking) focused around school administravia and school board meetings. It is the exception rather than the rule to find an article that is actually about the classroom; about actual pedagogy; about actual teachers; about the effects of policies on the ground, on the readers' kids. This, in turn, seriously hinders the publics' ability to comprehend the practical problems in education or the actual impact of policy debates -- and that lack of understanding helps no one.
The media's position is at least understandable: Education as it's traditionally covered, while consistently considered a national priority, is not a particularly good read. Except in the case of scandal, people don't dash to the nearest newstand to read about last night's school board meeting. That seeming contradiction -- readers being interested in education but not interested in reading about it -- suggests to me that there's a large flaw with the coverage.
At some point soon, then, there needs to be a significant revolution in education journalism. It's just one piece of a much larger puzzle, and far from the first item on the agenda, but any serious reform is going to have to slog that much harder through the mud if the media continues to give education such short shrift.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, December 10, 2005 at 11:02 PM.
|
