Questions and the Questioning Questioners Who Ask Them

"Why do you always answer a question with a question?"  asks the straight man.  "Why not?" says his funny man.  We laugh, but in real life, this technique of sidestepping debate and accountability is annoying.

I hear this frequently on radio and television, when hosts ask questions that callers and guests obviously would rather not answer, at least not directly.  As we head toward Election Day in these oh so challenging times, it's time to call a halt to this.  Some do at times, like Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto.  No wonder John Cusack wishes for the "Satanic death" of Fox News.

But even within what appears civil debate, all that is really happening is a volley of questions.  Take for example, Patsy Green's response to a Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial urging that we voters test school aid requests i.e., referendums this fall.  Ms. Green is the new Chair of the Association of Metropolitan School Districts.  You may remember I endorsed her for re-election in 2009, certainly the doyen of the Robbinsdale (281) School Board and former Chair.  I use her submission only to illustrate my point on debate, not school policy which can wait until my August Recess ends next week.

Green does correct a statistic in that Editorial and engages some of the points it raised.  But then come four rebuttal questions to place the need for referendums on someone else, rather than stay on point.  I could do the same to her but how does that move the debate forward?

For example, when she asks, "Why did Minnesota's per-pupil spending fall from 8 percent above the national average in 1997 to 1.3 percent below the national average in 2007?" I could rejoin by asking "How then has Minnesota ranked number one in ACT scores the past six years?"  Both of these factoids are anecdotal without substantial context.  Trading one-liners gets us nowhere.  Again, this is for illustration only.

As we begin the various campaigns in earnest next week, let's all work harder at answering the questions we can answer and not questioning the questions we cannot, at least at the moment.  And if we find we can't answer a question to our satisfaction, it's time to question our own premises and reasoning, not the motives and ancestry of those who ask.

Comments

[Hiram]

"Why did Minnesota's per-pupil spending fall from 8 percent above the national average in 1997 to 1.3 percent below the national average in 2007?" I could rejoin by asking "How then has Minnesota ranked number one in ACT scores the past six years?" Both of these factoids are anecdotal without substantial context."

They aren't factoids, they are questions. And anyone who answers a question is free to include any context he likes.

[Speed Gibson]

Both questions are unanswerable per se. Both are "Jeopardy!" like responses phrased as questions, but really just statements, neither competent evidence for or against the quality of our public schools.

[Hiram]

I think both questions are answerable, I am just not sure how relevant the answers are to anything we are concerned with now. The decline in school funding has to do with the politics of that era, and the years following. And there are lots of reasons why any set of test scores are what they are at any given point.

In real terms, school funding from the state is declining while we are demanding more from the schools, a factoid or even a fact, some politicians are very eager to conceal and obscure.

[Speed Gibson]

What decline in school funding?

[J. Ewing]

They are questions only in the sense that they end with a question mark. They really are Socratic (but without the underlying wisdom) questions, designed to lead the questionee into a line of thinking desired by the questioner. The obvious intent of asking why our funding declined relative to other states is to infer that our educational attainment has suffered similarly, when in fact the opposite is true, and the relationship between expenditures and achievement is in general fact slightly NEGATIVE, not positive. In short, it is lying by another means.

[Give2Attain]

The response that Patsy gave did not shock me at all. She is definitely a more money advocate. However strangely enough I support her rebuttal because she included this paragraph.

"Voters should absolutely ask questions of their school board members and administrators. School officials welcome this dialogue, because, quite frankly, an informed voter is more likely to vote in favor of the funding request. Minnesotans have long understood that strong schools are the key to healthy, vibrant communities."

In all honesty, she could not answer for each of the 360+ school boards. So she agreed with the initial writer that people should question funding usage. Then she went on to advise an additional set of valid questions. She did not get my vote, however she has my support here. (odd... isn't it...)

[Speed Gibson]

Of the four questions she posed, only one was even close to being on point as rebutting the Star Tribune's Editorial. National rankings of per pupil spending? The variation is small, the likelihood of inconsistent measurement across the states is high. So besides meaningless, it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial as to whether voters might have a valid reason to vote no on a Referendum.

And again, I'm examining Green's article as illustrating a debate defusing tactic, not as to education policy.

[J. Ewing]

As a debating tactic, it has a counter-tactic, which is to simply ask one of two questions, dependent on context.

Response 1: If you don't know the answer to that simple question, how are you qualified for the office you hold?

Response 2: You really don't want an answer to that question, do you? (Applicable, I think, in this case) Again, the attempt is to misdirect the conversation by asking questions which cannot be answered without accepting the explicit or implicit premise of the question.

[Give2Attain]

I agree with you. She was not rebutting, she was actually agreeing with the initial writer. And then going on with her own opinions and questions. (ie leading the readers)

I understand that you were using this as an example of a prevalent behaviorial problem. I just think there must be a better example available. One where Person 1 clearly asks a direct question of Person 2. Then Person 2 replies with a question.

In this case, Person 1 directed people in general to question the spending of their school boards. And Person 2 agreed. Then Person 2 went on to question their politicians regarding funding.

As for the validity of questioning the relation to "average funding". I'll use my employer as an example. The company has a long history of setting the employee compensation goal at the 75th percentcile of market. The rationale is pretty straight forward. If you compensate personnel at the 50th percentile (ie "average"), you will attract average employees. If you want above average employees, your compensation needs to be above average.

Now does this apply to schools and results? I am not sure given the semi-monopoly. However in general, it would be a bit optimistic and egotistical to believe a low funded state will out perform a well funded state over the long term. Given there is a diverse mix of equivalent Americans in each state trying to improve the same situation.

[Speed Gibson]

It looks like we're all having trouble separating the school issue and the debate issue. I'll take on the school side next week, after Labor Day.

[J. Ewing]

Whoa. You've just fallen into the verbal trap, give. There is absolutely nothing in a "well funded state" (education wise) that produces a significant level of educational achievement, or even above-average teacher pay. You've accepted the premise of the question. I daresay moving your kids from Minneapolis to Robbinsdale would produce a significant improvement, despite much lower per-pupil spending.

[Give2Attain]

I am absolutely certain that moving kids from Minneapolis to Wayzata would give even more gain than moving them to RAS... And for the same reason, as the poverty percentage decreases and the number of "good" role model students increase, the test scores go up and the costs go down. The power of peer pressure is amazing... For good and bad...

Of course it doesn't hurt at all that the "extra funding and focus" can be aimed at 10% of the student body and not the 50, 60 or 70% of the student body. Managing exceptions is much simpler and more cost effective when they are exceptions, and not the majority.

[The Big Stink]

How do you motivate parents (often 'parent') whose vision of leadership is to tell them to police their own TV time and to use a condom? Can't fix that hole with money, folks.