Education journalism is under strain, as newsrooms shrink and local papers die. Against this backdrop, what are education journalists doing well, where are they dropping the ball, and how can they do better? On that topic, one of the more thoughtful voices I know is Matt Barnum, who currently edits Chalkbeat Ideas, where he explores the debates shaping American schooling. An award-winning reporter and one-time middle school teacher, Matt previously covered K-12 education for The Wall Street Journal and helped launch Chalkbeat’s national coverage in 2017. I recently chatted with Matt about the state of education journalism. Here’s what he had to say.
—Rick

Rick: How’d you get from teaching into reporting?

Matt: After teaching middle school English/language arts for two years, I got a job at a nonprofit that worked with teachers. There, I became fascinated by education policy and research. It turned out there was a whole world of people who studied schools and could help me understand them better. So, I got a job writing about education research at The 74, then a new publication. I eventually started doing reporting for them, which I found to be very fun. You can learn a lot by talking to people. And lots of smart and interesting people will spend hours on the phone with you if you’re a reporter.

Rick: What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned about education reporting?

Matt: One is the value of knowing a topic well. I sometimes think about this during discussions of whether schools should teach a “knowledge-rich curriculum.” A lot of good beat reporting is about domain-specific knowledge—knowing lots of people, knowing who’s reliable, knowing data sources, and knowing the history of the topic. Training to become a journalist should be knowledge-rich. Another lesson: The moment you’re in will soon pass. The current exciting, buzzy thing will often fade from memory, not work out as planned, or even bring about a far-reaching backlash. Journalists should try to avoid getting too swept up in the current moment.

Rick: Looking back, what’s been your most impactful work?

Matt: In early 2025, I wrote a piece with two colleagues at The Wall Street Journal about the proliferation of screens in schools. The idea came about because nearly every time I visited a classroom, students were using Chromebooks or tablets. This struck me as a remarkable change in American education that wasn’t getting much attention. (Though I know you and colleagues were pointing this out at the time, too, Rick.) My colleagues and I approached this story from multiple angles. We looked at data on how much time kids were spending on screens in school, which turned out to be one to two hours per day depending on the grade. I dug into the research on ed-tech and found it pretty muddled, full of questionable company-backed analyses. And then we talked to parents, teachers, and students. We certainly found some who were questioning whether all the screens were a good idea, but we weren’t seeing a groundswell of opposition. Polls also showed little evidence of widespread concern. Obviously, we are now seeing a much more sweeping backlash. I certainly don’t credit the Journal article for that, but I do think it put this issue on some people’s radars and provided some important facts to ground the conversation.

Rick: How does covering schools for The Wall Street Journal compare with doing it for the education-focused outlets you’ve worked for?

Matt: If you’re reading Chalkbeat, you have a natural interest in schools. That’s not necessarily the case if you’re reading the Journal. So, the trick at a general interest publication is to find intriguing, novel, and counterintuitive education stories that will draw in your average reader. That can be a fun challenge, but it’s also quite difficult. At Chalkbeat Ideas, I’m writing about the big ideas, debates, and questions shaping American education, not the day-to-day events. In a traditional general interest newsroom, that sort of thing would be tough to do—it’s not news!—and probably hard to find an audience for.

Rick: Over the past several years, where has education reporting fared best?

Matt: In general, I think coverage of recent test-score declines has been strong. Reporters have made this topic a significant priority and also explored potential solutions.

Rick: OK, so what stories are getting missed?

Matt: We don’t know what hasn’t been reported. Education is predominantly a local and state issue—and it’s those newsrooms that have been most decimated by cuts. Precise estimates vary, but the number of local reporters has dropped dramatically in the last few decades. Newsrooms that used to have many people covering schools across a region are down to one or even half a person—or have closed altogether. Many reporters at local outlets are stretched so thin that they don’t have sufficient time to dig deeply into topics, find sources, launch investigations, or thoroughly cover all the daily news. Efforts exist to fill these gaps, including at Chalkbeat, but so far they have been woefully insufficient.

Rick: What’s your biggest concern when it comes to education journalism right now?

Matt: Again, my biggest concern is the decimation of local newsrooms. It has made it harder to do good national journalism because we rely on local reporters to spot trends. There’s also a downstream effect of driving talented people away from journalism to begin with. Another concern: I’m worried that it’s harder and harder to get into classrooms and schools—perhaps due to a combination of security concerns and the professionalization of school public relations staff. It’s difficult to say for sure, but anecdotally, I’ve found that it’s harder than it used to be. Visiting schools is a great way to get a sense of what’s happening on the ground and cultivate sources.

Rick: Journalism is sometimes accused of a herd mentality. This has been said about topics like screen-laden schools or DEI, which received little meaningful scrutiny until a backlash emerged. Do you think that criticism is fair, and if so, what would change it?

Matt: I do think it’s fair to a degree, although I don’t think it follows a terribly predictable political valence. Reporting is a human endeavor, and we all can be subject to a herd mentality. There’s a classic book called “The Boys on the Bus” that explores the problem of pack journalism. Typically, when you’re reporting on a new topic, your first move is to look at what’s already been written. That’s well and good, but that shouldn’t set a template for how to approach a story. Journalists should be willing to write pieces that go against the grain if that’s where the facts lead. I’ve tried to do so myself. For instance, I’ve recently pushed back on what I think is a misleading narrative, promoted in many news stories, that interest in a four-year college degree has collapsed among young people.

Rick: I’ve been known to grumble that education reporting has a left-leaning tilt. What do you make of such complaints? Anything to them?

Matt: Sure—in some contexts, in some outlets, with some stories. It’s the exception, but I certainly come across pieces where I think, gosh this would have benefited from a wider variety of perspectives. Reporters should always be seeking that out and thinking about their own potential blind spots, both politically and otherwise. Most do, but that work requires constant attention. I’d add that there has been a lot of education coverage in conservative-leaning media in recent years. I also sometimes read pieces in those outlets and think, gosh this would have benefited from a wider variety of perspectives.

Rick: You’ve written a lot about our decadelong academic stagnation. What do readers need to know?

Matt: My unhelpful answer is that I think there needs to be humility in trying to understand what’s going on here. I don’t think researchers have gotten their arms around what is driving this alarming trend. Maybe they never will—convincingly explaining big social phenomena is really hard. Your colleague Nat Malkus has done some terrific work on what we know and don’t know. I would be wary of anyone promoting confident explanations, as opposed to tentative hypotheses. That doesn’t mean policymakers should wait for the perfect evidence that may never come. I just think they should be aware that we don’t have perfect evidence or anything close to it. The other interesting side note is that these recent declines in test scores have brought much more attention to the fact that there had been substantial progress for decades through the early 2010s. The irony is that this fact was not widely known or appreciated. We didn’t know how good we had it.

Rick: Amid all the noise, any advice on how educators can find clear-eyed takes on what’s going on?

Matt: Find outlets and reporters you trust. One way to do that is to read an article on a topic you know a lot about. If it holds up, that’s a good sign you can rely on that outlet for topics you know less about. I’m biased, but I happen to think Chalkbeat’s work is a great place to start.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.