cahsee coverage

7/22/2019 CAHSEE Coverage

1/28

CAHSEE News Coverage 1

Running head: NEWS COVERAGE OF HIGH STAKES TESTING

What Does the News Write About High Stakes Testing?: Finding Patterns of Education

Coverage in the California High School Exit Exam Controversy

T. Russell Hanes

Portland State University

T. Russell Hanes was a graduate student at the Department of Communication, Portland State

University. He is now studying at Lewis and Clark College. This research was conducted for hismasters thesis. He would like to acknowledge David Ritchie, Cynthia Coleman, Karen

Marrongelle, Brian Greer, and Erin Hanes for their comments and advice, and Kasi Fuller for herencouragement.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to T. Russell Hanes, 3537 SEMain St., Portland, OR 97214. Email: [email protected]. Phone: 503-525-5772


2/28


Abstract

The controversy over Californias exit exam is a useful case study for understanding how news

media may cover high stakes testing issues. This study extensively reviews literature on news

coverage of other education issues: an anti-evolution bill, bilingual education, vouchers, racial

achievement gaps, and school board politics. Drawing upon two theories of mass media effects,

agenda setting and framing, this study analyzes California coverage from April 1999 to March

2006 to determine what images newspapers conveyed to readers. The results indicate that readers

received images of failing schools in crisis and none of teaching/learning, reinforcing ambivalent

attitudes toward public education.


3/28


Introduction

High stakes testing is a controversial reform, and the student outcomes on these tests

have more potential to shape attitudes toward public education than any other issue today. Public

reactions to these outcomes are likely mediated by the particular biases of news coverage.

Californias recent controversy over the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) is a

useful case study for investigating the role news media play; what happened in California may be

a bellwether for other such programs across the country. An exit exama test required for high

school graduationis becoming increasingly common: at least 27 states have or will soon

require exit exams (Johnson, Thurlow, Cosio, & Bremer, 2005). These exit exams can cover

basic or advanced skills; for example, the CAHSEE is a test combining basic reading

comprehension with advanced mathematical skills, including algebra.

California has a long history of seesawing battles over reform, especially mathematics-

related reforms (Becker & Jacob, 2000; Wilson, 2003), and the CAHSEE adds another chapter to

this saga. The first CAHSEE was administered in March 2001, with some experts involved in the

development concerned that the mathematics section was not rigorous enough (Sandham, 2000).

However, only one quarter of Latino/a and African American students passed the test on this first

trial (Manzo, 2001). Special education students were required to pass the CAHSEE, against

which a federal judge issued an injunction in 2002 (Jacobson, 2005). Because of concerns for

minorities, ESL students, and special education students, the State Board of Education (SBE)

delayed the CAHSEE as a graduation requirement until the Class of 2006 (Sack, 2003). This

maneuver allowed the state time to appeal the federal injunction, and eventually, the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals found in the states favor and lifted the injunction (Galley, 2004).

Dissatisfied state legislators proposed various bills addressing shortcomings of the test or


4/28


offering alternative assessments, but Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed almost every one

of them (Coleman, 2005). California therefore denied 42,000 students high school diplomas this

June because of their failure on the CAHSEE (Dang, 2006).

Research Questions

These student outcomes on the CAHSEE might positively or negatively affect opinions

about California public education. Widespread failure on exit exams might indicate to

Californians that they have either a rigorous education system with high standards or a weak

system that hurts students. No model exists for predicting such public reactions, as [p]olicies

designed to reform education come by the cartload, but assessments of their impact on the

publics confidence in education are rarely made (Loveless, 1997, p. 155). In the abstract,

high stakes testing seems popular. A September 2005 Phi Delta Kappa / Gallup national poll

showed equivocal support: a majority (57%) supported current levels of testingbut a majority

(68%) also believed one test was not a fair measure (Rose & Gallup, 2005). Given this equivocal

attitude, public reactions to the CAHSEE are quite susceptible to media effects (Price, 1992).

Agenda setting and framing are two theories for understanding possible media effects.

This section and the next review content analyses of education coverage, which have

begun appearing only within the last decade. Since only a few are studies of U.S. education

coverage, the observations from non-U.S. coverage are drawn upon to formulate research

questions and hypotheses about CAHSEE coverage. (The context of coverage [location and

education issue] is noted for each analysis.) When generalizing the characteristics of news

coverage and the media effects this might have on public opinions, it is important to avoid the

state-of-consciousness fallacy; there is not one unitary public or a single, simple public opinion

(Milburn, 1991, p. 14).


5/28


Agenda Setting

Agenda setting theory posits that repetition of an issue makes it more salient, that is,

repetition helps audiences more readily recall the issue. In other words, the news agendasets the

public agendas through repetition (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). Education issues do not rank high

on the news agenda. Even coverage of children infrequently mentions education: only 34% of

articles about youths in the major California newspapers were about K-12 school or college

(McManus & Dorfman, 2001). However, as researchers have noted (Baker, 1994; Ogle &

Dobbs, 1998), tests receive a more generous (though still modest) amount of news coverage.

Bracey (1994) argued that U.S. coverage ignores rising test scoresonly falling scores

make the news agenda. Other researchers have also found that when news coverage does

mention education, it is usually critical. Maeroff (2000) noted that news coverage of violence in

U.S. public schools increased even as actual incidents decreased. Pride (1995, 2002) found that

critical events (or crises), rather than performance trends, dominated Tennessee coverage of

public schools. These repetitive, critical messages could convince people that the education

system is indeed failing. On a differing note, Doyle (1998) believed that K-12 education

coverage was unduly positive because schools hid poor results. Chance (1993) found that

coverage of California higher education was positive, but higher education may have an aura

effect that exempts it from the worst criticism (p. 12). This leads to the first research question.

Research Question 1: Did the CAHSEE make the news agenda only in response to

critical events?

Framing

Framing is a theory describing how news coverage can subtly shape audience perceptions

of a news event. At its simplest level, framing theory posits that catchphrases and ideas within an


6/28


article contextualize an event for a reader by cueing the reader to a whole set of assumptions,

beliefs, cultural myths, or ideologies external to the event (Goffman, 1974). For example, a news

article about gay marriage might contextualize it with references to the ideology of equal rights

or references to religious beliefs. These extra-textual issues are known aspackages, and the

central idea of each is aframe. A frame is therefore like a lens to help the reader see the

significance of a story, the broader socio-political issue beyond the specific news event (Gamson

& Modigliani, 1989). Of course, the readers might reject these packages as irrelevant, but by

narrowing the context given to the reader to make sense of a story, framing entails a sort of

ideological massaging of information (Coleman, 1996, p. 181). By the exclusion of alternate

frames, a reporter implies these are not correct ways to interpret the story; on the other hand, a

reporter could instead choose give the reader multiple frames within a single article and treat the

event as multidimensional.

Framing can have powerful effects on public opinions. Kinder and Sanders (1990) found

that news frames had large effects on public opinions about affirmative action. The effectiveness

of a frame derives from its cultural resonance with pre-existing attitudes, shaping rather than

dictating attitudes by: (1) emphasizing what is important about an issue, (2) portraying some

groups as causes of a problem and other groups as having solutions to it, (3) limiting the

language used to describe an issue, and (4) appealing to certain cultural values (Hertog &

McLeod, 2001). In news coverage of education issues, the most common cultural values

appealed to in a story may not be related to the process of teaching and learning. For example,

Farkas (1997) noted that curriculum is ignored in U.S. coverage (as cited in Wadsworth, 1998).

Appeals to other non-pedagogical, non-curricular values might have appeared in CAHSEE

coverage.


7/28


Research Question 2: How did news coverage frame the CAHSEE?

Source quotations are an essential part of framing a story. The open question for media

researchers is who controls whom: one group of media researchers argues that a journalist picks

sources to fit in the journalists framing (e.g. Ryan, 2001), while a second group of researchers

avers that the actors involved with an issue (that is, the sources) manipulate the news framing of

an issue by giving their ready-made frames to the journalists (e.g. Haffey, 2002). For example, in

her content analysis of an anti-evolution controversy in Tennessee schools, McCune (2003)

found that one side framed teaching evolution as a violation of a teachers First Amendment

rights while the other side framed evolution as necessary knowledge for biotech workers, with

each side vying to have its framing picked up by the news media. Similarly, Jeffs (1999)

observed that British news coverage of education tended toward repackaged handouts and

disguised advertising (p. 167). It is difficult to determine whether sources frame the issue for

journalists or journalists select sources based on their framings because a discussion of the

specific processes via which education news is structured remains minimal (Warmington &

Murphy, 2004, p. 287), leading to the third research question.

Research Question 3: Were sources or journalists most responsible for framing CAHSEE

coverage?

Hypotheses

The content analyses of specific education coverage suggest specific hypotheses that can

be drawn forResearch Questions 2 and 3. Four frames appeared repeatedly in many different

contexts (in Australian, British, Canadian, and U.S. coverage of various education issues):

leadership, standards, utility, and equity. Of course, additional frames appeared in coverage

specific to each issue, but these four frames commonly appeared across nearly every issue. It is


8/28


hypothesized that these four frames as developed below, and the patterns of source quotations

described for each frame, appeared in CAHSEE coverage.

Leadership. In the leadership frame, reporters examine what political leaders are or

should do about problems facing the education system. Education events are contextualized as

political or policy issues. As Levin (2004) editorialized about Canadian coverage: In education,

the connection to public policy is particularly strong because of a tendency to believe that all

social problems can be corrected through the schools (p. 275). For this frame, political leaders

(both government and opposition), activists, and bureaucrats are frequently quoted as sources.

Researchers found two tendencies in articles using the leadership frame.

First, news coverage focused on the implementation side of leadership, rather than on the

creation of policy. Gerstl-Pepin (2002) noted that coverage of education policies during the 2000

U.S. presidential election hid an assumption that political will was more relevant than good

policies. Second, leadership-framed coverage focused on the system and its efficiency, rather

than individual schools or students, teachers, or learning; for example, Pride (1995, 2002) noted

that a repeated news criticism of the Nashville, Tennessee public schools was the inefficiency of

the system. This kind of news coverage often proposed centralization as an effective response to

systemic problems: Blackmore and Thorpe (2003) described the Australian presss favoritism for

upward (line management) accountability of schools to the central government (p. 582).

Standards. Most content analysts of education coverage found that events were framed

through a traditionalist, back-to-basics lens. The central idea of this frame is that traditional

standards of education need to be re-instated to restore the legitimacy of schooling. This

traditionalism was frequently combined with anti-progressivism, and Wallace (1993) noted the

commonly reported British cultural myth that progressive education was to blame for mediocre


9/28


standards (p. 327). Researchers have discovered two interesting patterns in news coverage using

the standards frame.

First, news coverage using the standards frame tended to welcome the mechanism of

standardized testing as a way to re-instate standards. Thomas (2003) noted that Australian

editorials consistently linked external examinations to improved literacy and numeracy for

students. On the other hand, Warmington and Murphy (2004) found the British press was so

skeptical of rising test scores that better scores were blamed on newer and supposedly easier

exam subjects. High stakes testing may be necessary to enforce standards, but journalists seem to

believe that testing is a zero-sum gamerising scores are not a sign of improvementwhich

may explain why only falling scores appear on the news agenda. Second, standards-framed

coverage seemed conducive to pro-parent, anti-teacher attitudes. Thomas (1999, 2002, 2003)

found that Australian coverage denigrated teachers expertise, ignoring them as sources, while

promoting typical parents visions of education as common-sense; Pettigrew (1997) noted the

same pattern in British coverage. Galindos (2004) study of California coverage of bilingual

education certainly showed strong pro-traditionalism, anti-progressivism in U.S. coverage. These

two patterns of pro-test and pro-parent might have appeared in CAHSEE coverage.

Utility. Education events can be framed as economic issues. The argument is that students

need an education to get good jobs or that the economy needs the education system to produce

well-trained workers. As such, this is the one frame, of the four common frames in this section,

to suggest what purpose education might serve. This argument has deep historical roots in the

U.S., from the common-schools movement in the 1830s (Rury, 2005). Appearing recently,

McCune (2003) found this utility frame in news coverage of an anti-evolution bill in Tennessee:


10/28


the bill would hurt the states development efforts by making it look foolish (p. 15); and it

would make students ill-prepared for higher education and high-tech jobs (p. 22).

Researchers noted two tendencies in coverage using the utility frame. First, science and

mathematics were in particular portrayed as key purposes of education; that is, journalists

suggested public education existed to provide scientific progress. Lingard and Rawolle (2004)

found that the Australian government increased funding to local schoolsbut only as part of a

science policy initiativeand the news media touted the knowledge economy as a rationale for

this and other education policies. Second, business leaders were cited as education experts in

utility-framed coverage. Berliner and Biddle (1995) found that U.S. business leaders were quoted

frequently and warmly, especially about the need for more high-tech workers.

Equity. Coverage using the equity frame suggested that schools or tests might be biased

against minorities, ESL students, or low socio-economic status children. As such, this is the only

frame in opposition to high stakes testing. Clark (2003) noted that racial bias and socio-economic

differences were competing explanations for inequality in student opportunities and outcomes in

Michigan coverage of school vouchers. Other researchers found one or the other explanation

favored in specific coverages. For example, in his Mobile, Alabama sample, Pride (1999) found

that 30% of education stories mentioned race, while only 18% of crime stories did. Thompson

(2002) found that school board politics in Dallas, Texas were racialized in both mainstream and

minority newspapers. On the other hand, Galindo (2004) found strong rhetoric for the socio-

economic explanation of inequalities. In California news coverage of bilingual education, some

reporters averred that bilingual programs doomed students to a linguistic ghetto and second-

class status (p. 242).


11/28


Even in equity-framed coverage, minority sources may be ignored. Fleming-Rife and

Proffitt (2004) characterized news coverage ofBrown v. Board of Educationby the absence or

misrepresentation of minority voices (p. 244)of course, this was 1950s coverage. Recently,

however, the techniques used to suppress minority viewpoints have become more sophisticated.

Haniford (2003) found that Ann Arbor, Michigan coverage of the student achievement gap was

characterized by the use of racially loaded language by both sides, which had the upshot of

marginalizing minorities viewpoints.

Method

Given the relative novelty of content analysis of education coverage, no methods have

emerged as preferred. Some researchers have used qualitative techniques (Thomas, 1999, 2002,

2003), while others have used quantitative techniques (Pride, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2002). In his

seminal text of content analysis, Krippendorff (2004) noted that with quantitative techniques, the

ability to process large volumes of text in content analysis is paid for by the explicitness of the

methods procedures (p. 42). Even though quantitative methods are not subtle or sensitive,

given the volume of texts in California coverage, quantitative methods are sensible for coding

the frames and sources hypothesized a priori.

Sample

This study analyzed coverage from five of the six largest newspapers in California: the

Los Angeles Times(with an approximate weekday circulation of 800,000), the San Francisco

Chronicle(500,000), the San Diego Union-Tribune(400,000), the Sacramento Bee(300,000),

and the San Jose Mercury-News(250,000). (The Orange County Register, with a 300,000-

weekday circulation, was unavailable due to publisher restrictions.) Newspapers were selected as

the exclusive medium for study because they have provided the best coverage in past education


12/28


controversies (Watson, 1998). Furthermore, newspapers are the most important news media,

because they help shape the scope of understanding and subsequent discussions (Galindo,

2004, p. 229). Small newspapers were excluded from study for this same follow-the-leader

reason.

In this study, whole news articles were the units of analysis. The population of articles

from these five sources was downloaded from Lexis-Nexis for the 84 month period from 1 April

1999 (when Governor Gray Davis signed the law calling for the creation of the CAHSEE) to 31

March 2006 (ten days past the last test date for the class of 2006), using the search term exit

exam within the Headline, Lead Paragraph, and Terms option and high school and math!

within the Full Text option. The initial search generated a population of 231 articles, of which

110 were discarded either because they were not about the CAHSEE or because they were not

feature news articles. As Van Dijk (1991) noted, editorials and feature new articles have different

structures; feature news articles are the primary users of framing. Opinion-editorials, letters-to-

the-editor, and news summaries were therefore ignored. This left a remaining sample of 121

feature news articles that were coded.

Coding

Each article was numbered by its retrieval order and then coded for basic publication data

(e.g. author(s) [which could be Staff or Newswire], newspaper, date of publication, length in

words, and initial placement in the newspaper by section). Each article was coded for frames.

Frames were coded in order of appearance, but a repetition of a frame was coded only the first

time. The four hypothesized framesleadership, standards, utility, and equitywere coded as

present or not present. The direct quotations used were coded by sourcestudents, teachers,

parents, local administrators, state bureaucrats, education researchers, interest groups, business


13/28


people, politiciansas present or not presentfor each frame. Indirect quotations, un-attributed

quotations, or quotations that did not evoke one of the four frames were not coded.

Two coders were used to speed the coding process. Both coders used the same coding

sheet and scheme, but the coders worked independently. Intercoder reliability was measured

using Krippendorffs alpha (!). To establish reliability data at the .05 significance level, a

minimum sample size of 52 articles needs to be coded by both coders (Krippendorff, 2004, p.

240). These articles were chosen randomly and mixed into each coders sample. An initial trial

revealed that the coding scheme was robust for the standards, utility, and equity frames.

Intercoder reliability had a Krippendorffs != .90. The coding scheme for leadership frame was

reworked to increase its reliability, bringing it up to a Krippendorffs != .80.

Results

Research Question 1

The results indicate that at only a few times during the seven-year period did the

CAHSEE appear in the news agenda. The amount of coverage is demonstrated by the summed

word counts (across all the articles published per quarter). The prominence of this coverage is

demonstrated by the number of section A articles (across all coverage per quarter), as these

articles are more prominent than those relegated to the local or other interior sections.

As shown by Figure 1, major spikes in both the word count and placement of articles

occurred in autumn (October-December) 2002, summer (July-September) 2005, and winter

(January-March) 2006. At these periods of time, the CAHSEE was an important item on the

news agenda. These spikes correspond to critical events for to the CAHSEE. In the autumn of

2002, when the State Board of Education (SBE) released the first test results, seven section A

articles were published, and a total of 9,947 words were written about the CAHSEE. In the


14/28


summer of 2005, when the first class required to pass the test was about to enter school, another

seven section A articles were published, and 15,867 words were published in total. Coverage

spiked again in the winter of 2006, when the class of 2006 headed to the last test date before

graduation: eleven section A articles and 30,986 words were published about the test.

Figure 1: Word counts and articles

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Words(in

thousands)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Articles

Summed word counts

Section A articles

Note. Both results were calculated by summing quarterly totals (winter: January-March; spring: April-June; summer:

July-September; and autumn: October-December) across newspapers.

There were three smaller spikes of coverage: spring (April-June) 2001, when the first

lawsuit was filed against the CAHSEE; winter (January-March) 2002, when a federal judge

issued an injunction against testing; and summer (July-September) 2003, when the SBE delayed

the CAHSEE as a graduation requirement. During each of these periods, four section A articles

but less than 5,000 words of coverage were published. These periods represent major turning

points in CAHSEE policy but did not receive the same level of attention as student outcomes.


15/28


Research Question 2

Of the whole sample, 113 articles (93%) used at least one frame. Two-frame, three-

frame, and four-frame combinations appeared in 83 articles (69%). The results show that the

leadership frame was the dominant way to contextualize the CAHSEE, appearing in 92 articles

(76%). It was the most common initial frame, appearing first in 56 articles (46%), and of the 30

articles using only one frame, more than half (53%) used only the leadership frame. Leadership

was also the most frequently combined frame. Of all 47 articles using two-frame combinations,

the most frequent hybrids were leadership-equity (47%) and leadership-standards (30%). Of all

21 articles using three-frame combinations, the most common hybrid was leadership-standards-

equity (62%).

Equity was the second-most common frame, appearing in 65 articles (54%) and as the

initial frame in 27 articles (22%). Standards appeared in 55 articles (45%) and was more

frequently used as a supporting frame, appearing as the initial frame in only 19 articles (16%).

Standards usually supported the leadership frame: in 46 of its 55 appearances (84%), the article

also used the leadership frame. Utility appeared in 35 articles (29%), usually as a supporting

frame, appearing initially in only 11 articles (9%). No alternate frames appeared in coverage.

Table 1 shows how framing differed from newspaper to newspaper. The mean frames per

article varies widely, from theLos Angeles Timeshigh of 3.2 to the San Diego Union-Tribune

low of 1.6. With a few exceptions, frames were used with similar frequencies across newspapers.

(The San Jose Mercury-News, with a sample of only four articles, is misleading.) The few

exceptions include: first, the San Francisco Chronicleused the utility frame in one-fifth (19%)

of its coverage, somewhat below the average, while theLos Angeles Timesreversed the ratio and

used the utility frame in four-fifths (78%) of its coverage; and second, the use of the equity frame


16/28


varied widely from a low of 25% in the San Jose Mercury-Newsto a notable high of 100% for

theLos Angeles Times.

Table 1: Frame Usage by NewspaperFrame Usage by Newspaper

Articles using frame

Framesa

Leader.b

Standardsc

Utilityc

Equityc

Los Angeles Times 3.2 89% 56% 78% 100%

San Francisco Chronicle 2.3 81% 47% 19% 78%

San Diego Union-Tribune 1.6 66% 38% 24% 28%

Sacramento Bee 2.0 79% 43% 28% 47%

San Jose Mercury-News 2.3 50% 100% 50% 25%Averages for whole sample 2.1 76% 45% 29% 54%

aMean number of frames per article. bLeadership frame coding has a reliability of Krippendorffs != .80, with

significance at the .05 level. cStandards, utility, and equity frame codings each have Krippendorffs != .90, withsignificance at the .05 level.

Research Question 3

The results in Table 2 show a skew in sources used. Of the total quotations used, state

bureaucrats came in first (25%), followed by interest groups (21%), local administrators (16%),

and politicians (10%). Teachers, parents, and business people were tied in last (4%).

Sources were used with differing rates for each frame. State bureaucrats were the sources

for 41% of standards frame quotations and 32% of utility frame quotations, but for only 4% of

equity frame quotations. Local administrators show a similar skew, used for 26% of leadership

frame quotations but only 6% of equity frame quotations. Interest groups, including lawyers who

were suing California over the unfairness of the exit exam (such as Disability Rights Advocates),

were the sources for 43% of equity frame quotations. Other results were unexpected. Students

were used as 15% of the sources quoted for the utility frame and as 15% for the equity frame.


17/28


Parents were used as 0% of the sources quoted for the standards frame. Business people were

used as sources for only 6% of utility frame quotations.

Table 2: Percentage of Articles Using Sources for Each FramePercentage of Articles Using Sources for Each Frame

Percent of total

quotations (n= 181)

Sources used for each frame

Source Leader. Standards Utility Equity

State bureaucrats 25% 24% 41% 32% 4%

Interest groups 21% 15% 9% 18% 43%

Local administrators 16% 26% 17% 12% 6%

Politicians 10% 19% 11% 0% 9%

Education researchers 8% 11% 4% 9% 9%Students 8% 0% 4% 15% 15%

Business leaders 4% 2% 9% 6% 0%

Parents 4% 2% 0% 6% 9%

Teachers 4% 2% 4% 3% 6%

Notes. Not every frame in an article used a source quotation. Not every source quotation was coded, since it was not

necessarily a framing device. Each column would sum to 100% but for rounding.

Discussion

Many researchers have found that parents have paradoxical attitudes toward public

education: they believe their own childs school is excellent, but also believe the system is in

disrepair (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Hochschild & Scott, 1998; Kaplan, 1992; Wallace, 1993).

Loveless (1997) explained one possible cause of parents conflicted opinions:

Those who favorably regard their local schools detect an academic emphasis that they

find attractive. Educational maladies that the public detects, on the other hand, aregeneral rather than specific, disconnected from teaching and learning, and blamed on

schools in the aggregate rather than on any school in particular. (p. 154)

The results of this study shed light on whether news coverage is partially responsible for

perpetuating this image of systemic failure. If only failures capture the news agenda, and if


18/28


frames create the perception that these failures are typical, then coverage could have seriously

negative effects on public opinions.

Agenda Setting

The results in Figure 1 show quite clearly that the CAHSEE only appeared the news

agenda for limited periods of time because of specific critical events. As Price (1992) noted, a

focus on specific events may decrease engagement by turning readers from actors to spectators.

Despite several crises, the CAHSEE did not make the top of the news agenda for education. A

quick Lexis-Nexis search of the same newspapers for the same seven-year period (Table 3)

shows that, compared to other education-related issues, the CAHSEE garnered only modest

coverage.

Table 3: Newspaper Coverage of High School Issues

Newspaper Coverage of High School Issues

Issuea

Articlesb

Teacher pay 6

Class size 64

Discipline 79

Exit exam & math! 231c

Violence 380

Funding 576

Drugs 650

Money 865

aSearch included high school and the issue term(s) in the Headline, Lead Paragraph, or Terms option.

bIncludes

feature news articles, news summaries, opinion-editorials, and letters-to-the-editor in the same five sample

newspapers from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2006.c

The population of the search done for this study, not the samplecoded.

Although not as under-covered as teacher pay or class size, the CAHSEE received much

less coverage than violence, drugs, or money. Reviewing trends of opinion about public schools,

Hochschild and Scott (1998) argue that [t]hree issues dominate throughout the 30 years in


19/28


which this question [about criticisms of public schools] has been asked [of Americans]drugs,

discipline, and money (p. 82). This appeared to hold true for the CAHSEE. Even such an

important reform ranked below drugs and violence in the news agenda for education. The focus

on drugs and violence would bolster a belief in systemic school breakdown.

Framing

The hypotheses section developed four frames, which adequately described CAHSEE

coverage. These four frames provide a solid framework to begin the content analysis of news

coverage of any education issue. The strength of the a priori scheme reveals that cultural myths

are an important cause of framing. However, the framing in CAHSEE coverage did differ in

some key ways from the framings of coverage of other education issues described in the

background sections. It seems plausible that the sources close to the CAHSEE were responsible

for re-shaping these cultural myths and that the journalists followed their framings, but without

detailed interviews of journalists this is merely speculative.

Leadership. The leadership frame in CAHSEE coverage was similar to the hypothesized

model. CASHEE coverage showed a focus on policy implementationdetails about money and

other resources, and the time lag in preparing studentsrather than on evaluating whether the

exit exam was good policy. There was also focus on the system and its efficiency, such that

failing students were referred to by the term achievement gap. This was a way for journalists

to avoid the equity frame. There was heavy emphasis on politics and defending the test against

lawsuits because the CAHSEE was the cornerstone of school accountability. Politicians were

often quoted as sources in the leadership frame, though far less frequently than the bureaucrats.

The leadership frame was a default way to contextualize the CAHSEE; as reporters began to

move away from government sources, the leadership frame was less relevant.


20/28


Standards. The standards frame in CAHSEE coverage differed in surprising ways from

the hypothesized model. For example, the back to basics and return to tradition catchphrases

never appeared in CAHSEE coverage; instead, the language of skills was preferred. There was

no real attack against progressive teaching methods, and only a mild attack against teachers.

Perhaps the history of politics of public education in California, with many past controversies,

has left Californians weary of the progressive-vs.-traditionalist education fight. In its place, the

only notable debate was over whether alternatives to the test should be considered, whether a

one-size-fits-all test was an inappropriate measure, as interest groups such as lawyers said. Here,

CAHSEE coverage did follow the pattern of other education coverage: it was assumed that

alternative measures would dilute the diploma. As expected, teachers were not quoted, but

unexpectedly, parents were not either. Generally, although standards-framed CAHSEE coverage

was pro-test, it was much less fervently so than hypothesized. Even more surprising, the

standards frame was not nearly as common as anticipated. Rather, it served as a supporting frame

for the leadership frame.

Utility. The utility frame in CAHSEE coverage differed in perhaps the most surprising

ways from hypothesized predictions. First, business people were virtually ignored, providing

only 6% of utility frame quotations, while studentsespecially poor studentsprovided 15% of

utility frame quotations. Second, the argument that the economy needed schools to produce

skilled workers was never raised. Instead, reporters argued that students needed skills to survive

in the high-tech economy. Skills served as the rhetorical link between the standards and utility

frames: basic skills (standards) elided into high-tech skills (utility). The focus was on students

economic interests, thus metaphors of education as a ticket and students without education as

second-class. Only one article explained any practical use for algebra at all (its necessity in


21/28


plumbing or wiring a building). The clear but unstated economic utility implied by CAHSEE

coverage was that algebra was necessary for acceptance at college.

Equity. The equity frame appeared far more frequently in CAHSEE coverage than

expected. This was the second-most important frame, by total use and initial use. The equity

frame was most frequently elaborated as a full argument. Many of the articles that used the

equity frame quoted lawyers or other interest groups metaphor of a two-tier public education

system. A few articles referred to these students as forgotten and said that the denial of diplomas

was an insult or even a slap in the face. Although the equity frame frequently mentioned the race

of failing students, the focus was purely socio-economic. A key catchphrase used was

opportunity to learn: students needed to be taught the material on the test (echoing back to

standards). Unlike other education coverage described in the background sections, minorities

were not kept voiceless in CAHSEE coverage, since poor students were quoted frequently

(although usually in the context of the utility frame); at worst, lawyers spoke for them.

Conclusions

The overall impression from CAHSEE coverage was a picture of schools failing students

(equity), of resource shortages and legal controversies (leadership), and of low academic rigor

(standards). Publics received no images of the act of teaching/learning itself. Articles ignored

what was actually happening inside classrooms and sidestepped whether standardized testing

was purposeful. This is a clear example of how the inclusion of multiple frames need not be

multiperspectival (Treyens, 1997). As Galindo (2004) noted in his analysis of California news

coverage of the bilingual education debate, no one ever thought to ask, What does the nation

value in a public education? (p. 240). The primary concern for education researchers is why

the news media pay so little attention to the important pedagogical implications of education


22/28


issues. Perhaps the lack of a pedagogy framenot only in CAHSEE coverage, but also in

coverage of other education issuesis one root cause of general anxieties about public

education. The focus on critical events only compounds the perception that schools are failing.

If the high prevalence of the equity frame in CAHSEE coverage is replicated in other

states coverage of exit exam student outcomes, then the controversy surrounding high stakes

testing may be at least revealing long hidden inequalities in the public education system.

Coverage of drugs and violence can be framed as character problems, but when thousands of

poor students cannot meet basic requirements, it is impossible to write this off as individual

character flaws. If this is true, then exit exams may prove a double-edged sword for politicians:

high stakes testing seems an easy reform, but it may lead to trouble. At the moment, publics

seem to tentatively support high stakes testing programs, in spite of also knowing that one test is

not an accurate measure of a student; publics can hold these two conflicting opinions because

they believe that all students can rise to meet the standards and pass the test (Rose & Gallup,

2005). This attitude may change when tens of thousands of students fail to graduate. Exit exams

may prove the undoing of the accountability movement, since they are guaranteed to produce

crises that will eventually make the news agenda.


23/28


References

Baker, M. (1994). Media coverage of education.British Journal of Education, 42(3), 286-297.

Becker, J.P., & Jacob, B. (2000). The politics of California school mathematics: The anti-reform

of 1997-99.Phi Delta Kappan, 81(7), 529-537.

Berliner, D.C., & Biddle, B.J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on

Americas public schools. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Blackmore, J., & Thorpe, S. (2003). Media/ting change: The print medias role in mediating

education policy in a period of radical reform in Victoria, Australia.Journal of Education

Policy,18(6), 577-595.

Bracey, G.W. (1994). The medias myth of school failure. Educational Leadership, 52(1), 80-83.

Chance, W. (1993). The press and higher education reform: A report.Santa Clara, CA: The

California Higher Education Policy Center.

Clark, M.D. (2003). The role of journalists in framing newspaper articles and editorials on school

vouchers in Detroit (Michigan) (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(12), 4602.

Coleman, C.L. (1996). A war of words: How news frames define legitimacy in a native conflict.

In S.E. Bird (Ed.),Dressing in feathers: The construction of the Indian in American

popular culture (pp. 181-193). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Coleman, J. (2005, October 7). Schwarzenegger vetoes bills to alter high school exit exam.

Associated Press. Retrieved on January 5, 2006 from Lexis-Nexis database.

Dang, S. (2006, May 24). State Supreme Court reinstates exit exam for 06. Contra Costa Times.

Retrieved June 11, 2006 from Newspaper Source database.

Doyle, D.P. (1998). Education and the press: Ignorance is bliss. In G.I. Maeroff (Ed.),Imaging


24/28


education: The media and schools in America(pp. 46-56). New York: Teachers College

Press.

Farkas, S. (1997). Good news, bad news. New York: Public Agenda.

Fleming-Rife, A., & Proffitt, J. (2004). The more public school reform changes, the more it stays

the same: A framing analysis of the newspaper coverage of Brown v. Board of Education.

The Journal of Negro Education, 73(3), 239-254.

Galindo, R. (2004). Newspaper editorial response to Californias post-Proposition 227 test

scores.Journal of Latinos and Education, 3(4), 227-250.

Galley, M. (2004). Disability rights group makes mark on state exams.Education Week, 23(29).

Retrieved on January 5, 2006 from ERIC database.

Gamson, W.A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power:

A constructionist approach.American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.

Gerstl-Pepin, C. (2002). Media (mis)representations of education in the 2000 presidential

election.Educational Policy, 16(1), 37-55.

Goffman, E. (1974).Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York:

Harper & Row.

Haffey, D.B. (2002). Tax-supported school vouchers: A framing analysis of Ohio education

reform (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University).Dissertation Abstracts

International, 63(4), 1172.

Haniford, L. (2003, April). The making of a crisis: Achievement gap politics in one school

district. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Chicago, IL.

Hertog, J.K., & McLeod, D.M. (2001). A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A field


25/28


guide. In S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy, Jr., & A.E. Grant (Eds.),Framing public life:

Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world(pp. 139-161).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hochschild, J., & Scott, B. (1998). Trends: Governance and reform of public education in the

United States.Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(1), 97-120.

Jacobson, L. (2005). California special education students could get exam break.Education

Week, 25(2). Retrieved on January 5, 2006 from ERIC database.

Jeffs, T. (1999). Are you paying attention?: Education and the media. In B. Franklin (Ed.), Social

policy, the media and misrepresentation(pp. 157-173). London: Routledge.

Johnson, D.R., Thurlow, M., Cosio, A., & Bremer, C.D. (2005). High school graduation

requirements and students with disabilities.Developments in Secondary Education and

Transition Information Brief, 4(2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Kaplan, G.R. (1992).Images of education: The mass medias version of Americas schools.

Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Kinder, D.R., & Sanders, L.M. (1990). Mimicking political debates with survey questions: The

case of white opinion on affirmative action. Social Cognition, 8(1), 73-103.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Levin, B. (2004). Media-government relations in education.Journal of Education Policy, 19(3),

271-283.

Lingard, B., & Rawolle, S. (2004). Mediatizing educational policy: The journalistic field, science

policy, and cross-field effects.Journal of Education Policy, 19(3), 361-380.

Loveless, T. (1997). The structure of public confidence in education.AmericanJournal of


26/28


Education, 105(2), 127-159.

Maeroff, G. (2000).A symbiosis of sorts: School violence and the media (Choices Brief No. 7).

New York: Columbia University, Institute for Urban and Minority Education.

Manzo, K.K. (2001). More than half of California 9th graders flunk exit exam.Education Week,

20(41). Retrieved on January 5, 2006 from ERIC database.

McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda setting function of mass media.Public Opinion

Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.

McCune, C. (2003). Framing reality: Shaping the news coverage of the 1996 Tennessee debate

on teaching evolution.Journal of Media and Religion, 2(1), 5-28.

McManus, J., & Dorfman, L. (2001, August). Framing youth violence.Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass

Communication, Washington, D.C.

Milburn, M.A. (1991).Persuasion and politics: The social psychology of public opinion. Pacific

Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Ogle, L.T., & Dabbs, P.A. (1998). The medias mixed record in reporting test results. In G.I.

Maeroff (Ed.),Imaging education: The media and schools in America(pp. 85-100). New

York: Teachers College Press.

Price, V. (1992).Public opinion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pride, R. (1995). How activists and media frame social problems: Critical events versus

performance trends for schools.Political Communication, 12(1), 5-26.

Pride, R. (1999). Redefining the problem of racial inequality. Political Communication, 16(2),

147-167.

Pride, R. (2000). Public opinion and the end of busing: (Mis)perceptions of policy failure. The


27/28


Sociological Quarterly, 41(2), 207-225.

Pride, R. (2002). How critical events rather than performance trends shape public evaluations of

the schools. The Urban Review, 34(2), 159-178.

Pettigrew, M. (1997). The press, public knowledge, and the grant maintained schools policy.

British Journal of Education, 45(4), 392-405.

Rose, L.C., & Gallup, A.M. (2005). The 37th annual Phi Delta Kappa / Gallup poll of the

publics attitudes toward the public schools.Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1), 41-57.

Rury, J.L. (2005).Education and social change: Themes in the history of American schooling.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ryan, C. (2001). Framing, the news media, and collective action.Journal of Broadcasting and

Electronic Media, 45(1), 175-183.

Sack, J.L. (2003). California delays mandatory graduation exam until 2006.Education Week,


Sandham, J.L. (2000). California board votes to pare down new graduation test.Education Week,


Thomas, S. (1999). Who speaks for education? One newspapers reporting of a review of the

Queensland school curriculum.Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,

20(1), 41-56.

Thomas, S. (2002). Contesting education policy in the public sphere: Media debates over policies

for the Queensland school curriculum.Journal of Education Policy, 17(2), 187-198.

Thomas, S. (2003). The trouble with our schools: A media construction of public discourse on

Queensland schools.Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24(1), 19-

33.


28/28


Thompson, L.K. (2002). An analysis of the framing of an organizational crisis within a Texas

urban school district as reported by local print media (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M

University).Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(08), 2766

Treyens, C.C. (1997). Framing analysis, the news media, and the evolution of higher education

policy issues (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University).Dissertation Abstracts

International, 58(1), 13.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1991).Racism and the press. London: Routledge.

Wadsworth, D. (1998). Do media shape public perceptions of Americas schools? In G.I.

Maeroff (Ed.),Imaging education: The media and schools in America(pp. 59-68). New

York: Teachers College Press.

Wallace, M. (1993). Discourse of derision: The role of the mass media within the education

policy process.Journal of Education Policy, 8(4), 321-337.

Warmington, P., & Murphy, R. (2004). Could do better? Media depictions of UK educational

assessment results.Journal of Education Policy, 19(3), 285-299.

Watson, A. (1998). The newspapers responsibility.Phi Delta Kappan, 79(10), 728-734.

Wilson, S. (2003). California dreaming: Reforming mathematics education. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

cahsee coverage

Documents