Why do the media nearly always frame education issues as the UFT vs. the Mayor; and Ben Chapman's response

One of my particular gripes is how the politics of education in NYC is usually framed by the media in simplistic terms as a battle between the teachers union vs. the mayor, without any reference to the views of parents, advocates or other members of the community.  This is especially true now that we are in the midst of a mayoral race.  If one or more of the candidates take a different position from the mayor on education, this is usually  interpreted as a naked attempt to appeal to the union, with little acknowledgement of the fact that the political crosscurrents are far more complex, and that they may also be responding to the priorities and views of public school parents, community members, or voters in general.

Here is an example from a Daily News article, about one of the mayoral debates: 

There were also moments when it felt like United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew should have had a seat onstage with the other candidates.  The four Democrats all praised the union’s push for smaller class sizes and more education funding.

Yet class size is also the top priority of NYC parents, according to the DOE own surveys, and is even more a potent political issue with them, especially given the mayor’s statements favoring class size increases and the fact that class sizes are now the largest in 14 years. And most New Yorkers support more funding for the public schools, especially after five years of cutbacks.

Another example is a recent article in GothamSchools,  that focused on how a co-located Success Academy charter school had its PCB-laden lights replaced, whereas students and teachers at the public schools in the building have to endure the dangers of pre-existing toxic lights.  IF there is one issue that NYC public school parents are most furious about, its co-locations and the perception that charters are given special privileges while squeezing public students out of the space they need to receive a quality education.  Yet the article ends with the implication that if mayoral candidates oppose this practice, it is only to please the UFT:

“Each of the Democratic candidates has been angling for months to please the UFT, which will endorse a candidate this summer before the party primary. Union officials said the process to choose a candidate would begin soon after the union’s internal elections are complete at the end of this month.”

The fact remains that many candidates may take aggressive positions on class size, education funding, co-locations, school closings or other hot-button education issues for reasons other than simply to woo the UFT, especially  given that only 22 percent of the public trust the mayor’s current policies on education.

I asked Ben Chapman of the Daily News, a very accessible reporter whom I respect, the following question a few weeks back: Why are the education issues defined by the media in general as driven almost entirely by the UFT? 

Below is Ben’s response; please add your thoughts in the comment section.  Does this practice annoy you as much as it does me?  And what do you think of Ben's explanation?

____________ 

First of all, I think your underlying assumption in this question – that education issues are “defined in the media in general as driven almost entirely by the UFT” – is a bit of an overstatement. I write at least one education story a day, on average, and I haven’t written a UFT story in a week or so, at least.

A quick check shows the last article I wrote mentioning the UFT was about their charter school getting a reprieve from closure on Feb 27. Since then I’ve written about a number of topics including: safety agents, hazing, STEM, etc. But no teachers union.

However, I won’t dispute your point that the union wields a lot of clout in our dialog about the city schools. Maybe even too much clout. I don’t know. I do have some guesses as to why they are a major player– and my observations are probably not news to you or anyone else.

For one thing, I think the public conversation on education in the city often falls back on city vs. union in part because both of those parties continually take shots at the other. They often blame each other for failures in the system. And outsiders (politicians, “experts,” etc.) often blame either the union or the city for the problems in the system, too.

It’s a facile narrative that people are drawn to for obvious reasons. First of all, it’s an easy, two-warring-parties way to view the complex story of public education. Also, people are drawn to labor vs. management stories in all kinds of contexts.  

But I think people also concentrate on the union vs. the city because they are both powerful forces in our public schools. The city cuts the check and sets the policies. The teachers union represents the boots on the ground. At least that’s what it’s supposed to do. And not take anything away from principals, but teachers are probably the most significant adults in the public schools.

It’s much harder to grasp the significance of the social, economic and other factors at work in our public schools. Obviously parents are a huge factor. But what about the character of the larger communities that the kids inhabit? That’s huge too. And what about money? That’s a huge factor too. What about technology? Lots of kids don’t have computers or smart phones. That plays into it as well. And so many kids in our diverse city come from different cultures, which also has a huge influence.

To sum it up, anyone who pays attention to the public schools can see that they’re some of the most complex, compelling and important things that we can ever hope to encounter. As a reporter I try to do them justice. I’m sorry if folks feel that our coverage is too simplistic, but I am doing my best. 

 One way to improve the coverage of the public schools is to contact us reporters. My email is bchapman@nydailynews.com and my phone number is (212) 210-6365. I always want to hear from as many stakeholders in the schools as possible and I can be trusted completely to maintain the anonymity of whistleblowers.

One of the best things about the free press is that we all have a hand in it. So if you don’t like what you read, drop me a line. --Thanks! Ben