BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Quote-first Misdirection, Confirmation Bias, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.3% saturation with 249 hits. Analysis detected 1,389 faulty-reasoning hits from 727 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.9% and a BS Rank of 45% (11,651 of 21,173 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.00% of the article peer group.

After going without a contract for an entire school year, the Cahokia Federation of Teachers and the school district have reached a tentative agreement. 
Cahokia School District 187 and the union, which represents teachers, service employees and secretaries, reached a four-year deal Tuesday night, according to Ray Roskos, the field service director at the Illinois Federation of Teachers, who’s been assisting with negotiations. 
The tentative deal, which still needs to be ratified by the union’s full membership at the end of this month and the school board, comes amid the union’s allegations of financial mismanagement and corruption against district leadership. 
“This tentative contract demonstrates our mutual dedication to supporting the professionals who play a vital role in the success of our schools and the well-being of our students,” Superintendent Curtis McCall Jr. said in a statement. 
“The contract provides employees with competitive pay and will help the district recruit and retain qualified teachers and education support personnel, while preserving the district’s excellent financial standing.” 
McCall did not respond to requests for further comment. 
It’s expected that the union will vote June 24, Roskos said. 
Typically, the school board will vote after the union. 
The deal came together after the first meeting with a federal mediator Tuesday night that lasted four hours. 
The mediator was enlisted after many attempts at the bargaining table had not produced a compromise throughout the year. 
“We really took the process seriously,” Roskos said. 
“We ultimately made some really, really tough decisions, as far as my team goes. 
You know, it's difficult, but it was that process that led us to an agreement. 
I didn't think we'd get there (in one meeting), but we did.” 
According to Roskos and Cahokia Federation of Teachers Local 1272 President Wendy Lochmann, the agreement increases the baseline salary on the union pay scale by 5%, which doesn’t mean everyone will receive a full 5% raise. 
It includes an additional $1,000 for employees’ medical insurance plans. 
It also includes clauses requiring teachers to produce lesson plans. 
The deal does not include language preventing administrators from raising salaries at greater rates than what is offered to union members or language dictating how teachers change positions internally. 
It does not say employees need to submit confirmation from a medical care provider that they were ill and unable to work. 
This was a controversial policy that the administration rolled out in the fall and tried to enshrine in the new contract. 
Lochmann, who is also an English teacher at the high school, worries the provisions in the tentative agreement may not be enough to retain her colleagues. 
The district has long struggled to attract and retain teachers, and permanent substitutes are now commonplace, Lochmann said. 
She added that, in just one month, a handful of seasoned teachers resigned or retired early. 
“For me, that is just heartbreaking because you can’t just replace all these people quickly,” Lochmann said. 
“You can’t replace that experience if you don’t show people they matter.” 
Union workers allege corruption amid tense negations 
Union employees have been working without a contract since last summer. 
Negotiations between the district and union last fall had not been fruitful. 
Tensions boiled over in the spring semester. 
The union alleged that, for years, multiple employees were being paid without evidence of working and the assistant superintendent was paid far above his contracted salary. 
The union also claimed the district paid for an employee’s supplemental Medicare coverage without what it considers proper documentation. 
McCall has consistently said the union’s allegations were false and said in February that “nothing illegal has transpired in this district.” 
“Clearly, at this point, everyone can see that these contract negotiations are no longer about the union employees you are charged with representing or our students’ best interests, but about your personal and political agendas,” McCall wrote in a March email to district employees. 
Even though the union and district reached a tentative compromise this week, Roskos and Lochmann said that doesn’t change any of the allegations they’ve made previously. 
“Local 1272 is committed to doing what's right for the taxpayers, for the students and for our members that we represent,” Roskos said. 
“We will continue to expose corruption to hold this administration and this school board accountable until they start doing the right thing  monetarily and politically.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.1%Madison Lammert: 6.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias13.1%This article: 5.0%Madison Lammert: 4.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias5.0%This article: 2.2%Madison Lammert: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic2.2%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Madison Lammert: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias1.5%This article: 12.7%Madison Lammert: 18.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect12.7%This article: 4.8%Madison Lammert: 5.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion4.8%This article: 1.2%Madison Lammert: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias1.2%This article: 2.6%Madison Lammert: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect2.6%This article: 3.9%Madison Lammert: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias3.9%This article: 5.2%Madison Lammert: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias5.2%This article: 34.3%Madison Lammert: 10.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias34.3%This article: 4.8%Madison Lammert: 7.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias4.8%This article: 6.1%Madison Lammert: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error6.1%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 5.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Madison Lammert: 6.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect3.9%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Madison Lammert: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Madison Lammert: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem6.1%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.4%Madison Lammert: 6.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority5.4%This article: 6.1%Madison Lammert: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma6.1%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.9%Madison Lammert: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.0%Madison Lammert: 13.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion11.0%This article: 3.6%Madison Lammert: 5.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 4.5%Madison Lammert: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.5%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.2%Madison Lammert: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof6.2%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.2%Madison Lammert: 4.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal2.2%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.5%Madison Lammert: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.5%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.6%Madison Lammert: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading3.6%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 14.6%Madison Lammert: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection14.6%This article: 1.1%Madison Lammert: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice1.1%This article: 11.7%Madison Lammert: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination11.7%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

727 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers47%attributed speech385writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageCurtis McCall Jr. • 36 words • 100.0% coverageCurtis McCall Jr. • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRay Roskos • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRay Roskos • 8 words • 100.0% coverageRay Roskos • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRay Roskos • 15 words • 0.0% coverageRay Roskos • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWendy Lochmann • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWendy Lochmann • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWendy Lochmann • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWendy Lochmann • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWendy Lochmann • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWendy Lochmann • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCurtis McCall Jr. • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageRay Roskos • 23 words • 100.0% coverageRay Roskos • 26 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Curtis McCall Jr.

100%flagged-word coverage
108 attributed words32% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Quote-first Misdirection+74.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Curtis McCall Jr.: 74.1%74.1%Indoctrination+33.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Curtis McCall Jr.: 33.3%33.3%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.