Values and Fake News

Democrats Vote To Enhance Med Care for Illegals Now, Vote Down Vets Waiting 10 Years for Same Service

Trump’s grandfather was a pimp and tax evader; his father a member of the KKK

See: A Democrat’s favourite activity (left) and a Trump ancestor (right). Allegedly.

Shocking stuff. Depending on your political views, reading one of these headlines probably caused a jolt of adrenaline, the self-righteous “I told you so”. The other may have elicited an eye-roll and an instinctive rush to Snopes.com.

These are two of the most widely shared “fake news” political articles on Facebook of 2019, based on a study by the activist non-profit Avaaz. The reach of these specific headlines was broad. The first headline (about “Med care”, “Illegals”, and Vets) was estimated to have been viewed more than eight million times. The second (alleging that Trump’s grandfather was a criminal and his father a Klansman) came in first place, with a whopping 29 million estimated views, showing yet again that no one steals the headlines quite like Donald Trump. All together, the top 100 most widely shared headlines were estimated to have been viewed more than 158 million times.

Read more

Values in the News: Cuts to Gifted Education (Part 3)

This is the final article in a three-part exploration of the values that underpin support for gifted education and other forms of streaming students (and the fierce resistance to it).

Over the past two weeks, I delved into recent efforts to cut gifted education programs and other methods of streaming students into academic and non-academic tracks. My first article demonstrated how an exclusive focus on the costs and benefits of gifted education is not particularly fruitful for a policy analyst. There are few costs (and few benefits), so this lens provides little insight into the importance of these programs to students, parents, and educators.

In my second article, I outlined how considerations of fairness are a more useful way to understand the moral underpinnings of gifted education. Importantly, the meaning of “fairness” differs defending on your worldview, and gifted education serves as an excellent example of the two main expressions of fairness: some people on the left define fairness as equity (i.e. everyone is treated in the same way), while the bulk of the political spectrum – the entire right and a large proportion of the left – view fairness as a question of proportionality (i.e. people get what they deserve). Consequently, since gifted programs are inherently inequitable, opposition from certain left-wing groups would be expected. However, gifted programs resonate with the proportionality values of a broader subsection of the population, so any effort to shrink or cut gifted programs is likely to confront fierce opposition. Overall, I argue that proponents and opponents of gifted education fundamentally disagree over the fairness of the programs, not their effectiveness.

Read more

Values in the News: Cuts to Gifted Education (Part 2)

This is the second article in a three-part exploration of the values that underpin support for gifted education and other forms of streaming students (and the fierce resistance to it). Read the first article here.

Last week, I opened a discussion on the costs and benefits of streaming students into academic and non-academic tracks, such as through gifted education programs. Despite the rancorous debate about the merits of these initiatives, there is little evidence that they make a difference in academic outcomes for students in either Canada or the United States. In other words, students in gifted education programs don’t perform much better than similarly intelligent students in ordinary schools. At the same time though, and there is little evidence that gifted programs are using disproportionate resources that could otherwise be used to improve the educations of a broader subset of the population. In sum, gifted education introduces few measurable costs and benefits.

This leaves us with a puzzle: if gifted programs don’t matter, why are they so contentious? Why did protesters almost come to blows when the mayor of New York tried to widen the eligibility requirements for specialized high schools (a form of gifted education)? Certainly, there is a perception that gifted education programs are superior, so maybe that explains why parents are so invested. But policymakers should know better. Why not let sleeping dogs lie and just leave gifted programs alone?

Read more

Values in the News: Cuts to Gifted Education (Part 1)

This is the first article in a three-part exploration of the values that underpin support for gifted education and other forms of streaming students (and the fierce resistance to it).

About two years ago, it was almost impossible to open the New York Times without finding an article about streaming in the education system. Streaming (or tracking) is the practice of separating students into different classes based on academic performance and/or capacity. Streaming can occur in two main ways: between schools through the creation of specialized schools that have academic requirements for entrance (e.g. science-focused schools, sports schools, gifted schools, etc.) or within schools by offering differing course streams based on academic ability (e.g. pure vs. applied math, Advanced Placement courses).

In the past several years, backlash against student streaming has intensified, sparking intense debate over the practice. The most widely debated effort was probably mayor Bill de Blasio’s attempt to scrap the SHSAT, an standardized exam that regulates admission to eight selective high schools in New York that serve as a feeder system to the most prestigious universities in the U.S. This step was intended to reduce (primarily racial) discrepancies between the students admitted to these high schools and the broader population of New York. After fierce public resistance, led primarily by Asian-American families (who are disproportionately admitted to these schools), de Blasio’s effort failed.

Read more

Toolbox: Moral Foundations Theory

“Toolbox” articles delve into a new way of looking at values, with a view to using these techniques in future articles.

The first tool, moral foundations theory, is especially important for understanding future articles. Developed by Craig Joseph, Jesse Graham, and (most famously) Jonathan Haidt, moral foundations theory states that there are six fundamental values that explain our moral views. Every person holds all six values to differing degrees, and these values can broadly explain why people have moral reactions to similar situations. In fact, the authors of moral foundations theory go as far to argue that the political differences between liberals and conservatives can be explained through the analysis of the strength of each value – both absolutely and relative to each other – in each group’s moral worldview.

Read more

Values in the News: The Government of Alberta’s $100 Giveaway

I’m now going to demonstrate why values analysis (using the moral foundations “tool”) is useful for policymaking by looking at a news event: the Government of Alberta’s decision in late 2021 to provide a $100 incentive to newly vaccinated Albertans. Values analysis can help explain the controversy surrounding this decision in a systematic way.

Background

In early September 2021, COVID-19 cases in Alberta surged beyond 1000 per day, overwhelming hospitals and emergency rooms across the province. No doubt, this was related to Alberta’s relatively low vaccination rate. As of September 4, only about 60.2% of Albertans were fully vaccinated, ahead of only Saskatchewan (59%) and far behind Ontario (68.1%), Quebec (71%), and the Canadian leader Yukon Territory (73%). You go Yukon!

Read more