Some D&C writers contribute to confusion regarding critical issues in public education

For years, I have observed mainstream journalists editorializing about topics and issues that they clearly know very little, if anything about. Such practice can be very dangerous, especially if it effectively influences the thinking and actions of substantial numbers of citizens. As it relates to urban, public education --- I am unequivocally convinced that some local, mainstream journalists are aiding (whether intentional or not) in perpetuation of confusion among the citizenry.

While I am sure that they mean well, and are attempting to be helpful --- when it comes to efforts aimed at informing the public about certain issues in public education --- some uninformed editorial writers at the Democrat and Chronicle (D&C) are engaging in a great disservice to the community. In spite of their efforts to help explain, and provide clarity and suggestions for educational improvement (due to the fundamental absence of a proper knowledge base) such writers are confusing educational reality and issues to the point of providing the public with harmful, dangerous misinformation.

One reason why this is so very important is because (as it relates to substantial, widespread educational change and improvement), until the general public has a clear understanding regarding the breadth and depth of educational issues and problems --- it is not likely that people will be willing to accept and commit to the types of highly expensive measures that will be necessary in order to produce effective, permanent solutions. Otherwise, we can predict with certainty --- the continued reign of decades-old, quick-fix, half measures, academic gimmicks, and fancy-sounding, ineffective programs --- along side deep-seated, entrenched, massive failure, particularly within urban, public schools, and uninformed, baseless, editorializing regarding impediments to progress.

Two recent Editorials that clearly represent the type of inaccurate, confusing information referenced above, appeared in the D&C on 5/19/05 and 5/22/05.

In the first article, “Tale of 2 schools: Melding Wilson and Madison has potential ___ and carries risk,” the editorialist alludes to something dubbed as “the broken middle school system.” There is no such thing as a middle school system within the Rochester City School District (RCSD). Instead, there is a Pre-K through Adult system, with a former middle school component, which is currently being phased out.

James Madison was formerly a 6th – 8th grade middle school, prior to being reorganized as a high school during the current school year. The editorialist obviously has absolutely no idea and/or concern about the reality that, during the years when Madison was a middle school (like all others in the RCSD) it received huge percentages (up to 80% some years) of 6th graders with reading, writing, and math skills that were (in many cases) grossly below grade level. Yet, these same students had supposedly, legitimately met or exceeded state standards on 4th grade ELA and Math Regents Exams, and many arrived at Madison, and I am certain, other former middle schools as well --- with report cards full of A’s and B’s. So, we must ask the editorialist, is the bottom line: Madison and other former middle schools received scores of skilled scholars, and destroyed their abilities and potential in two or three years, or did Madison and other former middle schools receive scores of potential scholars who (for whatever reasons) had not been properly developed and prepared academically and/or socially, and/or emotionally, and/or psychologically, and who were systematically, socially promoted to middle school?

The second D&C Editorial referenced above is titled “Developing picture: Test scores dramatize the fall off between fourth grade and eighth.” A far more appropriate by-line for this article would have been “Undeveloped picture” --- the latter of which thoroughly and accurately describes the editorialist’s uninformed viewpoint and perspective. The writer engaged in a shallow, nonsensical discussion regarding an imaginary phenomenon of “fourth-grade achievement [turning] into eighth-grade mistakes.” This is an outright silly, simplistic, and uninformed notion, which confuses the real dilemma and crisis in public education, particularly within urban schools.

Namely, the crux of the crisis is that, first, hugely increased numbers of our students are entering school (from the very beginning) severely undeveloped and underdeveloped relative to basic cognitive skills and knowledge. Secondly, we are laboring within an outdated, antiquated, education system that was never set up to deal effectively with the types of developmental (academic, social, emotional, psychological, and physical) issues and problems that increasing numbers of our students bring with them to school --- from the very start --- not to mention how serious and complex such problems often become as young people get older, especially if the problems go unaddressed or inadequately addressed.

Now, after having said all of this, where does the solution lie? It lies within widespread, systemic change to an extent and degree that some people, including some educators (much less uninformed editorialists) can’t even imagine.

Vast amounts of resources, mainly in the form of competent, committed, fairly compensated human beings will be necessary to develop and implement widespread, systemic change. Some of the necessary resources can be, and should be diverted away from clearly, ineffective programs that have not worked, and never will --- no matter how they are packaged and/or repackaged.

As for editorialists who have tendencies to present, and sometimes push simplistic, notions and ideas regarding educational improvement --- you need to stop! Your efforts, which are probably well meaning, adds to the confusion relative to the public’s understanding of the true nature and depth of the ongoing urban education crisis in particular. If you must editorialize, before subjecting thousands upon thousands of readers to erroneous, shallow, simplistic ideas --- it seems that you would at least be responsible enough, and have the integrity to confer with those who possess expertise. After all, you are trained journalists --- not educators.