The Times' School Drool

In a passionate tribute to Seattle schools Superintendent John Stanford last month, Seattle Times executive editor Michael Fancher praised him as "the embodiment of Seattle's hope for a school system worthy of America's best city." As part of his droolfest, he lauded his own publication. "No newspaper in the country has a stronger commitment to education coverage than this one," wrote Fancher in a May 10 editorial. "No newspaper our size devotes more resources to it." Perhaps a comparison of resources would support his bold claim. But an examination of the content of this coverage results in dismal grades.

Looking at the Times' education coverage for two weeks following Fancher's editorial shows remarkable consistency. A typical issue contains two or three articles related to education. They range from longer front page pieces accompanied by a photo to brief blurbs in the Puget Sound Newswatch section of the local news. Most are written by one of three reporters. The most notable constant, however, is the source these reporters use--Officialdom.

The rulers of this elite kingdom from which information is gathered are the State Legislature, the Seattle School Board, and Superintendent Stanford. Sometimes the source is named "school officials" or "a state report," but it is a familiar voice upon which the Times relies too heavily. Much of this reporting is a far cry from classroom reality; it is adult officials making top-down decisions, not the challenges that students and teachers face seeking optimal education. Above all, it's lazy journalism.

These are pre-packaged stories handed down from Officialdom and spewed out by the Times. The Port of Seattle has generously offered to insulate schools near Sea-Tac Airport from the relentlessly disruptive aircraft noise (5/22). But this has been a problem for 25 years. Why the delay? Stanford shuffles principals around in the public schools and the Times dutifully lists the changes (5/20). Why were some replaced? How will these dramatic shifts affect the schools? What about the community opposition to some seemingly random reassignments? Half of Washington's elementary schools apply for a state grant to help teach reading in kindergarten through second grade (5/21). Isn't the state required to supply sufficient funding for maintaining schools, especially such a fundamental skill as reading? So many questions left unasked.

This last example highlights the opportunity for investigative reporting on important issues. Washington's constitution stresses that "it is the paramount duty of the state to make amble provision for the education of all children." Instead of echoing the Legislature, the newspaper should be examining how well the state complies.

Are there funding disparities between rich and poor school districts? Students and teachers are held accountable by standardized tests that inhibit creativity and limit curriculum. To whom is the school board accountable and why is Stanford untouchable? Fancher applauds his reporters for asking "the tough, provocative questions." Yet the rulers of Officialdom effectively set the agenda and the paper rarely probes, leaving parents and community members blissfully uninformed about the realities of our children's educations.

The Times has done plenty to help Stanford ascend to sainthood. A gushing two-page spread full of get-well letters from kids appeared in the same issue as Fancher's fawning piece. He is pictured on the front page throwing out the first pitch at a Mariners game (5/23). The only education coverage on May 16th is a note about the Superintendent's weekend visit to the hospital. Apparently, nothing happened in Seatlle's 97 public schools that day. The Times' fascination with Stanford, even pre-leukemia, leaves many stories uncovered and many students voiceless.

Many articles do raise interesting issues, but dive no deeper than a PR release, or cover a study with shallow analysis. In a five-paragraph short, the paper mentions an upcoming discussion on the volatile Channel One (5/15). This insidious program provides captive students with "news" shorts stuffed between commercials for soda and sports merchandise. Nearly all of Seattle's middle schools signed on when Channel One began ten years ago. The Times reports, however, "since the original contract expired, program use has dropped to fewer than half." Why? Could it be that many educators recognized they were selling vital class time to ads for snacks? Perhaps a balanced investigation into this increasingly unpopular program would reveal negative comparisons to the Superintendent's own attempt at allowing advertising in the schools.

Occasionally the Times hits the target. One columnist's sorry tale of his tour of an underfunded school inspired a reader to make a large contribution (5/17). The schools wouldn't have to rely on anonymous generosity, the columnist pointedly wrote, if the state was fulfilling its obligation. Another article gives a voice to part-time instructors at community colleges who are continually underpaid even though they teach nearly half of all class time at the colleges (5/22). The article even mentions work done by their union, the Washington Federation of Teachers, aimed at pressuring the State Legislature for pay equity (though this information is saved for the second to last graph). A couple of polite editorials ask for nice things like better athletic fields. Meanwhile, there was virtually no coverage of the three-person competition to fill an appointment for a vacant seat on the school board--except on the editorial page, where the Times pushed hard for their pro-business candidate. (She lost out.)

Overall, education coverage at the Times reads like a police blotter: here is an event that happened, here is a report of what some policy makers said. Without letting the students, parents, and teachers speak, the public schools and their dilemmas remain a mystery. And Officialdom rules unchallenged. If this is the best coverage of education in the country, it's no wonder our schools are falling apart. Students aren't the only ones with much left to learn.

MediaWatch is written every two weeks by members of the MediaWatch collective, a local group monitoring Seattle news media. Our next meeting will be Monday, June 22 at 6:00 PM, 3rd floor Univ. Baptist Church (4554 12th Ave. NE in Seattle). For info or to get involved, e-mail mediawatch@u.washington.edu or call 632-1656.