Determination 108: Parents of Special Ed Children v. Star Tribune
Complainants were two parents of special education children - Ruth Gregory, an advocate of special education families and John Guthmann, an attorney - and Robert J. Brick, executive director of ARC Minnesota. Representing the Star Tribune were Tim McGuire, editor, and staff reporters Rob Hotakainen and Mary Jane Smetanka, two of the series’ primary authors. Also attending to answer financial questions was Robert Fischer, a special education statistician in the Minnesota Department of Education.
Complaint: The complainants contended that the Star Tribune’s December 1994 series, titled “Out of Control: the spiraling costs of special education,” misled readers through the following alleged inaccuracies, distortions and omissions:
A. Inaccuracies:
1. The series did not offset special ed costs with the money that each special ed child brings to a school district, or money raised by special ed levies, thereby creating the impression that a huge gap existed between revenues and costs.
2. The series’ conclusion - that the high cost of special education “requires districts to quietly siphon away money that is needed for other purposes” and that “Average kids are losing” - was false.
B. Distortions
1. The series unjustifiably implied that special ed families are litigious with headlines like, “In special education, there’s no issue too small to fight,” and by leading with three extraordinary cases as if they represented typical cases.
2. The series title, “Out of Control,” is sensational; special ed children account for 9 percent of the public school population while the cost of their education accounts for 12 percent of the total budget.
3. The characterization of special ed spending as “crippling school budgets” is sensational; the cost of special ed as a percentage of the total education expenditures increased only 3 percent between 1982 and 1993, to 12 percent from 9 percent.
4. The use of phrases like “If you build it, they will come,” gave the impression that Emotional Behavioral Disorder (EBD) is a fabricated category that children were being funneled into just to qualify schools for special ed revenues.
C. Omissions that misled readers:
1. The series claimed that special ed costs are “crippling school budgets” but did not report that state aid pays 68 percent of the salary of special ed teachers and aides, down only 2 percent from what it paid in the mid-1980s.
2. The series did not report that some districts, including St. Paul, do not levy up to their statutory limit, thus adding to the squeeze on public school budgets.
3. The series failed to address the following related issues: a) What would be the cost to taxpayers if special education children were institutionalized rather than educated? and b) What amount of aid would school districts lose if special ed children did not attend school?
Response of the news organization:
A. Inaccuracies:
1. The Star Tribune said the existence of the gap between revenues and costs for special education was verified many times by experts at the Minnesota Department of Education. Robert Fischer reviewed the reporters’ methods and numbers before publication and confirmed their conclusions.
2. The paper said individual school districts confirmed the transfer of regular education money to pay for shortages in special education.
B. Distortions:
1. The paper said it made no claim that the three examples used to lead the series were either extraordinary or typical.
2. The paper said the issue was not what percentage of students are in special education compared with what percentage of the total budget they consume; rather, the issue the series explored was how special education is funded. The paper found that special ed costs are increasing faster than regular education costs, with local property taxes paying for the increase because state and federal governments haven’t provided funding to match their mandates.
3. The paper denied that it gave the impression that EBD is a fabricated category.
C. Omission that misled readers:
1. The paper said lack of money can be attributed to many factors but its research showed that no category of school spending is growing as fast as special education.
2. The paper defended its conclusion that the cost of special education is squeezing school budgets because schools are not getting enough state and federal aid for mandated programs.
3. The issues raised by the complainants go beyond the scope of this series, the focus of which was how schools spend their money when faced with competing educational interests.
The Star Tribune said its findings came from months of research and more than 100 interviews. In addition to reporting the financial issues, the paper said it gave considerable attention to the human side through in-depth profiles of special-needs children. The Star Tribune said that the content of the articles supported its conclusions.
Discussion: Guthmann told the Council that while some parts of the series were balanced, that was not the tone the Star Tribune set for the series as a whole. He said that the frequent use of phrases such as “choking empire,” “quietly siphon money away,” and “crippling school budgets” was hardly objective journalism. He also challenged the conclusion that a huge gap exists between revenues and costs for special education. He said the series created the appearance of a gap by not offsetting special-ed costs with the $232 million in general education aid that each special ed child brings to a school district. Had that figure been included, he said, it would have shown that the money special education brings to districts exceeds the cost.
The paper defended its conclusion that there is a huge gap between revenues and costs for special education. McGuire said a sidebar, “How Special Education Funding Gap is Calculated,” specifically explained their calculations.
Brick said that the headline, “In special education, there’s no issue too small to fight,” was sensational and was refuted by the fact that of the 90,000 special-ed students in the state in 1994, only 29 of their families requested hearings and only 9 hearings were held. Media member Maureen Reeder asked the paper if it knew those numbers. Hotakainen said they did have those numbers but did not use them because the paper felt it was the 100 complaints filed, not the 9 hearings held, that was the issue.
Gregory objected to the headline “Average kids are losing,” saying it pitted parents of special-ed children against parents of “regular” children. She said one-liners such as that can cause more damage than the whole story can repair.
McGuire defended the series, saying it was not anti-special education, that it neither depicted special-ed kids as bad, nor ignored the good of special education. Rather, the paper framed the series from the point of view that society is being forced to choose between educating special-needs students and regular students. He said that many readers, including teachers and even some special education parents, thanked the paper for publicly discussing the issue. Guthmann countered that the special education community would welcome the scrutiny if it were fair, not sensational or divisive. Media member Trish Van Pilsum asked the paper how many school districts said they were being forced to choose between special and regular education. McGuire said the overall sense of the reporting was that virtually every district felt the trade-off. Van Pilsum then asked Fischer if that was a fair characterization. He said he has heard from school districts that they feel financially pinched but rather than cut special education, they reduce other expenditures.
McGuire said the series did not blame the budget problems on special education children, but focused on the federal government’s funding only 6 percent of special ed costs rather than the 40 percent to which it committed.
News Council members questioned whether the series actually focused on the government’s failure to provide promised funding. Public member Laurisa Sellers said she saw it mentioned only briefly the first day of the series. Media member Maureen Reeder asked whom in government the reporters talked with, if indeed that was the focus of the series. The paper conceded that it had not interviewed anyone in the federal government for a response.
News Council members praised the series, on the whole, as a public service. Public member and president of the Minnesota Federation of Teachers, Sandra Peterson, said the issue needs to be discussed: “Legislators need to know that there are many needs out there but the sources of funding are not there.”
Others wished the paper had done a better job of focusing so special-ed kids were not blamed for the high cost of their education. Public member Ann Barkelew said that while the series, as a whole, did not do a disservice to the special education community, the headlines were misleading.
Determination: The Council unanimously denied the complaint.
Concurring: Barkelew, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parker, Peterson, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Sorensen Craig, Thompson, Van Pilsum, Wicks
Abstaining: Anderson
Tags: Star Tribune