New rules for education journalism

The old rules aren’t working. We need some new ones.

By Alexander Russo

Last month, New York magazine put out an exhaustive list of new rules for life after COVID — 194 items covering everything from texting to bill-sharing to app dating.

It was prescriptive, deranged, amusing, tongue in cheek, and tiresome — pretty much all at the same time.

Of course, these aren’t the only new rules out there.

Major League Baseball has new rules for slow-poke pitchers and easily injured base-runners.

And Grub Street tells us that there are new rules for tipping service workers at restaurants, hair salons, and in ride service situations.

Official and otherwise, new rules are being promulgated all the time. They’re what people like to do when they’re frustrated or confused, or when things just absolutely have to change.

Which brings up the question: Where are the new rules for journalism?

Three months into 2023 — and three-plus years into the pandemic — it’s clearly time for some changes.

The old rules for covering schools don’t work any longer. It’s time for some new ones.

Follow @thegrade_ for daily education news and journalism events. Follow @alexanderrusso for daily media commentary and criticism.

The old rules for covering schools don’t work any longer.  

Journalism these days is full of experimentation and debate, so it’s no surprise that there are some new rules for journalism that are already out there in recent months:

The Trace just announced that it was going to cover gun violence differently, moving away from the traditional approach to coverage that often frightens readers and stigmatizes communities.

Nieman Lab recently put out its annual predictions, which are rules in another form. “Stop rewarding elite performances of identity threat” is one of them. Defund the crime beat is another.

Inspired by New York magazine’s viral list, the good folks at The Objective have proposed a few of their own, including “No more ‘culture wars.’ It’s boring. And more importantly, it doesn’t tell us anything.”

“No more ‘culture wars.’ It’s boring. And more importantly, it doesn’t tell us anything.” – The Objective

I’m a big fan of thinking about new ways of doing things.

In the past, I’ve argued for things like an end to traditional school shootings coverage, an ‘all-hands’ focus on covering literacy instruction, and a move away from political narratives.

Some newer rules from me would include:

If your story makes people even more angry or scared than they were before, you’re part of the problem. Find the nuance. Question the scenario.

If there’s an opportunity to collaborate with another newsroom or education team that will deepen your work or reach, you should take it.

Don’t print last names when quoting vulnerable sources unless the full name is absolutely necessary.

No excuses for not getting classroom-level information and including parent and kid perspectives.

Given the choice of creating a standalone nonprofit outlet or an education team inside a legacy newsroom, go for the latter.

If you’re not covering the surrounding districts, you’re not really covering your beat — especially if those districts serve growing numbers of vulnerable kids.

Sign up here for weekly media commentary and best education journalism roundups.

If you’re not covering the surrounding districts, you’re not really covering your beat.

New rules make you think, whether you agree or disagree with them.  And I’m not the only one with ideas for new rules for journalism.

Some of the most interesting suggestions I’ve seen or received:

“Stop treating the word ‘disabled’ like it’s a bad word,” writes independent journalist Julia Métraux, “especially when disability advocates use it to describe themselves and their community.”

Disregard ed tech pitches, says independent journalist and newsletter writer Laura McKenna. Remote learning made clear that tech is not going to save education. AI is just another form of tech.

“Pay fairly, on time, and add extra if reporting in hostile environments,” writes independent journalist Katie Nelson.

Stop calling college kids “kids,” says an education reporter who doesn’t want to be named. “These days more and more are well into their 20s and 30s. Heck, many have kids of their own!”

“Call the press office last,” rather than first, says longtime New York City education journalist Susan Edelman, who says that the NYC DOE no longer hires ex-journalists who provide useful information.

“Call the press office last.” – Susan Edelman

A new rule is an encouragement as much as an admonition, and new rules sometimes take the field in important new directions.

Who can forget Nikole Hannah-Jones telling a roomful of education journalists that if they weren’t covering segregation they weren’t really covering schools?

I’m glad to report that there are many journalists who are curious and open to new rules.

But not everybody likes the idea.

They don’t want to tell others how to do their jobs (or to be told how to do theirs). They don’t want to change what they’re doing.

And I have to be realistic about any new rules being adopted. Journalism is famously lawless when it comes to agreed-upon journalistic practices.

“Oh, gosh. Are there rules?” quipped SF Chronicle education reporter Jill Tucker. “Feels more like unending chaos.”

Previously from The Grade

Education journalism is stuck. What’s holding it back?
5 bad habits education journalists need to break
Six new rules for education journalism