Permanent policy
Credibility is a method: inspect the evidence, label the judgment, protect what should remain private, and correct the record.
Disagree Learning receives information, reviews records, supports advocacy, and organizes the work behind Mike Pope’s public-interest writing. Investigations, essays, reporting, and articles are published through Pope Studios rather than through a separate Disagree Learning publication.
Verifiable facts are distinguished from interpretation and judgment. Analysis explains what evidence may mean. Opinion identifies a conclusion or value judgment. These forms may appear together, but one should not be disguised as another.
When available, the work relies on policies, contracts, budgets, board materials, official correspondence, recordings, public records, and original documents. Secondary sources may provide context, but significant claims should trace back to evidence a reader can inspect.
A conclusion should follow the evidence rather than determine which evidence is selected. Records are reviewed in context. Material uncertainty is stated. Meaningful contrary evidence is not omitted simply because it complicates an argument.
Information received through a submission is not treated as established fact. Important claims are checked whenever possible. When public work includes a significant allegation or criticism about an identifiable person or organization, a meaningful opportunity to respond is sought when time and circumstances permit.
Material factual errors are corrected promptly and transparently. A correction should identify what was wrong, what is accurate, and when the change was made. Spelling, grammar, formatting, and other non-substantive changes may be corrected without a formal note.
Mike Pope spent twenty-two years in public education. Prior employment, professional relationships, financial interests, or direct involvement are disclosed when they are relevant to a reasonable reader’s evaluation of the work.
Anonymous claims are not used as a shortcut for unsupported accusation. A confidential source may be considered when the information is important, the source has direct knowledge, disclosure could cause meaningful harm, and the underlying claim can be corroborated.
Public availability does not eliminate editorial judgment. Student information, personal contact details, medical information, and other sensitive material are minimized or withheld when disclosure would add harm without adding meaningful public understanding. Criticism should focus on decisions, systems, records, and conduct that can be described and supported.
Correction requests and formal responses should identify the page, statement, supporting evidence, and exact correction or response requested.
mike@disagreelearning.com →