The New York Times just wrote a positive editorial about charter schools.
The editorial opened with this sentence [emphasis mine]:
“New York City is one of the rare places in the country where charter schools generally have made good on the promise to outperform conventional public schools in exchange for flexibility from the state that lets them lengthen the school day, alter the curriculum, do away with tenure and change how teachers are compensated.”
As a reminder, here’s the average effect of urban charter schools – from a study by the same researchers that the New York Times linked to in the above lead!
So why did the New York Times write such a factually incorrect lead?
I think they probably did it to disarm those who might oppose them. By saying that most charter sectors have failed, they are aligning themselves with those suspicious of charter schools, which perhaps increases their ability to influence those on the fence.
This is a bad tactic. And it’s a habit I’ve been trying to kick: I too sometimes publicly hedge on the actual facts in order to relate to an audience.
This type of hedging is doubly dangerous.
First, it prizes short-term affiliation over the truth, which will eventually reduce your credibility when people find out what you really believe.
Second, you risk starting to believe yourself. It’s very difficult to maintain thoughtful and evidence driven policies under the best of circumstances. If you consistently say things you don’t really believe, you’ll soon forget what you really believe.
Here’s a better tactic: be expressive about values while you’re being direct about your beliefs.
Constantly talk about why you care about children, poverty, and the future of our country – at the same time you defend policies (like charter schools) that are controversial but impactful.
It’s good practice to expand the tent through shared values.
But don’t trade the truth for agreeableness.
It’s dishonest and counterproductive.