Deconstructing a Defense

I just read the NY Post's editorial in defense of its publication of the evaluation ratings of New York City School Teachers (link at the bottom).

As well as having an interest in this piece because of its relation to education, I also found it exemplified some of the qualities of written work that sometimes go unnoticed by laymen and laywoman who don't spend all their time writing and editing. I believe breaking it down might shed some light on the choices and possibly punch holes in the intent.

"It's about transparency," starts the editorial which makes me laugh as it is an editorial not attributed to any single author. I'm not so sure I would say that was the paper at its most transparent.

"It's about accountability."

This is the second line of the two-line grabber. The opening is supposed to set the table for the essay to follow as well as intrigue. One of the cheapest ways to intrigue is to write nebulous statements with highly subjective words. Freedom, Justice, Love; all powerful words, all subjective and all definable in myriad ways. You have to read just to see what the writer is talking about.

The editorial goes on to say that doctors face this sort of public scrutiny, as do individual schools, a bit of double dipping in my opinion as we are talking about the teachers in those schools, and restaurants. However, what this indicates to me is that every other profession on Earth is not subject to evaluation through a test followed by published results of the process. So, the case is made that this is a unique effort on the part of the paper focusing on teachers.

"But parents have been kept in the dark for long enough."

Really? That's right, everyone raves about the New York City schools. This is a powerfully dramatic but completely unsubstantiated statement. If you buy the premise, then you get upset and not coincidentally support the point of view of the editorial, but how were parents kept in the dark?

Which brings me back to the issue of accountability. Who was hiding? The test scores are not where people want them. The tests themselves are flawed. I think this was well known. The issue is blame. People want someone to blame. It makes it easier to deal with a situation if there is someone to blame. This is a natural reaction, but it also does nothing to solve the problem.

"The union has fought every effort at genuine education reform — mayoral control, charter schools, closing failed schools, releasing evaluation ratings — because each of those initiatives boiled down to increased transparency and accountability."

This part is particularly problematic. One, it uses the word "every." It is impossible that the union has fought every effort because that would indicate they've exhausted all the possible ideas. I don't believe we have. However, an editorial cannot be wishy-washy.

Furthermore, it claims to know the reason for the union's objections. If not provided by the union, those should be proven, otherwise they are just speculation, which is never concrete.

Look, unions would certainly act to preserve themselves and protect their members, but to say that the teacher's union is doing this at the expense of the children requires hard evidence to back it up. And, solutions do not come from vilifying or alienating one of the key constituencies involved.

"And if some teachers are put on the spot in comparison with other, more effective, teachers — well, too damned bad."

The editorial looks to justify what it did, which makes me wonder if there is some guilt on its collective part. The use of the preceding line tends to make me think that there was. It is such a strong, emotional statement made from a side that claims to have won the battle. It might have been nice, and quite bold, for the paper to say they had mixed feelings about this, but a strong editorial doesn't allow for that.

"Teachers are public employees, paid with tax dollars — and information about them is a matter of public record.

The courts have made that clear."

The extra space is to make it more poetic, more powerful and eat up lines where nothing could be thought to be said. These particular lines also suggest two things. One, because it could be done, it should be done, which is absolute nonsense. Crimes can be committed, but that doesn't mean they should be. And, two, pass the buck. Mentioning the courts is like saying well, Mom said I could. The editorial loses authority deferring to an entity, particularly one that it butts heads with over issues of free speech.

Now how should the editorial end? Something pithy and powerful: Hey, remember how you opened the piece up with two powerful, vague words? Well, let's call back to them now creating symmetry in the prose. But two is a tandem, a series requires at least one more and, just as the punchline follows the joke, the last in the series should be the most powerful statement of all.

So transparency won, accountability won and ...

"So did the kids"

What's more powerful than advocating for children? And who would be against that. But what exactly did the kids win? The newspaper published a list of names accompanied by esoteric statistics, created acrimony in the teachers and hurt a lot of innocent people unnecessarily. So, again, this helps, how?

The editorial requires a lot of work o the reader to fill in the blanks. The content is shaped by the requirements of the editorial form and the content is informed by the actions of the paper already in progress. Editorials always run the risk of being self serving, as do blogs about tutoring, so my problem isn't with their attempt at the defense, but rather what they are defending.

The editorial and my answer are just rhetorical games that I am happy to play but neither solves the problems in the schools.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/see_through_ratings_N1ankCsHn7B9usMwujsCzH#ixzz1nv1dpI8d