Same Story,  Different Perspectives

By Henry J. Stern
September 10, 2004
 
The differences between New York City newspapers are clearly shown today in their handling of the story which we reported in Q-34 yesterday. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein intend to end social promotion for pupils now in the fifth grade of our public schools.

The Post was enthusiastic about the plan, in two major articles on page 2 by David Andreatta, education reporter. The news story headline: "Mike to crack whip on 5th-graders, too." The analysis was headed "Social-promotion plan boosts Bloomy." A third item, "Flunk stats show more 3-peaters," fills out the page. The Post also has a critical comment by UFT head Randi Weingarten, "We don't want to have bearded fifth graders running around elementary schools."

The News ran two stories on page 8. "5th grade on mayor's watch list," by Nicole Bode and Kathleen Lucadamo. Generally sympathetic to the plan, they wrote, "Unlike when Bloomberg unveiled his third-grade policy in January, the addition of fifth grade drew few outcries. Teachers were happy to hear about it at the beginning of the school year." A summary of various school issues by Ms. Lucadamo is headed "Mike's marks are riding on the schools." An editorial on the plan appears in today's News. Titled "Mike & Joel take the fifth" (the grade, not the Amendment), the News comments briefly: "To which we say, bravo."

Newsday shows its disdain for the retention program. Ellen Yan's story on page 3, "5th graders up next," tells what the mayor and chancellor are doing in its first four paragraphs. The fifth graf begins, "The news was a blow to parents and educators still reeling from the third-grade retention policy adopted in March" (the story continues in that vein for four columns). In addition, a secondary story by Wil Cruz, placed just under Ms. Yan's, is headlined: "Critics: Numbers don't add up." The headline speaks for the story.
 
The article contains an unusual comment by City Council Education Chair Eva Moskowitz, who represents the Upper East Side and is a candidate for Manhattan Borough President: "Generally, when you have 60 percent of the children who took the test not moving on to the next level, you don't crack open the champagne." This test, however, was not given to all third graders, only to those who failed it in the spring. After the 2004 summer school program, 40 percent of those who failed in May passed in August and were promoted. In 2003, the success rate between May and August was 19 percent. In this situation, a 40 percent pass rate is an accomplishment. The champagne reference may reflect her district, but it does not give credit to the performance of third graders who are now able to do fourth grade work.
 
Both Newsday stories are informed by the reporters' choice of sources to comment on the mayor's plan. If you consult people who are hostile to an idea, you will get criticism; if you go to its friends, you will get praise. In this matter, Newsday's outreach is somewhat skewed. By speaking primarily to critics, the paper gives a misleading impression of public and professional reaction to the plan. Not intentionally, of course.

The Sun makes social promotion its lead story with a two-column headline: "Mayor Vows to End Social Promotion out of Fifth Grade - Bloomberg Broadens his Battle to Require Learning the Basics," by Dina Temple-Raston. The 1036-word story jumps to page 2.

UFT president Randi Weingarten told the Sun, "This is a very smart ending social promotion thrust because our weakest link is our middle schools. If you really create a promotional standard at the fifth grade, before kids get into middle school, what you are doing is really giving the middle schools a running start."

Apparently neither Newsday reporter was able to reach Ms. Weingarten, who is a highly influential figure in local public education. Or perhaps her quote was eliminated by an editor. In either event, the omission shows how selective quotation, or non-quotation, can lead to unbalanced coverage.

I have left the Times story for last because it is most comprehensive. Elisa Gootman's account begins on top of column 1 on page 1. That is prime space, especially for a local story. Although initially skeptical in tone, she works hard to achieve balance, albeit mostly on the jump page, B7, which fewer people will read.

Read the story yourself for background on the issue. The 1160-word article is a professional piece of work, quoting sources with varying opinions. The closer quotes the mayor.
 
When I first looked at the story, I feared that Mayor Bloomberg had invaded Iraq. The mayor's plan is definitely not politically correct in its assumption that effort by students and teachers matters in education. But as I read on, I concluded that Ms. Gootman's effort to achieve fairness and balance (if we can use those words) was successful. And it was a long story to write in a few hours.

Like the Post, Sun and News, she succeeded in finding Ms. Weingarten, who "had mostly kind words for the new policy, saying: 'It seems that the mayor and the chancellor have learned from their mistakes in the way in which the third grade antisocial promotion policy was announced and implemented last year'." Coming from Ms. W, that is modest praise. Note how she describes the mayor's policy: 'antisocial promotion.' She is bright; that's why she is president of the UFT.
 
Eva Moskowitz also appears in the Times story, with a fresh dis of the plan. She "said the extra $20 million the mayor proposed spending on fifth graders would have been better spent on getting younger children on the right track." Was this the last $20 million in the Department of Education's $13 billion budget, thus necessitating the deprivation of services for younger children?  Not likely.
 
The purpose of this review of press coverage of one story has been to show how different descriptions of the same event could lead readers to different conclusions on the merits of the issue. The public's right to know is best implemented when news reports are as objective as they can be, and the selection of sources is balanced. But you knew that.

NOTE: Our forum on municipal corruption is this Monday, September 13, 6:30 p.m. at the Museum of the City of New York, 1220 Fifth Avenue. Call Moby at (212) 564-4441 or e-mail him at moby@nycivic.org to reserve a space.