A Page One banner headline on March 1 ("Teachers' day: 15 1/2 hours") has generated a lot of controversy that we're still hearing about.

In fact, the story has taken on a life of its own, as those inside and outside the field of education weigh in on the difficulty of teaching, the amount public school teachers should be paid and exactly how many hours they spend outside the classroom.

Because we placed the story in a prominent position at the top of Page One and because we did our own calculations of the average number of hours at 15 1/2 a day — the "time committee" that developed the report simply laid out the extra number of hours teachers say they work — it's worth reviewing how the story was developed.

Reporter Bev Creamer covered a Board of Education committee meeting that ended about 6:30 p.m. By about 8 p.m. or so, I was informed about this developing story and the 15 1/2-hour average. It seemed like a good topic that is debated whenever the subject of teachers comes up. Several editors looked through the story and we gave it lead play.

Creamer had the best of intentions in doing the calculations herself because she wanted to write something that would make sense to the reader. She took the 510 minutes the study said teachers work outside their seven-hour instructional day and divided by 60. That amounted to 8 1/2 extra hours and thus, the 15 1/2-hour total.

During the meeting, nobody represented on the time committee — not the Hawaii State Teachers Association, the state Department of Education or the elected Board of Education members — questioned the validity of the study. But as Creamer pointed out in her story, the study itself was mandated during labor negotiations two years ago to quantify the extra time teachers spend in the classroom.

I can understand why nobody questioned the study because the next day, one of our editors raised the issue of how it could be possible that teachers could average that much time a day and the other five or so editors in the room — myself included — rose to defend them. Everyone knows a teacher who puts in extra hours, works weekends, buys her own school supplies and is passionately dedicated to his students and the pursuit of learning.

But 15 1/2 hours a day as an average for all teachers? It defies logic, and we should have been more critical in our thinking that night. Rather than rely on committee members, all of whom are predisposed to believe it was true, we should have contacted the state's negotiator or an outside expert who could bring perspective to the matter. The headline should have contained at least a healthy dose of skepticism, either by pointing out it was a claim or by simply adding a question mark at the end to read, "Teachers' day: 15 1/2 hours?" We were correct to let the committee raise the issue of hours but we should have done more to show that it was at least open to interpretation.

We did go back to the story that weekend and reporter Catherine Toth laid out both sides, broke down how the hours were calculated and even followed a few teachers around who work many extra hours. But even those dedicated teachers do not put in anywhere close to 15 1/2 hours a day, even with weekend hours thrown in. Farrington High Principal Catherine Payne said it best: "I certainly don't want to diminish the hard work of teachers, but I think we need to be realistic about what the job entails."

If the goal of the stories was to have a communitywide debate about the worth of teachers, we have certainly achieved that.

But we could have done the same thing by providing a more balanced view from the outset and applied the same critical thinking we use for every story that comes that way. Sometimes we succeed but in this case, we didn't.

Local News Editor David Butts, who was the primary editor on the story, said he would have done things differently if given the chance.

"I should have asked more questions about the methodology and the motives of those sponsoring the study," he said. "In retrospect, an average of 15 1/2 hours per day for teachers does not pass the sniff test. I can understand why many people would question that number and the play we gave it."

Agreed. And it's a good lesson for all reporters and editors: If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.