Article Archive - World-of-Newave.info http://answers.world-of-newave.info/article-archive.htm Latest news and articles about Article Archive en-us Copyright (c)2004-2008.ยง/Newave SARL. All rights reserved. webmaster@world-of-newave.com (Webmaster) Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:12:59 GMT Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:12:59 GMT Newave Lisa XML Engine v1.0 - http://www.world-of-newave.info/about.htm 60 http://www.world-of-newave.info/images/wi8831.gif World-of-Newave.info - Knowledge and Informational Database http://www.world-of-newave.info/ 88 31 {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Wallace did not challenge McCain's claim that Palin said of "bridge to nowhere": "We don't need it. And if we need it, we'll pay for it ourselves" http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/wallace-did-not-challenge-mccain-s-claim-that-palin-2008093133.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/wallace-did-not-challenge-mccain-s-claim-that-palin-2008093133.htm Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:59:11 GMT On the August 31 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace did not challenge Sen. John McCain's claim that his presumptive running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, opposed the "bridge to nowhere" project in Alaska. McCain told Wallace: "We fought against, frankly, the same adversaries, the same challenges. Look, we couldn't get the bridge to nowhere out, although we tried. People like [Sen.] Tom Coburn [R-OK] and me. ... She [Palin], as governor, stood up and said, 'We don't need it. And if we need it, we'll pay for it ourselves.' " But Wallace did not note that during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign, Palin reportedly supported the proposal to build a bridge between Ketchikan, Alaska, and Gravina Island and suggested that Alaska's congressional delegation should continue to try to procure funding for the project, which was authorized by the federal government in 2005 but never appropriated. By contrast, when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asserted on the August 31 broadcast of ABC's This Week that Palin "has done things that [Sen.] Barack Obama would never dream of, to go in her state and say, 'I'm not going to build a bridge to nowhere,' " host George Stephanopoulos responded: " But, Senator, she turned against that only -- she campaigned for it in her 2006 race and turned against it in 2007 only after it became a national joke." Additionally, Wallace did not challenge McCain's assertion that he doesn't "particularly enjoy the label 'maverick,' " even though McCain released a TV ad -- approved by McCain -- declaring him to be "the original maverick." Contrary to McCain's claim that Palin said of the bridge, "We don't need it. And if we need it, we'll pay for it ourselves," in a questionnaire published in the October 22, 2006, Anchorage Daily News (accessed from the Nexis database), then-gubernatorial candidate Palin answered the question, "Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?" by writing: "Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." Additionally, Palin reportedly addressed the issue at an October 4, 2006, gubernatorial forum hosted by Alaska Conservation Voters. An October 5, 2006, Anchorage Daily News article provided the following account of a question and Palin's response at the forum: As for the infamous "bridges to nowhere," [debate moderator Steve] MacDonald asked if the candidates would forge ahead with the proposed Knik Arm crossing between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie and Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. Each has received more than $90 million in federal funding and drew nationwide attacks as being unnecessary and expensive. He also asked if they support building an access road from Juneau toward -- but not completely connecting to -- Skagway and Haines. "I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for," Palin said. She said the projects link communities and create jobs. Still, Palin warned that the flow of federal money into the state for such projects is going to slow. Alaskans for Truth in Politics, a 527 group whose mission is "to inform Alaska's residents with comprehensive political information needed to make critical voting decisions and to monitor and archive all political action and discussion in the state of Alaska," provides a transcript of what it said was the specific question McDonald asked the candidates during the forum: They've been dubbed the bridges to nowhere. Federal Government has given AK millions of dollars to begin planning and building a bridge across knik arm fjords and another bridge to gravina island. Also, the Murkowski administration wants to build a road from Juneau out along Glen Canal, with better access to Skagway and Haines. As Governor would you go along with these projects? The website also provides video of what it said was Palin's response to the question: Well, I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegation has worked hard for. Provisions -- anyway, seed money that is coming into this state for these projects. Linkages between our communities, links to access, to potential, to opportunity that should lead to good jobs, ultimately, for Alaskans, that's what these infrastructure projects are to be provided as: tools run by the government for the private sector, for our families to be able to grow and thrive, and that's the purpose of these infrastructure projects. I do agree, though, with both candidates here and their concerns about the priorities, the dollars that are not going to be free-flowing in such a generous, liberal amount, from the feds, as we've been so blessed with in the past. But that's reality. We won't be seeing that flow of money to the degree that we have, is my prediction. So, it's going to take a matter of working with the legislature, those who hold the purse strings here in the state of Alaska -- not working against the legislature, but working with them -- to prioritize state dollars to be used in addition to the federal dollars. But I do support infrastructure projects here in the state. Further, in a September 21, 2007, press release, Palin specifically cited the unwillingness of Congress to provide sufficient funds for the project -- "[d]espite the work of our congressional delegation" -- in explaining why she had "directed the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to look for the most fiscally responsible alternative for access to the Ketchikan airport and Gravina Island instead of proceeding any further with the proposed $398 million bridge": "Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened." In an August 31 article headlined "Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' doesn't note flip-flop," the Anchorage Daily News reported: When John McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate Friday, her reputation as a tough-minded budget-cutter was front and center. "I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere," Palin told the cheering McCain crowd, referring to Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. But Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere." They're still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin's subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects -- and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines. [...] In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity. She said she could feel the town's pain at being derided as a "nowhere" by prominent politicians, noting that her home town, Wasilla, had recently been insulted by the state Senate president, Ben Stevens. "OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project." One year later, Ketchikan's Republican leaders said they were blindsided by Palin's decision to pull the plug. Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said Saturday that as projected costs for the Ketchikan bridge rose to nearly $400 million, administration officials were telling Ketchikan that the project looked less likely. Local leaders shouldn't have been surprised when Palin announced she was turning to less-costly alternatives, Leighow said. Indeed, Leighow produced a report quoting Palin, late in the governor's race, indicating she would also consider alternatives to a bridge. In addition, in assessing Palin's August 29 claim that "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," PolitiFact.com reported: The project also raised bitter debate in Congress, and several attempts were made to yank the funding for the project. In the fall of 2005, Congress removed the language specifically directing the money to the bridge, but it kept the money in place and left it up to Alaska to decide which transportation projects the state would like to spend it on. By the time Palin pulled the plug on the Gravina bridge project in September 2007, much of the federal funding for the bridge had already been diverted to other transportation projects. [...] When Palin says "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," it implies Congress said, "Here's a check for that bridge" and she responded, "No thanks, that's wasteful spending; here's your money back." That's not what happened. Fact is, Alaska took the bridge money, and then just spent it on other projects. Palin did make the final call to kill plans for the bridge, but by the time she did it was no longer a politically viable project. From the August 31 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday: WALLACE: Let's start with your choice of a running mate. Of all the people you could have chosen, of all the Republicans leaders you've known for years -- straight talk -- can you honestly say that Sarah Palin is the best person to put a heartbeat away from the presidency? McCAIN: Oh, yeah. She's a partner and a soul mate. She -- she's a reformer. I don't particularly enjoy the label "maverick," but when somebody takes on the old bulls in her own party, runs against an incumbent governor of her own party, stands up against the oil and gas interests -- I mean, they really are so vital to the economy of her -- of the state of Alaska. I mean, it's remarkable. It's a remarkable person, and I've watched her record and I've watched her for many, many years as she implemented ethics in lobbying reforms. And, I mean, she led on it. She didn't just vote for it. She led it. I've seen her take on her own party. Look, one thing I know is that when you take on your own party in Washington, you pay a price for it. You do. You pay a price for it. And she's taken on the party in her own state. She take -- she took on a sitting governor and defeated him. And so I've -- I'm so pleased and proud because this is a person who will help me reform Washington and change the way they do business. And that's what Americans want. WALLACE: But let me ask you -- McCAIN: Sure. WALLACE: -- about the concerns that a lot of voters -- McCAIN: Sure. WALLACE: -- who had never heard of Sarah Palin before yesterday are asking. Compared to, say, Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman, why is Governor Palin superior in dealing with national security and foreign policy? [...] WALLACE: You talked to her on the phone last Sunday, and you met with her face-to-face -- face-to-face for the first time to discuss the vice-presidential pick Thursday morning, and then you offered her the job. Must have been a heck of a meeting. McCAIN: Well, the fact is, I've been watching her. I mean, look, what she's been doing in Alaska -- let's have some straight talk -- has affected the representation in Washington, D.C. We fought against, frankly, the same adversaries, the same challenges. Look, we couldn't get the bridge to nowhere out, although we tried. People like Tom Coburn and me -- WALLACE: This is the big pork-barrel project. McCAIN: Yeah, the pork-barrel project. Two hundred and thirty-three million dollar bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it. She, as governor, stood up and said, "We don't need it. And if we need it, we'll pay for it ourselves." Now that's, that's guts. I saw that, and I said, "This, this is what we need in Washington." WALLACE: Senator, I want to turn to the Democratic convention. From the August 31 broadcast of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos: STEPHANOPOULOS: But is she ready to serve on Day One? It sounds like you're shifting the criteria. GRAHAM: No, I think so, I think so. Compared to Barack Obama, absolutely. She has done things that Barack Obama would never dream of, to go in her state and say, "I'm not going to build a bridge to nowhere." A four hundred dollar -- million dollar appropriation that was passed by brute force in the Congress between two senior members of the congressional delegation, very powerful figures in Washington, and for her to say to the citizens of Alaska, "We're not going to do this, 'cause this is not necessary, and it's wasteful -- to take on your own Republican Party" -- STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Senator, she turned against that only -- she campaigned for it in her 2006 race and turned against it in 2007 only after it became a national joke. GRAHAM: Well, the point is that she had the courage to say, "We're not going to do it because it's not the right signal we want to send everybody else from Alaska." She took on the Republican Party chairman and called him unethical; she took on the attorney general who eventually resigned because he was doing things that were inappropriate. I'm in politics. I voted against the bridge to nowhere. I was one of 14. It scared the heck out of me because I knew what was going to come my way. I can't imagine being the governor of the state and telling the people who were able to secure the bridge, "We're not going to do it." Mediamatters.Org Wallace did not challenge McCain's claim that Palin said of "bridge to nowhere": "We don't need it. And if we need it, we'll pay for it ourselves" {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - On the August 31 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace did not challenge Sen. John McCain's claim that his presumptive running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, opposed the "bridge to nowhere" project in Alaska. McCain told Wallace: "We fought against, frankly, the same adversaries, the same challenges. Look, we couldn't get the bridge to nowhere out, although we tried. People like [Sen.] Tom Coburn [R-OK] and me. ... She [Palin], as governor, stood up and said, 'We don't need it. And if we need it, we'll pay for it ourselves.' " But Wallace did not note that during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign, Palin reportedly supported the proposal to build a bridge between Ketchikan, Alaska, and Gravina Island and suggested that Alaska's congressional delegation should continue to try to procure funding for the project, which was authorized by the federal government in 2005 but never appropriated. By contrast, when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asserted on the August 31 broadcast of ABC's This Week that Palin "has done things that [Sen.] Barack Obama would never dream of, to go in her state and say, 'I'm not going to build a bridge to nowhere,' " host George Stephanopoulos responded: " But, Senator, she turned against that only -- she campaigned for it in her 2006 race and turned against it in 2007 only after it became a national joke." Additionally, Wallace did not challenge McCain's assertion that he doesn't "particularly enjoy the label 'maverick,' " even though McCain released a TV ad -- approved by McCain -- declaring him to be "the original maverick." Contrary to McCain's claim that Palin said of the bridge, "We don't need it. And if we need it, we'll pay for it ourselves," in a questionnaire published in the October 22, 2006, Anchorage Daily News (accessed from the Nexis database), then-gubernatorial candidate Palin answered the question, "Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?" by writing: "Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." Additionally, Palin reportedly addressed the issue at an October 4, 2006, gubernatorial forum hosted by Alaska Conservation Voters. An October 5, 2006, Anchorage Daily News article provided the following account of a question and Palin's response at the forum: As for the infamous "bridges to nowhere," [debate moderator Steve] MacDonald asked if the candidates would forge ahead with the proposed Knik Arm crossing between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie and Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. Each has received more than $90 million in federal funding and drew nationwide attacks as being unnecessary and expensive. He also asked if they support building an access road from Juneau toward -- but not completely connecting to -- Skagway and Haines. "I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for," Palin said. She said the projects link communities and create jobs. Still, Palin warned that the flow of federal money into the state for such projects is going to slow. Alaskans for Truth in Politics, a 527 group whose mission is "to inform Alaska's residents with comprehensive political information needed to make critical voting decisions and to monitor and archive all political action and discussion in the state of Alaska," provides a transcript of what it said was the specific question McDonald asked the candidates during the forum: They've been dubbed the bridges to nowhere. Federal Government has given AK millions of dollars to begin planning and building a bridge across knik arm fjords and another bridge to gravina island. Also, the Murkowski administration wants to build a road from Juneau out along Glen Canal, with better access to Skagway and Haines. As Governor would you go along with these projects? The website also provides video of what it said was Palin's response to the question: Well, I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegation has worked hard for. Provisions -- anyway, seed money that is coming into this state for these projects. Linkages between our communities, links to access, to potential, to opportunity that should lead to good jobs, ultimately, for Alaskans, that's what these infrastructure projects are to be provided as: tools run by the government for the private sector, for our families to be able to grow and thrive, and that's the purpose of these infrastructure projects. I do agree, though, with both candidates here and their concerns about the priorities, the dollars that are not going to be free-flowing in such a generous, liberal amount, from the feds, as we've been so blessed with in the past. But that's reality. We won't be seeing that flow of money to the degree that we have, is my prediction. So, it's going to take a matter of working with the legislature, those who hold the purse strings here in the state of Alaska -- not working against the legislature, but working with them -- to prioritize state dollars to be used in addition to the federal dollars. But I do support infrastructure projects here in the state. Further, in a September 21, 2007, press release, Palin specifically cited the unwillingness of Congress to provide sufficient funds for the project -- "[d]espite the work of our congressional delegation" -- in explaining why she had "directed the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to look for the most fiscally responsible alternative for access to the Ketchikan airport and Gravina Island instead of proceeding any further with the proposed $398 million bridge": "Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened." In an August 31 article headlined "Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' doesn't note flip-flop," the Anchorage Daily News reported: When John McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate Friday, her reputation as a tough-minded budget-cutter was front and center. "I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere," Palin told the cheering McCain crowd, referring to Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. But Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere." They're still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin's subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects -- and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines. [...] In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity. She said she could feel the town's pain at being derided as a "nowhere" by prominent politicians, noting that her home town, Wasilla, had recently been insulted by the state Senate president, Ben Stevens. "OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project." One year later, Ketchikan's Republican leaders said they were blindsided by Palin's decision to pull the plug. Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said Saturday that as projected costs for the Ketchikan bridge rose to nearly $400 million, administration officials were telling Ketchikan that the project looked less likely. Local leaders shouldn't have been surprised when Palin announced she was turning to less-costly alternatives, Leighow said. Indeed, Leighow produced a report quoting Palin, late in the governor's race, indicating she would also consider alternatives to a bridge. In addition, in assessing Palin's August 29 claim that "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," PolitiFact.com reported: The project also raised bitter debate in Congress, and several attempts were made to yank the funding for the project. In the fall of 2005, Congress removed the language specifically directing the money to the bridge, but it kept the money in place and left it up to Alaska to decide which transportation projects the state would like to spend it on. By the time Palin pulled the plug on the Gravina bridge project in September 2007, much of the federal funding for the bridge had already been diverted to other transportation projects. [...] When Palin says "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," it implies Congress said, "Here's a check for that bridge" and she responded, "No thanks, that's wasteful spending; here's your money back." That's not what happened. Fact is, Alaska took the bridge money, and then just spent it on other projects. Palin did make the final call to kill plans for the bridge, but by the time she did it was no longer a politically viable project. From the August 31 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday: WALLACE: Let's start with your choice of a running mate. Of all the people you could have chosen, of all the Republicans leaders you've known for years -- straight talk -- can you honestly say that Sarah Palin is the best person to put a heartbeat away from the presidency? McCAIN: Oh, yeah. She's a partner and a soul mate. She -- she's a reformer. I don't particularly enjoy the label "maverick," but when somebody takes on the old bulls in her own party, runs against an incumbent governor of her own party, stands up against the oil and gas interests -- I mean, they really are so vital to the economy of her -- of the state of Alaska. I mean, it's remarkable. It's a remarkable person, and I've watched her record and I've watched her for many, many years as she implemented ethics in lobbying reforms. And, I mean, she led on it. She didn't just vote for it. She led it. I've seen her take on her own party. Look, one thing I know is that when you take on your own party in Washington, you pay a price for it. You do. You pay a price for it. And she's taken on the party in her own state. She take -- she took on a sitting governor and defeated him. And so I've -- I'm so pleased and proud because this is a person who will help me reform Washington and change the way they do business. And that's what Americans want. WALLACE: But let me ask you -- McCAIN: Sure. WALLACE: -- about the concerns that a lot of voters -- McCAIN: Sure. WALLACE: -- who had never heard of Sarah Palin before yesterday are asking. Compared to, say, Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman, why is Governor Palin superior in dealing with national security and foreign policy? [...] WALLACE: You talked to her on the phone last Sunday, and you met with her face-to-face -- face-to-face for the first time to discuss the vice-presidential pick Thursday morning, and then you offered her the job. Must have been a heck of a meeting. McCAIN: Well, the fact is, I've been watching her. I mean, look, what she's been doing in Alaska -- let's have some straight talk -- has affected the representation in Washington, D.C. We fought against, frankly, the same adversaries, the same challenges. Look, we couldn't get the bridge to nowhere out, although we tried. People like Tom Coburn and me -- WALLACE: This is the big pork-barrel project. McCAIN: Yeah, the pork-barrel project. Two hundred and thirty-three million dollar bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it. She, as governor, stood up and said, "We don't need it. And if we need it, we'll pay for it ourselves." Now that's, that's guts. I saw that, and I said, "This, this is what we need in Washington." WALLACE: Senator, I want to turn to the Democratic convention. From the August 31 broadcast of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos: STEPHANOPOULOS: But is she ready to serve on Day One? It sounds like you're shifting the criteria. GRAHAM: No, I think so, I think so. Compared to Barack Obama, absolutely. She has done things that Barack Obama would never dream of, to go in her state and say, "I'm not going to build a bridge to nowhere." A four hundred dollar -- million dollar appropriation that was passed by brute force in the Congress between two senior members of the congressional delegation, very powerful figures in Washington, and for her to say to the citizens of Alaska, "We're not going to do this, 'cause this is not necessary, and it's wasteful -- to take on your own Republican Party" -- STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Senator, she turned against that only -- she campaigned for it in her 2006 race and turned against it in 2007 only after it became a national joke. GRAHAM: Well, the point is that she had the courage to say, "We're not going to do it because it's not the right signal we want to send everybody else from Alaska." She took on the Republican Party chairman and called him unethical; she took on the attorney general who eventually resigned because he was doing things that were inappropriate. I'm in politics. I voted against the bridge to nowhere. I was one of 14. It scared the heck out of me because I knew what was going to come my way. I can't imagine being the governor of the state and telling the people who were able to secure the bridge, "We're not going to do it."
Media Matters - Wallace did not challenge McCain's claim that Palin said of "bridge to nowhere": "We don't need it. And if we need it, we'll pay for it ourselves" {...} On Fox News Sunday , Sen. John McCain said that regarding the "bridge to nowhere" project, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin "stood up and said, 'We don't need it. And if we need it, we'll pay for it ourselves.' " Chris Wallace did not note in response that during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign, Palin reportedly supported the proposal to build a bridge between Ketchikan, Alaska, and Gravina Island and suggested that Alaska's congressional delegation should continue to try to procure funding for the project. {...}
Published: September 1, 2008, 12:59 am - Indexed: September 1, 2008, 1:47 pm - Page Size: 34KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {LIBRARIES > WEBLOGS} - Charter Schools: Are They Needed? Looking at Both Sides of the Debate http://articles.world-of-newave.info/reference/libraries/library-and-information-science/weblogs/charter-schools-are-they-needed-looking-at-both-2008086293.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/reference/libraries/library-and-information-science/weblogs/charter-schools-are-they-needed-looking-at-both-2008086293.htm Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:16:22 GMT Charter Schools: Are They Needed? Looking at Both Sides of the Debateby Michael Lorenzen(This is another rescued paper I put up at a now vanished website years ago. I think some web surfers may find it of interest.)Most reform concepts work by making changes within schools. However, a newer reform idea works by creating entirely new schools. The charter school movement seeks to improve public school by creating new, rival, and competing public schools. The hope is that competition for students will force public schools to improve. However, many do not believe the free market will actually bring this about and may actually harm public schools. Despite the relative newness of the charter concept, the ideas behind it are not new and an examination of education literature can shed a lot of light on the concept. Description of charter schools The pro-charter school group, the Michigan Association of Public School Academies (MAPSA), defines on their web page that, "Charter Schools are public schools-free and open to all. They are started by interested parents, educators, and business and community leaders. Each school is created with its own unique curricula and is licensed by a school district, community college or, most often, a state university." The mostly anti-charter National Education Association, (NEA) furthers the definition by writing on their web site, "These school are deregulated, autonomous and independent of the rules and regulations that govern traditional schools. The theory that underlies the charters is that such freeing of some public schools will hasten educational innovation, improve student achievement, create greater parental involvement, and promote improvement of public education in general. And the theory follows that if there's no educational improvement, the school will be held accountable and the school's charter won't be renewed." A description of the charter school concept can be constructed including both of the above descriptions and using other sources. Charter schools are public schools that are free from some, but not all, of the regulations that govern most public schools. Any person or group may start their own public school if they can get a charter from an approving educational institution, which is normally a state university. These schools, which are free from many regulations and teachers unions, can attempt to innovate curriculum and learning in ways that traditional public schools can not or will not try. In districts with charter schools, parents can choose to send their children to either the local public school system or to a charter school. Whichever school the parents chooses, that school gets all of the state funding for that student. It is hoped that making schools compete for students will make them better. If a school system loses a significant number of students and money to charter schools then it is likely going to try to compete with the charter schools by being more responsive to parents and more willing to try reforms that the school previously opposed. Those local school districts that refuse to innovate and improve to keep pace with charter schools will lose money and students. Those charter schools that do not deliver quality instruction will not keep their students and run the risk of going out of business or losing their charter.Praise and criticism for charter schools The greatest benefit of charter schools according to its proponents is that all public schools will get better if there is competition. The free market will drive quality instruction and innovation and those schools, which do not respond to market forces, will either get progressively weaker or be closed entirely. The pro-charter Charter Friends National Network writes on its web site, "The purpose of charter schools is not just to create schools. The evaluation (of charter schools) should ask whether districts do in fact act to improve their own programs in response to the appearance of charter laws and charters schools. Most evaluations so far have not looked for these second-order effects. To evaluate the 'ripple effect' requires looking simply at what districts do." Using this argument, if a school district improves after a charter is opened, the charter school idea has worked even if the local school district outperforms the charter school. Both the school district and the charter are needed to create the free market that drove the improvement in the school district. The United States is a capitalistic society and the free market drives most of what occurs in the economy. The Federal government promotes the free market as it tends to produce jobs and keep prices low. Although different sectors of the market may not always work as well as they should in the free market; the American free market system has created the strongest economy in the world. The only area that the government has historically interfered with the free market is to prevent or destroy monopolies. The free market can create monopolies but monopolies destroy the free market when they emerge. This reasoning is transferred to public schools with the charter school idea. The public school system as it previously stood was a monopoly. Except for paying for private schooling, the local public school was the only option a parent had for educating their child. Charter schools create competition. And if the free market works for education as it does in the economy, the public schools as a whole will become a better product. Opponents of charter schools have several counters to this reasoning. Much of it can be found at the NEA web site. Although the free market does a good job as a whole for the economy, there are losers in this system. As such, there will be losers in an educational free market. Do we want children to suffer if they are among the losers? Further, how can you make a school better if you take money away from it? Opponents argue that many of the problems with public schools to begin with are from a lack of funding. Taking money from a school will only make it worse. Another argument for charter schools is fairness. A form of school choice exists for those have the money. It does not for everyone else. Wrote Nathan (74), "We have a deeply inequitable public school system in which the wealthy already have school choice: middle and upper income families can always move to exclusive suburbs, where the price of admission to 'public' schools is the ability to buy a home and pay real estate taxes. Low and moderate income families do not have this ability. Thus those who defend the current public education system are in fact defending a massive, informal school choice system based on wealth and residence which is arguably the most inequitable system imaginable. As one innercity activist recently said to a charter school critic: 'How dare you insist we send our children to school you will do anything to avoid for your children?' Charter schools offer a much fairer approach to school choice." Since the traditional public school model relied so heavily on where a student lived, this tended to give the poor the worst public schools. However, an inordinate number of racial minority students live in poor neighborhoods. The traditional public school model then places a higher percentage of minorities in poor schools. This results in a racist system that perpetuates racial privilege. It is not surprising then that many members of these racial groups are supporters of charter schools. They provide parents with a choice of schools. This choice can create better schools for their children, which may help to break the poverty cycle. It is interesting to note that civil rights leader Rosa Parks applied to start a charter school in Detroit based on this reasoning. Another argument for charter schools is that they empower parents. Charter schools not only give parents the option of creating or attending schools more to their liking, but it also gives them the opportunity to bargain with teachers and administrators in school districts. One area that can be explored is cultural preference. Racial minorities may desire a school that promotes their culture. Religious parents may desire to send their children to schools that promote their moral values. Wrote Smith (56), "Many families with children in the public schools must contend with pressures of assimilation toward mainstream norms as they attempt to transmit their cultural or religious values. To escape these pressures, or to be ensured a certain quality of education, some families choose private education. But only those who can afford private school tuition can use this option. Thus, families whose values are not represented in the mainstream culture and families with low to middle incomes are at a disadvantage in the present structure of public education." Charter schools give choice to those who previously lacked it. It also assures a higher level of bargaining for a parent if they keep a child in the local school district. The Board of Education will think twice about approving teacher supported curriculum that is opposed by a vocal group of parents. Unpopular curriculum such as sex education and values clarification is less likely to be approved in a district if parents can and will pull their children from the school district. Critics of charter schools point to this as a bad thing. They prefer to allow these curricular decisions to be made by educational professionals. However, most parents believe that the ultimate arbiter of their children's education is themselves and not the state. And as such, this ability to have cultural preferences addressed seriously is popular with parents. Another criticism of charter schools is that for-profit companies operate many of them. The NEA web site calls them "fly-by-night" companies in derision. A recent article in Educational Leadership wrote about these for-profit schools in Michigan. Wrote Dykgraaf and Lewis (51), "Our conclusions proved troubling. First, cutting expenses is indeed part of the for-profit strategy, which results in consequences for transportation, special education, and the socioeconomic mix of students. Second, we concluded the public is not aware of how drastic for-profit management is in Michigan, for no easily accessible source of information is available on the activity of these management groups. Finally, de facto ownership of these schools rests more with the management companies and not the public." The NEA's, Dykgraaf, and Lewis's criticism of for-profit charter schools is very understandable. It touches on a fundamentally moral issue. Is it ok to run schools for money? Many would find this objectionable. Cost cutting in areas such as special education is also problematic. Finally, the fact that for-profit schools are truly owned by the corporation and not the state raises many concerns. Another criticism of charter schools is that they attract students with concerned parents. By their nature, parents have to take an active interest in their children's education to enroll in charter schools. Children who have parents actively involved in their education do better overall than students who do not. Hence, charter schools are going to attract the students who tend to do better in school. The local school system will be left with fewer children who have active parents. This will make it hard to compare the charter with the local school district. If the charter is getting better performing students, it should be doing better on comparable tests. A counter to this argument is that the parents who are concerned about education have a right to send their children to schools that are populated with students of other concerned parents. This is a better learning environment for the students. Another result of charter schools that this author has not seen considered yet is the concept of property values. Real estate values in areas with poor school systems tend to be low. This is often attributed to the quality of the local public school system. What happens when charter schools are present in a district? If parents can avoid the local public school system by sending a child to a charter school, does this make them more willing to live in the district? If this is the case, property values should rise in these districts. If this proves true, residents of a district will show even more support to charter schools. Although a few more years will need to pass before this kind of research can be done, it does like an interesting research idea.Analysis of the charter school issue Not surprisingly, the debate over charter has been informed by the development of education and educational reform in America. As such, looking at the writings of educational researchers and practitioners can help in understanding the charter school issue. Charter schools have not developed in a vacuum. Looking at the wider issues in education is very important. The belief that charter schools help further the goals of democracy and fairness is important. The notion of democratic equality is very important in the United States. The belief that schooling should serve all regardless of social background and give all an equal chance at an education that will lead to a potentially high social class is widespread. In brief, this belief envisions that all inhabitants of the United States (citizen and alien alike) will receive the same education. Those who are worthy, regardless of the backgrounds of the parents, will succeed and achieve great things and those that are less worthy will through their own efforts select their own less than spectacular destinies. This is a powerful idea that is held by those dedicated to the egalitarian ideal of The Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, by those who are in the working class who believe that providence has delivered what they deserve, and by those who are well off who believe the educational system has justified their own status. Several scholars have taken note of democratic equality. Cohen and Neufield (73) wrote, In addition to citizenship training and equal treatment, the goal of democratic equality has taken a third form, and that is the pursuit of equal access." Labaree (47) wrote, "Equal access has come to mean that every American should have an equal opportunity to acquire an education at any educational level." These same scholars convincingly trace the development of this vision of equality in America from the development of public elementary schools, the rise of public high schools, and finally the realization of nearly universal access to higher education. However, the traditional public school system has not delivered on the democratic equality promise. Not all schools are equal. Some are much worse than others are. Poor students in these schools have no choice but to attend them. This results in them not having a fair chance at succeeding. Charter schools give many the belief that democratic equality is still attainable.Paradoxically, this low public opinion of the local public school system developed because schools tried to deliver on this promise. However, universal school attendance created problems. Can a school be open to all and be excellent? The answer appears to be no too many. By attempting to serve everyone equally, the school serves no on excellently. Access for all creates a problem. Vast numbers of diverse students with various backgrounds have different educational needs. Further, many students do not desire to be in school. This creates a need to make school attractive to these students. This can result in a water downed curriculum that most students can succeed in. Further, as Willis showed in his book on working class students in England, even the students can deliberately choose not to be educated. Part of the desire for charter schools is the perceived lack of serious education in public schools. Wrote Sedlak at al (preface, x), "There appears to have developed an implicit 'bargain' between students in virtually all of our high schools, which results in a de-emphasis on academic learning and student disengagement from learning. The bargain is negotiated, albeit tacitly, between two parties, both of which have resources, but unequal power. This bargain determines the level of academic learning that takes place in the classroom. Although content and acquisition of knowledge ultimately suffer, the bargain struck in most classrooms furthers its primary goal of making the relationships between educators and students more comfortable and less troublesome." This idea creates a dual consideration for charter schools and the community. Charter schools can indeed create an alternative to public schools where bargains water down learning. Many want this bargain eliminated. The public does not want students taking easy classes and they want students being challenged academically. They want the students to be challenged and the teachers to push high standards. The hope is that charter schools will do this. However, what promise do we have that the charter schools will not make their own bargains with students? What assurance is there that the current bargaining system will simply not be reproduced in the charter schools? This should make charter school advocates take pause and consider what can occur in the charter schools. The desire of many to want charter schools is not surprising. People have a strong ownership and desire to participate in the education process. Wrote Cusick (1992), "Individual freedom runs all the way through the system. Parents may or may not support the school board; superintendents may support or oppose the state department; state department staff may alter the intent of federal policy makers. People make and exercise personal decisions, enter and take part on their own terms, and regards those as their rights. Students mix their classes, cultures, and friendships with school requirements; teachers adjust their curriculums to their predilections, create their student relations, and support and oppose principals as they choose. Reformers decide schools need accountability, or principals decide their teachers have too much or too little power. Teachers decide students need more freedom. Each member of the system is free to make his or her own decision and set out on a course of action." The charter school movement is the ultimate manifestation of Cusick's view of the education process. Charter schools allow unparalleled opportunities for input. Any teacher, administrator, parent, businessperson, or politician can literally start their own public school. The degree to which this can be used to influence the education process is enormous. The amount of educational freedom created is unprecedented. Charter schools are popular now and it is certain they will continue to expand in the near future. It will be interesting to see how well they perform in comparison to public school districts and if these districts change for the better in attempting to compete for students. Regardless, the conditions that created charter schools will remain and this reform is just one way to address them.Works CitedCharter Friends National Network. http://web.archive.org/web/20070405174929/http://www.charterfriends.org/. Cohen, David K. and Barbara Neufield (1981). "The failure of High Schools and the Progress of Education." Daedalus 110 (Summer): 69-89. Cusick, Philip (1992). The Educational System: Its Nature and Logic. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1990. Dykgraaf, Christy Lancaster and Shirley Kane Lewis (1998). "For-Profit Charter Schools: What the Public Needs to Know." Educational Leadership 56(2): 51-53. Labaree, David (1997). "Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals." American Educational Research Journal 34 (Spring): 39-81. Michigan Association of Public School Academies. http://web.archive.org/web/20070405174929/http://www.charterschools.org/. Nathan, Joe (1998). "Charters and Choice." American Prospect (issue 41): 74-77. National Education Association. http://www.nea.org/issues/charter/ . Sedlak, Michael et al. (1986). Selling Students Short: Classroom Reform in the American High School. New York: Teachers College Press. Smith, Stacy (1998). "The Democratizing Potential of Charter Schools." Educational Leadership 56(2) : 55-58. Willis, Paul. Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Columbia University Press. Information-literacy.Net Charter Schools: Are They Needed? Looking at Both Sides of the Debate {new window}   Www.Information-literacy.Net - Charter Schools: Are They Needed? Looking at Both Sides of the Debateby Michael Lorenzen(This is another rescued paper I put up at a now vanished website years ago. I think some web surfers may find it of interest.)Most reform concepts work by making changes within schools. However, a newer reform idea works by creating entirely new schools. The charter school movement seeks to improve public school by creating new, rival, and competing public schools. The hope is that competition for students will force public schools to improve. However, many do not believe the free market will actually bring this about and may actually harm public schools. Despite the relative newness of the charter concept, the ideas behind it are not new and an examination of education literature can shed a lot of light on the concept. Description of charter schools The pro-charter school group, the Michigan Association of Public School Academies (MAPSA), defines on their web page that, "Charter Schools are public schools-free and open to all. They are started by interested parents, educators, and business and community leaders. Each school is created with its own unique curricula and is licensed by a school district, community college or, most often, a state university." The mostly anti-charter National Education Association, (NEA) furthers the definition by writing on their web site, "These school are deregulated, autonomous and independent of the rules and regulations that govern traditional schools. The theory that underlies the charters is that such freeing of some public schools will hasten educational innovation, improve student achievement, create greater parental involvement, and promote improvement of public education in general. And the theory follows that if there's no educational improvement, the school will be held accountable and the school's charter won't be renewed." A description of the charter school concept can be constructed including both of the above descriptions and using other sources. Charter schools are public schools that are free from some, but not all, of the regulations that govern most public schools. Any person or group may start their own public school if they can get a charter from an approving educational institution, which is normally a state university. These schools, which are free from many regulations and teachers unions, can attempt to innovate curriculum and learning in ways that traditional public schools can not or will not try. In districts with charter schools, parents can choose to send their children to either the local public school system or to a charter school. Whichever school the parents chooses, that school gets all of the state funding for that student. It is hoped that making schools compete for students will make them better. If a school system loses a significant number of students and money to charter schools then it is likely going to try to compete with the charter schools by being more responsive to parents and more willing to try reforms that the school previously opposed. Those local school districts that refuse to innovate and improve to keep pace with charter schools will lose money and students. Those charter schools that do not deliver quality instruction will not keep their students and run the risk of going out of business or losing their charter.Praise and criticism for charter schools The greatest benefit of charter schools according to its proponents is that all public schools will get better if there is competition. The free market will drive quality instruction and innovation and those schools, which do not respond to market forces, will either get progressively weaker or be closed entirely. The pro-charter Charter Friends National Network writes on its web site, "The purpose of charter schools is not just to create schools. The evaluation (of charter schools) should ask whether districts do in fact act to improve their own programs in response to the appearance of charter laws and charters schools. Most evaluations so far have not looked for these second-order effects. To evaluate the 'ripple effect' requires looking simply at what districts do." Using this argument, if a school district improves after a charter is opened, the charter school idea has worked even if the local school district outperforms the charter school. Both the school district and the charter are needed to create the free market that drove the improvement in the school district. The United States is a capitalistic society and the free market drives most of what occurs in the economy. The Federal government promotes the free market as it tends to produce jobs and keep prices low. Although different sectors of the market may not always work as well as they should in the free market; the American free market system has created the strongest economy in the world. The only area that the government has historically interfered with the free market is to prevent or destroy monopolies. The free market can create monopolies but monopolies destroy the free market when they emerge. This reasoning is transferred to public schools with the charter school idea. The public school system as it previously stood was a monopoly. Except for paying for private schooling, the local public school was the only option a parent had for educating their child. Charter schools create competition. And if the free market works for education as it does in the economy, the public schools as a whole will become a better product. Opponents of charter schools have several counters to this reasoning. Much of it can be found at the NEA web site. Although the free market does a good job as a whole for the economy, there are losers in this system. As such, there will be losers in an educational free market. Do we want children to suffer if they are among the losers? Further, how can you make a school better if you take money away from it? Opponents argue that many of the problems with public schools to begin with are from a lack of funding. Taking money from a school will only make it worse. Another argument for charter schools is fairness. A form of school choice exists for those have the money. It does not for everyone else. Wrote Nathan (74), "We have a deeply inequitable public school system in which the wealthy already have school choice: middle and upper income families can always move to exclusive suburbs, where the price of admission to 'public' schools is the ability to buy a home and pay real estate taxes. Low and moderate income families do not have this ability. Thus those who defend the current public education system are in fact defending a massive, informal school choice system based on wealth and residence which is arguably the most inequitable system imaginable. As one innercity activist recently said to a charter school critic: 'How dare you insist we send our children to school you will do anything to avoid for your children?' Charter schools offer a much fairer approach to school choice." Since the traditional public school model relied so heavily on where a student lived, this tended to give the poor the worst public schools. However, an inordinate number of racial minority students live in poor neighborhoods. The traditional public school model then places a higher percentage of minorities in poor schools. This results in a racist system that perpetuates racial privilege. It is not surprising then that many members of these racial groups are supporters of charter schools. They provide parents with a choice of schools. This choice can create better schools for their children, which may help to break the poverty cycle. It is interesting to note that civil rights leader Rosa Parks applied to start a charter school in Detroit based on this reasoning. Another argument for charter schools is that they empower parents. Charter schools not only give parents the option of creating or attending schools more to their liking, but it also gives them the opportunity to bargain with teachers and administrators in school districts. One area that can be explored is cultural preference. Racial minorities may desire a school that promotes their culture. Religious parents may desire to send their children to schools that promote their moral values. Wrote Smith (56), "Many families with children in the public schools must contend with pressures of assimilation toward mainstream norms as they attempt to transmit their cultural or religious values. To escape these pressures, or to be ensured a certain quality of education, some families choose private education. But only those who can afford private school tuition can use this option. Thus, families whose values are not represented in the mainstream culture and families with low to middle incomes are at a disadvantage in the present structure of public education." Charter schools give choice to those who previously lacked it. It also assures a higher level of bargaining for a parent if they keep a child in the local school district. The Board of Education will think twice about approving teacher supported curriculum that is opposed by a vocal group of parents. Unpopular curriculum such as sex education and values clarification is less likely to be approved in a district if parents can and will pull their children from the school district. Critics of charter schools point to this as a bad thing. They prefer to allow these curricular decisions to be made by educational professionals. However, most parents believe that the ultimate arbiter of their children's education is themselves and not the state. And as such, this ability to have cultural preferences addressed seriously is popular with parents. Another criticism of charter schools is that for-profit companies operate many of them. The NEA web site calls them "fly-by-night" companies in derision. A recent article in Educational Leadership wrote about these for-profit schools in Michigan. Wrote Dykgraaf and Lewis (51), "Our conclusions proved troubling. First, cutting expenses is indeed part of the for-profit strategy, which results in consequences for transportation, special education, and the socioeconomic mix of students. Second, we concluded the public is not aware of how drastic for-profit management is in Michigan, for no easily accessible source of information is available on the activity of these management groups. Finally, de facto ownership of these schools rests more with the management companies and not the public." The NEA's, Dykgraaf, and Lewis's criticism of for-profit charter schools is very understandable. It touches on a fundamentally moral issue. Is it ok to run schools for money? Many would find this objectionable. Cost cutting in areas such as special education is also problematic. Finally, the fact that for-profit schools are truly owned by the corporation and not the state raises many concerns. Another criticism of charter schools is that they attract students with concerned parents. By their nature, parents have to take an active interest in their children's education to enroll in charter schools. Children who have parents actively involved in their education do better overall than students who do not. Hence, charter schools are going to attract the students who tend to do better in school. The local school system will be left with fewer children who have active parents. This will make it hard to compare the charter with the local school district. If the charter is getting better performing students, it should be doing better on comparable tests. A counter to this argument is that the parents who are concerned about education have a right to send their children to schools that are populated with students of other concerned parents. This is a better learning environment for the students. Another result of charter schools that this author has not seen considered yet is the concept of property values. Real estate values in areas with poor school systems tend to be low. This is often attributed to the quality of the local public school system. What happens when charter schools are present in a district? If parents can avoid the local public school system by sending a child to a charter school, does this make them more willing to live in the district? If this is the case, property values should rise in these districts. If this proves true, residents of a district will show even more support to charter schools. Although a few more years will need to pass before this kind of research can be done, it does like an interesting research idea.Analysis of the charter school issue Not surprisingly, the debate over charter has been informed by the development of education and educational reform in America. As such, looking at the writings of educational researchers and practitioners can help in understanding the charter school issue. Charter schools have not developed in a vacuum. Looking at the wider issues in education is very important. The belief that charter schools help further the goals of democracy and fairness is important. The notion of democratic equality is very important in the United States. The belief that schooling should serve all regardless of social background and give all an equal chance at an education that will lead to a potentially high social class is widespread. In brief, this belief envisions that all inhabitants of the United States (citizen and alien alike) will receive the same education. Those who are worthy, regardless of the backgrounds of the parents, will succeed and achieve great things and those that are less worthy will through their own efforts select their own less than spectacular destinies. This is a powerful idea that is held by those dedicated to the egalitarian ideal of The Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, by those who are in the working class who believe that providence has delivered what they deserve, and by those who are well off who believe the educational system has justified their own status. Several scholars have taken note of democratic equality. Cohen and Neufield (73) wrote, In addition to citizenship training and equal treatment, the goal of democratic equality has taken a third form, and that is the pursuit of equal access." Labaree (47) wrote, "Equal access has come to mean that every American should have an equal opportunity to acquire an education at any educational level." These same scholars convincingly trace the development of this vision of equality in America from the development of public elementary schools, the rise of public high schools, and finally the realization of nearly universal access to higher education. However, the traditional public school system has not delivered on the democratic equality promise. Not all schools are equal. Some are much worse than others are. Poor students in these schools have no choice but to attend them. This results in them not having a fair chance at succeeding. Charter schools give many the belief that democratic equality is still attainable.Paradoxically, this low public opinion of the local public school system developed because schools tried to deliver on this promise. However, universal school attendance created problems. Can a school be open to all and be excellent? The answer appears to be no too many. By attempting to serve everyone equally, the school serves no on excellently. Access for all creates a problem. Vast numbers of diverse students with various backgrounds have different educational needs. Further, many students do not desire to be in school. This creates a need to make school attractive to these students. This can result in a water downed curriculum that most students can succeed in. Further, as Willis showed in his book on working class students in England, even the students can deliberately choose not to be educated. Part of the desire for charter schools is the perceived lack of serious education in public schools. Wrote Sedlak at al (preface, x), "There appears to have developed an implicit 'bargain' between students in virtually all of our high schools, which results in a de-emphasis on academic learning and student disengagement from learning. The bargain is negotiated, albeit tacitly, between two parties, both of which have resources, but unequal power. This bargain determines the level of academic learning that takes place in the classroom. Although content and acquisition of knowledge ultimately suffer, the bargain struck in most classrooms furthers its primary goal of making the relationships between educators and students more comfortable and less troublesome." This idea creates a dual consideration for charter schools and the community. Charter schools can indeed create an alternative to public schools where bargains water down learning. Many want this bargain eliminated. The public does not want students taking easy classes and they want students being challenged academically. They want the students to be challenged and the teachers to push high standards. The hope is that charter schools will do this. However, what promise do we have that the charter schools will not make their own bargains with students? What assurance is there that the current bargaining system will simply not be reproduced in the charter schools? This should make charter school advocates take pause and consider what can occur in the charter schools. The desire of many to want charter schools is not surprising. People have a strong ownership and desire to participate in the education process. Wrote Cusick (1992), "Individual freedom runs all the way through the system. Parents may or may not support the school board; superintendents may support or oppose the state department; state department staff may alter the intent of federal policy makers. People make and exercise personal decisions, enter and take part on their own terms, and regards those as their rights. Students mix their classes, cultures, and friendships with school requirements; teachers adjust their curriculums to their predilections, create their student relations, and support and oppose principals as they choose. Reformers decide schools need accountability, or principals decide their teachers have too much or too little power. Teachers decide students need more freedom. Each member of the system is free to make his or her own decision and set out on a course of action." The charter school movement is the ultimate manifestation of Cusick's view of the education process. Charter schools allow unparalleled opportunities for input. Any teacher, administrator, parent, businessperson, or politician can literally start their own public school. The degree to which this can be used to influence the education process is enormous. The amount of educational freedom created is unprecedented. Charter schools are popular now and it is certain they will continue to expand in the near future. It will be interesting to see how well they perform in comparison to public school districts and if these districts change for the better in attempting to compete for students. Regardless, the conditions that created charter schools will remain and this reform is just one way to address them.Works CitedCharter Friends National Network. http://web.archive.org/web/20070405174929/http://www.charterfriends.org/. Cohen, David K. and Barbara Neufield (1981). "The failure of High Schools and the Progress of Education." Daedalus 110 (Summer): 69-89. Cusick, Philip (1992). The Educational System: Its Nature and Logic. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1990. Dykgraaf, Christy Lancaster and Shirley Kane Lewis (1998). "For-Profit Charter Schools: What the Public Needs to Know." Educational Leadership 56(2): 51-53. Labaree, David (1997). "Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals." American Educational Research Journal 34 (Spring): 39-81. Michigan Association of Public School Academies. http://web.archive.org/web/20070405174929/http://www.charterschools.org/. Nathan, Joe (1998). "Charters and Choice." American Prospect (issue 41): 74-77. National Education Association. http://www.nea.org/issues/charter/ . Sedlak, Michael et al. (1986). Selling Students Short: Classroom Reform in the American High School. New York: Teachers College Press. Smith, Stacy (1998). "The Democratizing Potential of Charter Schools." Educational Leadership 56(2) : 55-58. Willis, Paul. Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.
The Information Literacy Land of Confusion: Charter Schools: Are They Needed? Looking at Both Sides of the Debate {...}
Indexed: August 6, 2008, 11:16 pm - Page Size: 110KB
Category: Reference > Libraries > Library and Information Science > Weblogs

]]> Reference > Libraries > Library and Information Science > Weblogs {LIBRARIES > WEBLOGS} - Charter Schools: Are They Needed? Looking at Both Sides of the Debate http://articles.world-of-newave.info/reference/libraries/library-and-information-science/weblogs/charter-schools-are-they-needed-looking-at-both-2008077985.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/reference/libraries/library-and-information-science/weblogs/charter-schools-are-they-needed-looking-at-both-2008077985.htm Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:40:01 GMT Charter Schools: Are They Needed? Looking at Both Sides of the Debateby Michael Lorenzen(This is another rescued paper I put up at a now vanished website years ago. I think some web surfers may find it of interest.)Most reform concepts work by making changes within schools. However, a newer reform idea works by creating entirely new schools. The charter school movement seeks to improve public school by creating new, rival, and competing public schools. The hope is that competition for students will force public schools to improve. However, many do not believe the free market will actually bring this about and may actually harm public schools. Despite the relative newness of the charter concept, the ideas behind it are not new and an examination of education literature can shed a lot of light on the concept. Description of charter schools The pro-charter school group, the Michigan Association of Public School Academies (MAPSA), defines on their web page that, "Charter Schools are public schools-free and open to all. They are started by interested parents, educators, and business and community leaders. Each school is created with its own unique curricula and is licensed by a school district, community college or, most often, a state university." The mostly anti-charter National Education Association, (NEA) furthers the definition by writing on their web site, "These school are deregulated, autonomous and independent of the rules and regulations that govern traditional schools. The theory that underlies the charters is that such freeing of some public schools will hasten educational innovation, improve student achievement, create greater parental involvement, and promote improvement of public education in general. And the theory follows that if there's no educational improvement, the school will be held accountable and the school's charter won't be renewed." A description of the charter school concept can be constructed including both of the above descriptions and using other sources. Charter schools are public schools that are free from some, but not all, of the regulations that govern most public schools. Any person or group may start their own public school if they can get a charter from an approving educational institution, which is normally a state university. These schools, which are free from many regulations and teachers unions, can attempt to innovate curriculum and learning in ways that traditional public schools can not or will not try. In districts with charter schools, parents can choose to send their children to either the local public school system or to a charter school. Whichever school the parents chooses, that school gets all of the state funding for that student. It is hoped that making schools compete for students will make them better. If a school system loses a significant number of students and money to charter schools then it is likely going to try to compete with the charter schools by being more responsive to parents and more willing to try reforms that the school previously opposed. Those local school districts that refuse to innovate and improve to keep pace with charter schools will lose money and students. Those charter schools that do not deliver quality instruction will not keep their students and run the risk of going out of business or losing their charter.Praise and criticism for charter schools The greatest benefit of charter schools according to its proponents is that all public schools will get better if there is competition. The free market will drive quality instruction and innovation and those schools, which do not respond to market forces, will either get progressively weaker or be closed entirely. The pro-charter Charter Friends National Network writes on its web site, "The purpose of charter schools is not just to create schools. The evaluation (of charter schools) should ask whether districts do in fact act to improve their own programs in response to the appearance of charter laws and charters schools. Most evaluations so far have not looked for these second-order effects. To evaluate the 'ripple effect' requires looking simply at what districts do." Using this argument, if a school district improves after a charter is opened, the charter school idea has worked even if the local school district outperforms the charter school. Both the school district and the charter are needed to create the free market that drove the improvement in the school district. The United States is a capitalistic society and the free market drives most of what occurs in the economy. The Federal government promotes the free market as it tends to produce jobs and keep prices low. Although different sectors of the market may not always work as well as they should in the free market; the American free market system has created the strongest economy in the world. The only area that the government has historically interfered with the free market is to prevent or destroy monopolies. The free market can create monopolies but monopolies destroy the free market when they emerge. This reasoning is transferred to public schools with the charter school idea. The public school system as it previously stood was a monopoly. Except for paying for private schooling, the local public school was the only option a parent had for educating their child. Charter schools create competition. And if the free market works for education as it does in the economy, the public schools as a whole will become a better product. Opponents of charter schools have several counters to this reasoning. Much of it can be found at the NEA web site. Although the free market does a good job as a whole for the economy, there are losers in this system. As such, there will be losers in an educational free market. Do we want children to suffer if they are among the losers? Further, how can you make a school better if you take money away from it? Opponents argue that many of the problems with public schools to begin with are from a lack of funding. Taking money from a school will only make it worse. Another argument for charter schools is fairness. A form of school choice exists for those have the money. It does not for everyone else. Wrote Nathan (74), "We have a deeply inequitable public school system in which the wealthy already have school choice: middle and upper income families can always move to exclusive suburbs, where the price of admission to 'public' schools is the ability to buy a home and pay real estate taxes. Low and moderate income families do not have this ability. Thus those who defend the current public education system are in fact defending a massive, informal school choice system based on wealth and residence which is arguably the most inequitable system imaginable. As one innercity activist recently said to a charter school critic: 'How dare you insist we send our children to school you will do anything to avoid for your children?' Charter schools offer a much fairer approach to school choice." Since the traditional public school model relied so heavily on where a student lived, this tended to give the poor the worst public schools. However, an inordinate number of racial minority students live in poor neighborhoods. The traditional public school model then places a higher percentage of minorities in poor schools. This results in a racist system that perpetuates racial privilege. It is not surprising then that many members of these racial groups are supporters of charter schools. They provide parents with a choice of schools. This choice can create better schools for their children, which may help to break the poverty cycle. It is interesting to note that civil rights leader Rosa Parks applied to start a charter school in Detroit based on this reasoning. Another argument for charter schools is that they empower parents. Charter schools not only give parents the option of creating or attending schools more to their liking, but it also gives them the opportunity to bargain with teachers and administrators in school districts. One area that can be explored is cultural preference. Racial minorities may desire a school that promotes their culture. Religious parents may desire to send their children to schools that promote their moral values. Wrote Smith (56), "Many families with children in the public schools must contend with pressures of assimilation toward mainstream norms as they attempt to transmit their cultural or religious values. To escape these pressures, or to be ensured a certain quality of education, some families choose private education. But only those who can afford private school tuition can use this option. Thus, families whose values are not represented in the mainstream culture and families with low to middle incomes are at a disadvantage in the present structure of public education." Charter schools give choice to those who previously lacked it. It also assures a higher level of bargaining for a parent if they keep a child in the local school district. The Board of Education will think twice about approving teacher supported curriculum that is opposed by a vocal group of parents. Unpopular curriculum such as sex education and values clarification is less likely to be approved in a district if parents can and will pull their children from the school district. Critics of charter schools point to this as a bad thing. They prefer to allow these curricular decisions to be made by educational professionals. However, most parents believe that the ultimate arbiter of their children's education is themselves and not the state. And as such, this ability to have cultural preferences addressed seriously is popular with parents. Another criticism of charter schools is that for-profit companies operate many of them. The NEA web site calls them "fly-by-night" companies in derision. A recent article in Educational Leadership wrote about these for-profit schools in Michigan. Wrote Dykgraaf and Lewis (51), "Our conclusions proved troubling. First, cutting expenses is indeed part of the for-profit strategy, which results in consequences for transportation, special education, and the socioeconomic mix of students. Second, we concluded the public is not aware of how drastic for-profit management is in Michigan, for no easily accessible source of information is available on the activity of these management groups. Finally, de facto ownership of these schools rests more with the management companies and not the public." The NEA's, Dykgraaf, and Lewis's criticism of for-profit charter schools is very understandable. It touches on a fundamentally moral issue. Is it ok to run schools for money? Many would find this objectionable. Cost cutting in areas such as special education is also problematic. Finally, the fact that for-profit schools are truly owned by the corporation and not the state raises many concerns. Another criticism of charter schools is that they attract students with concerned parents. By their nature, parents have to take an active interest in their children's education to enroll in charter schools. Children who have parents actively involved in their education do better overall than students who do not. Hence, charter schools are going to attract the students who tend to do better in school. The local school system will be left with fewer children who have active parents. This will make it hard to compare the charter with the local school district. If the charter is getting better performing students, it should be doing better on comparable tests. A counter to this argument is that the parents who are concerned about education have a right to send their children to schools that are populated with students of other concerned parents. This is a better learning environment for the students. Another result of charter schools that this author has not seen considered yet is the concept of property values. Real estate values in areas with poor school systems tend to be low. This is often attributed to the quality of the local public school system. What happens when charter schools are present in a district? If parents can avoid the local public school system by sending a child to a charter school, does this make them more willing to live in the district? If this is the case, property values should rise in these districts. If this proves true, residents of a district will show even more support to charter schools. Although a few more years will need to pass before this kind of research can be done, it does like an interesting research idea.Analysis of the charter school issue Not surprisingly, the debate over charter has been informed by the development of education and educational reform in America. As such, looking at the writings of educational researchers and practitioners can help in understanding the charter school issue. Charter schools have not developed in a vacuum. Looking at the wider issues in education is very important. The belief that charter schools help further the goals of democracy and fairness is important. The notion of democratic equality is very important in the United States. The belief that schooling should serve all regardless of social background and give all an equal chance at an education that will lead to a potentially high social class is widespread. In brief, this belief envisions that all inhabitants of the United States (citizen and alien alike) will receive the same education. Those who are worthy, regardless of the backgrounds of the parents, will succeed and achieve great things and those that are less worthy will through their own efforts select their own less than spectacular destinies. This is a powerful idea that is held by those dedicated to the egalitarian ideal of The Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, by those who are in the working class who believe that providence has delivered what they deserve, and by those who are well off who believe the educational system has justified their own status. Several scholars have taken note of democratic equality. Cohen and Neufield (73) wrote, In addition to citizenship training and equal treatment, the goal of democratic equality has taken a third form, and that is the pursuit of equal access." Labaree (47) wrote, "Equal access has come to mean that every American should have an equal opportunity to acquire an education at any educational level." These same scholars convincingly trace the development of this vision of equality in America from the development of public elementary schools, the rise of public high schools, and finally the realization of nearly universal access to higher education. However, the traditional public school system has not delivered on the democratic equality promise. Not all schools are equal. Some are much worse than others are. Poor students in these schools have no choice but to attend them. This results in them not having a fair chance at succeeding. Charter schools give many the belief that democratic equality is still attainable.Paradoxically, this low public opinion of the local public school system developed because schools tried to deliver on this promise. However, universal school attendance created problems. Can a school be open to all and be excellent? The answer appears to be no too many. By attempting to serve everyone equally, the school serves no on excellently. Access for all creates a problem. Vast numbers of diverse students with various backgrounds have different educational needs. Further, many students do not desire to be in school. This creates a need to make school attractive to these students. This can result in a water downed curriculum that most students can succeed in. Further, as Willis showed in his book on working class students in England, even the students can deliberately choose not to be educated. Part of the desire for charter schools is the perceived lack of serious education in public schools. Wrote Sedlak at al (preface, x), "There appears to have developed an implicit 'bargain' between students in virtually all of our high schools, which results in a de-emphasis on academic learning and student disengagement from learning. The bargain is negotiated, albeit tacitly, between two parties, both of which have resources, but unequal power. This bargain determines the level of academic learning that takes place in the classroom. Although content and acquisition of knowledge ultimately suffer, the bargain struck in most classrooms furthers its primary goal of making the relationships between educators and students more comfortable and less troublesome." This idea creates a dual consideration for charter schools and the community. Charter schools can indeed create an alternative to public schools where bargains water down learning. Many want this bargain eliminated. The public does not want students taking easy classes and they want students being challenged academically. They want the students to be challenged and the teachers to push high standards. The hope is that charter schools will do this. However, what promise do we have that the charter schools will not make their own bargains with students? What assurance is there that the current bargaining system will simply not be reproduced in the charter schools? This should make charter school advocates take pause and consider what can occur in the charter schools. The desire of many to want charter schools is not surprising. People have a strong ownership and desire to participate in the education process. Wrote Cusick (1992), "Individual freedom runs all the way through the system. Parents may or may not support the school board; superintendents may support or oppose the state department; state department staff may alter the intent of federal policy makers. People make and exercise personal decisions, enter and take part on their own terms, and regards those as their rights. Students mix their classes, cultures, and friendships with school requirements; teachers adjust their curriculums to their predilections, create their student relations, and support and oppose principals as they choose. Reformers decide schools need accountability, or principals decide their teachers have too much or too little power. Teachers decide students need more freedom. Each member of the system is free to make his or her own decision and set out on a course of action." The charter school movement is the ultimate manifestation of Cusick's view of the education process. Charter schools allow unparalleled opportunities for input. Any teacher, administrator, parent, businessperson, or politician can literally start their own public school. The degree to which this can be used to influence the education process is enormous. The amount of educational freedom created is unprecedented. Charter schools are popular now and it is certain they will continue to expand in the near future. It will be interesting to see how well they perform in comparison to public school districts and if these districts change for the better in attempting to compete for students. Regardless, the conditions that created charter schools will remain and this reform is just one way to address them.Works CitedCharter Friends National Network. http://web.archive.org/web/20070405174929/http://www.charterfriends.org/. Cohen, David K. and Barbara Neufield (1981). "The failure of High Schools and the Progress of Education." Daedalus 110 (Summer): 69-89. Cusick, Philip (1992). The Educational System: Its Nature and Logic. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1990. Dykgraaf, Christy Lancaster and Shirley Kane Lewis (1998). "For-Profit Charter Schools: What the Public Needs to Know." Educational Leadership 56(2): 51-53. Labaree, David (1997). "Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals." American Educational Research Journal 34 (Spring): 39-81. Michigan Association of Public School Academies. http://web.archive.org/web/20070405174929/http://www.charterschools.org/. Nathan, Joe (1998). "Charters and Choice." American Prospect (issue 41): 74-77. National Education Association. http://www.nea.org/issues/charter/ . Sedlak, Michael et al. (1986). Selling Students Short: Classroom Reform in the American High School. New York: Teachers College Press. Smith, Stacy (1998). "The Democratizing Potential of Charter Schools." Educational Leadership 56(2) : 55-58. Willis, Paul. Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Columbia University Press. Information-literacy.Net Charter Schools: Are They Needed? Looking at Both Sides of the Debate {new window}   Www.Information-literacy.Net - Charter Schools: Are They Needed? Looking at Both Sides of the Debateby Michael Lorenzen(This is another rescued paper I put up at a now vanished website years ago. I think some web surfers may find it of interest.)Most reform concepts work by making changes within schools. However, a newer reform idea works by creating entirely new schools. The charter school movement seeks to improve public school by creating new, rival, and competing public schools. The hope is that competition for students will force public schools to improve. However, many do not believe the free market will actually bring this about and may actually harm public schools. Despite the relative newness of the charter concept, the ideas behind it are not new and an examination of education literature can shed a lot of light on the concept. Description of charter schools The pro-charter school group, the Michigan Association of Public School Academies (MAPSA), defines on their web page that, "Charter Schools are public schools-free and open to all. They are started by interested parents, educators, and business and community leaders. Each school is created with its own unique curricula and is licensed by a school district, community college or, most often, a state university." The mostly anti-charter National Education Association, (NEA) furthers the definition by writing on their web site, "These school are deregulated, autonomous and independent of the rules and regulations that govern traditional schools. The theory that underlies the charters is that such freeing of some public schools will hasten educational innovation, improve student achievement, create greater parental involvement, and promote improvement of public education in general. And the theory follows that if there's no educational improvement, the school will be held accountable and the school's charter won't be renewed." A description of the charter school concept can be constructed including both of the above descriptions and using other sources. Charter schools are public schools that are free from some, but not all, of the regulations that govern most public schools. Any person or group may start their own public school if they can get a charter from an approving educational institution, which is normally a state university. These schools, which are free from many regulations and teachers unions, can attempt to innovate curriculum and learning in ways that traditional public schools can not or will not try. In districts with charter schools, parents can choose to send their children to either the local public school system or to a charter school. Whichever school the parents chooses, that school gets all of the state funding for that student. It is hoped that making schools compete for students will make them better. If a school system loses a significant number of students and money to charter schools then it is likely going to try to compete with the charter schools by being more responsive to parents and more willing to try reforms that the school previously opposed. Those local school districts that refuse to innovate and improve to keep pace with charter schools will lose money and students. Those charter schools that do not deliver quality instruction will not keep their students and run the risk of going out of business or losing their charter.Praise and criticism for charter schools The greatest benefit of charter schools according to its proponents is that all public schools will get better if there is competition. The free market will drive quality instruction and innovation and those schools, which do not respond to market forces, will either get progressively weaker or be closed entirely. The pro-charter Charter Friends National Network writes on its web site, "The purpose of charter schools is not just to create schools. The evaluation (of charter schools) should ask whether districts do in fact act to improve their own programs in response to the appearance of charter laws and charters schools. Most evaluations so far have not looked for these second-order effects. To evaluate the 'ripple effect' requires looking simply at what districts do." Using this argument, if a school district improves after a charter is opened, the charter school idea has worked even if the local school district outperforms the charter school. Both the school district and the charter are needed to create the free market that drove the improvement in the school district. The United States is a capitalistic society and the free market drives most of what occurs in the economy. The Federal government promotes the free market as it tends to produce jobs and keep prices low. Although different sectors of the market may not always work as well as they should in the free market; the American free market system has created the strongest economy in the world. The only area that the government has historically interfered with the free market is to prevent or destroy monopolies. The free market can create monopolies but monopolies destroy the free market when they emerge. This reasoning is transferred to public schools with the charter school idea. The public school system as it previously stood was a monopoly. Except for paying for private schooling, the local public school was the only option a parent had for educating their child. Charter schools create competition. And if the free market works for education as it does in the economy, the public schools as a whole will become a better product. Opponents of charter schools have several counters to this reasoning. Much of it can be found at the NEA web site. Although the free market does a good job as a whole for the economy, there are losers in this system. As such, there will be losers in an educational free market. Do we want children to suffer if they are among the losers? Further, how can you make a school better if you take money away from it? Opponents argue that many of the problems with public schools to begin with are from a lack of funding. Taking money from a school will only make it worse. Another argument for charter schools is fairness. A form of school choice exists for those have the money. It does not for everyone else. Wrote Nathan (74), "We have a deeply inequitable public school system in which the wealthy already have school choice: middle and upper income families can always move to exclusive suburbs, where the price of admission to 'public' schools is the ability to buy a home and pay real estate taxes. Low and moderate income families do not have this ability. Thus those who defend the current public education system are in fact defending a massive, informal school choice system based on wealth and residence which is arguably the most inequitable system imaginable. As one innercity activist recently said to a charter school critic: 'How dare you insist we send our children to school you will do anything to avoid for your children?' Charter schools offer a much fairer approach to school choice." Since the traditional public school model relied so heavily on where a student lived, this tended to give the poor the worst public schools. However, an inordinate number of racial minority students live in poor neighborhoods. The traditional public school model then places a higher percentage of minorities in poor schools. This results in a racist system that perpetuates racial privilege. It is not surprising then that many members of these racial groups are supporters of charter schools. They provide parents with a choice of schools. This choice can create better schools for their children, which may help to break the poverty cycle. It is interesting to note that civil rights leader Rosa Parks applied to start a charter school in Detroit based on this reasoning. Another argument for charter schools is that they empower parents. Charter schools not only give parents the option of creating or attending schools more to their liking, but it also gives them the opportunity to bargain with teachers and administrators in school districts. One area that can be explored is cultural preference. Racial minorities may desire a school that promotes their culture. Religious parents may desire to send their children to schools that promote their moral values. Wrote Smith (56), "Many families with children in the public schools must contend with pressures of assimilation toward mainstream norms as they attempt to transmit their cultural or religious values. To escape these pressures, or to be ensured a certain quality of education, some families choose private education. But only those who can afford private school tuition can use this option. Thus, families whose values are not represented in the mainstream culture and families with low to middle incomes are at a disadvantage in the present structure of public education." Charter schools give choice to those who previously lacked it. It also assures a higher level of bargaining for a parent if they keep a child in the local school district. The Board of Education will think twice about approving teacher supported curriculum that is opposed by a vocal group of parents. Unpopular curriculum such as sex education and values clarification is less likely to be approved in a district if parents can and will pull their children from the school district. Critics of charter schools point to this as a bad thing. They prefer to allow these curricular decisions to be made by educational professionals. However, most parents believe that the ultimate arbiter of their children's education is themselves and not the state. And as such, this ability to have cultural preferences addressed seriously is popular with parents. Another criticism of charter schools is that for-profit companies operate many of them. The NEA web site calls them "fly-by-night" companies in derision. A recent article in Educational Leadership wrote about these for-profit schools in Michigan. Wrote Dykgraaf and Lewis (51), "Our conclusions proved troubling. First, cutting expenses is indeed part of the for-profit strategy, which results in consequences for transportation, special education, and the socioeconomic mix of students. Second, we concluded the public is not aware of how drastic for-profit management is in Michigan, for no easily accessible source of information is available on the activity of these management groups. Finally, de facto ownership of these schools rests more with the management companies and not the public." The NEA's, Dykgraaf, and Lewis's criticism of for-profit charter schools is very understandable. It touches on a fundamentally moral issue. Is it ok to run schools for money? Many would find this objectionable. Cost cutting in areas such as special education is also problematic. Finally, the fact that for-profit schools are truly owned by the corporation and not the state raises many concerns. Another criticism of charter schools is that they attract students with concerned parents. By their nature, parents have to take an active interest in their children's education to enroll in charter schools. Children who have parents actively involved in their education do better overall than students who do not. Hence, charter schools are going to attract the students who tend to do better in school. The local school system will be left with fewer children who have active parents. This will make it hard to compare the charter with the local school district. If the charter is getting better performing students, it should be doing better on comparable tests. A counter to this argument is that the parents who are concerned about education have a right to send their children to schools that are populated with students of other concerned parents. This is a better learning environment for the students. Another result of charter schools that this author has not seen considered yet is the concept of property values. Real estate values in areas with poor school systems tend to be low. This is often attributed to the quality of the local public school system. What happens when charter schools are present in a district? If parents can avoid the local public school system by sending a child to a charter school, does this make them more willing to live in the district? If this is the case, property values should rise in these districts. If this proves true, residents of a district will show even more support to charter schools. Although a few more years will need to pass before this kind of research can be done, it does like an interesting research idea.Analysis of the charter school issue Not surprisingly, the debate over charter has been informed by the development of education and educational reform in America. As such, looking at the writings of educational researchers and practitioners can help in understanding the charter school issue. Charter schools have not developed in a vacuum. Looking at the wider issues in education is very important. The belief that charter schools help further the goals of democracy and fairness is important. The notion of democratic equality is very important in the United States. The belief that schooling should serve all regardless of social background and give all an equal chance at an education that will lead to a potentially high social class is widespread. In brief, this belief envisions that all inhabitants of the United States (citizen and alien alike) will receive the same education. Those who are worthy, regardless of the backgrounds of the parents, will succeed and achieve great things and those that are less worthy will through their own efforts select their own less than spectacular destinies. This is a powerful idea that is held by those dedicated to the egalitarian ideal of The Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, by those who are in the working class who believe that providence has delivered what they deserve, and by those who are well off who believe the educational system has justified their own status. Several scholars have taken note of democratic equality. Cohen and Neufield (73) wrote, In addition to citizenship training and equal treatment, the goal of democratic equality has taken a third form, and that is the pursuit of equal access." Labaree (47) wrote, "Equal access has come to mean that every American should have an equal opportunity to acquire an education at any educational level." These same scholars convincingly trace the development of this vision of equality in America from the development of public elementary schools, the rise of public high schools, and finally the realization of nearly universal access to higher education. However, the traditional public school system has not delivered on the democratic equality promise. Not all schools are equal. Some are much worse than others are. Poor students in these schools have no choice but to attend them. This results in them not having a fair chance at succeeding. Charter schools give many the belief that democratic equality is still attainable.Paradoxically, this low public opinion of the local public school system developed because schools tried to deliver on this promise. However, universal school attendance created problems. Can a school be open to all and be excellent? The answer appears to be no too many. By attempting to serve everyone equally, the school serves no on excellently. Access for all creates a problem. Vast numbers of diverse students with various backgrounds have different educational needs. Further, many students do not desire to be in school. This creates a need to make school attractive to these students. This can result in a water downed curriculum that most students can succeed in. Further, as Willis showed in his book on working class students in England, even the students can deliberately choose not to be educated. Part of the desire for charter schools is the perceived lack of serious education in public schools. Wrote Sedlak at al (preface, x), "There appears to have developed an implicit 'bargain' between students in virtually all of our high schools, which results in a de-emphasis on academic learning and student disengagement from learning. The bargain is negotiated, albeit tacitly, between two parties, both of which have resources, but unequal power. This bargain determines the level of academic learning that takes place in the classroom. Although content and acquisition of knowledge ultimately suffer, the bargain struck in most classrooms furthers its primary goal of making the relationships between educators and students more comfortable and less troublesome." This idea creates a dual consideration for charter schools and the community. Charter schools can indeed create an alternative to public schools where bargains water down learning. Many want this bargain eliminated. The public does not want students taking easy classes and they want students being challenged academically. They want the students to be challenged and the teachers to push high standards. The hope is that charter schools will do this. However, what promise do we have that the charter schools will not make their own bargains with students? What assurance is there that the current bargaining system will simply not be reproduced in the charter schools? This should make charter school advocates take pause and consider what can occur in the charter schools. The desire of many to want charter schools is not surprising. People have a strong ownership and desire to participate in the education process. Wrote Cusick (1992), "Individual freedom runs all the way through the system. Parents may or may not support the school board; superintendents may support or oppose the state department; state department staff may alter the intent of federal policy makers. People make and exercise personal decisions, enter and take part on their own terms, and regards those as their rights. Students mix their classes, cultures, and friendships with school requirements; teachers adjust their curriculums to their predilections, create their student relations, and support and oppose principals as they choose. Reformers decide schools need accountability, or principals decide their teachers have too much or too little power. Teachers decide students need more freedom. Each member of the system is free to make his or her own decision and set out on a course of action." The charter school movement is the ultimate manifestation of Cusick's view of the education process. Charter schools allow unparalleled opportunities for input. Any teacher, administrator, parent, businessperson, or politician can literally start their own public school. The degree to which this can be used to influence the education process is enormous. The amount of educational freedom created is unprecedented. Charter schools are popular now and it is certain they will continue to expand in the near future. It will be interesting to see how well they perform in comparison to public school districts and if these districts change for the better in attempting to compete for students. Regardless, the conditions that created charter schools will remain and this reform is just one way to address them.Works CitedCharter Friends National Network. http://web.archive.org/web/20070405174929/http://www.charterfriends.org/. Cohen, David K. and Barbara Neufield (1981). "The failure of High Schools and the Progress of Education." Daedalus 110 (Summer): 69-89. Cusick, Philip (1992). The Educational System: Its Nature and Logic. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1990. Dykgraaf, Christy Lancaster and Shirley Kane Lewis (1998). "For-Profit Charter Schools: What the Public Needs to Know." Educational Leadership 56(2): 51-53. Labaree, David (1997). "Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals." American Educational Research Journal 34 (Spring): 39-81. Michigan Association of Public School Academies. http://web.archive.org/web/20070405174929/http://www.charterschools.org/. Nathan, Joe (1998). "Charters and Choice." American Prospect (issue 41): 74-77. National Education Association. http://www.nea.org/issues/charter/ . Sedlak, Michael et al. (1986). Selling Students Short: Classroom Reform in the American High School. New York: Teachers College Press. Smith, Stacy (1998). "The Democratizing Potential of Charter Schools." Educational Leadership 56(2) : 55-58. Willis, Paul. Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.
The Information Literacy Land of Confusion: Charter Schools: Are They Needed? Looking at Both Sides of the Debate {...}
Indexed: July 2, 2008, 4:40 pm - Page Size: 110KB
Category: Reference > Libraries > Library and Information Science > Weblogs

]]> Reference > Libraries > Library and Information Science > Weblogs {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - CBS Evening News aired portion of Floyd Brown's anti-Obama attack ad, failing to report Obama is not a Muslim http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/cbs-evening-news-aired-portion-of-floyd-brown-s-anti-2008073941.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/cbs-evening-news-aired-portion-of-floyd-brown-s-anti-2008073941.htm Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:01:44 GMT On the June 30 edition of the CBS Evening News, correspondent Dean Reynolds aired a clip of an attack ad against Sen. Barack Obama in which the narrator says, "Obama was enrolled in school as a Muslim while living in Indonesia." Nowhere in his report did Reynolds note that Obama is in fact not a Muslim but, rather, a practicing Christian. Earlier in the report, Reynolds stated that Obama "has faced such questions [about his patriotism] for months, mostly on the Internet," adding, "It's a campaign to sow doubts about him." Previously, the editor of CBS' now-defunct Public Eye blog criticized an April 2007 video by Evening News anchor Katie Couric in which, as Media Matters for America noted, Couric asserted that Obama's "background sparked rumors that he had studied at a radical madrassa, or Quranic school" without noting that the rumors were false. Couric's "Notebook" was later updated to note that the madrassa "rumors [were] later disproved" and that the source for the claim that Obama "grew up praying in a mosque" later backed off that assertion. According to a March 25, 2007, Chicago Tribune article, Obama attended a Catholic elementary school and then a public school during the four years he spent in Indonesia as a child. As Media Matters previously documented, a January 24, 2007, Associated Press article reported that while enrolling at Fransiskus Assisis (St. Francis of Assisi), the Catholic school Obama attended for grades 1 through 3, Obama was "required" to "choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering -- Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant." The AP reported that "documents showed [Obama] enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather" and that Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs "said he wasn't sure why the document had Obama listed as a Muslim." The article also quoted Gibbs as stating, "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim." The Tribune article further reported on Obama's enrollment status: At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said Darmawan, Obama's former teacher. Because Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said. The enrollment form from the Catholic school, which has been cited as evidence that Obama was a Muslim in Indonesia, also was rife with errors. It listed Obama as an Indonesian, listed his previous school incorrectly and failed to list his mother, Ann, at all. A May 15, 2007, Los Angeles Times article reported that "[a]fter St. Francis, Obama completed third and fourth grades in what is now called Model Primary School Menteng 1 in central Jakarta. Opened by Indonesia's former Dutch colonial rulers, the public school screens for the best students with writing tests and interviews. Several of its students have gone on to join Indonesia's elite." According to the Times, "Bugs have eaten Obama's file in the school's archive, said Vice Principal Hardi Priyono. But two of his teachers, former Vice Principal Tine Hahiyari and third-grade teacher Effendi, said they remember clearly that at this school too, he was registered as a Muslim, which determined what class he attended during weekly religion lessons." The Tribune also reported: "Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia." Obama has said in speeches that his father "was Muslim but as an adult became an atheist," and Obama's Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was described in the Tribune article as "much more of a free spirit than a devout Muslim, according to former friends and neighbors." During the CBS report, the attack ad was identified as a "YouTube" video from "ExposeObama.com." But Reynolds did not note that ExposeObama.com is run by Floyd Brown, the creator of the infamous Willie Horton ad that ran against then-Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988. ExposeObama.com describes itself as a "project of the National Campaign Fund," of which Brown is the "Founder and President." From the January 24, 2007 AP article: Obama's mother, divorced from Obama's father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering -- Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant. Gibbs said he wasn't sure why the document had Obama listed as a Muslim. "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim," Gibbs said. "As a six-year-old in Catholic school, he studied the catechism." The Illinois senator is a member of the United Church of Christ. From the March 25, 2007, Chicago Tribune article: Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was much more of a free spirit than a devout Muslim, according to former friends and neighbors. And the school described as an Islamic madrassa in media reports actually was a public school, so progressive that teachers wore miniskirts and all students were encouraged to celebrate Christmas. [...] At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said Darmawan, Obama's former teacher. Because Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said. The enrollment form from the Catholic school, which has been cited as evidence that Obama was a Muslim in Indonesia, also was rife with errors. It listed Obama as an Indonesian, listed his previous school incorrectly and failed to list his mother, Ann, at all. From the June 30 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric: COURIC: Now, turning to the presidential campaign. Today, John McCain returned fire after a surprising attack on one of his biggest strengths. This as Barack Obama tried to shore up what some believe is one of his biggest weaknesses. Here's Dean Reynolds. [begin video clip] REYNOLDS: For Barack Obama, his speech today in Missouri was the latest attempt to rebut insinuations that he is less than loyal to the country. OBAMA: I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. [video break] And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine. REYNOLDS: But he has faced such questions for months, mostly on the Internet. It's a campaign to sow doubts about him. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Obama was enrolled in school as a Muslim while living in Indonesia. REYNOLDS: Obama now wears an American flag pin in his lapel and is often at events where Old Glory is prominent. He clearly believes patriotism should be off the table. OBAMA: No party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. [video break] And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America's common spirit. Mediamatters.Org CBS Evening News aired portion of Floyd Brown's anti-Obama attack ad, failing to report Obama is not a Muslim {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - On the June 30 edition of the CBS Evening News, correspondent Dean Reynolds aired a clip of an attack ad against Sen. Barack Obama in which the narrator says, "Obama was enrolled in school as a Muslim while living in Indonesia." Nowhere in his report did Reynolds note that Obama is in fact not a Muslim but, rather, a practicing Christian. Earlier in the report, Reynolds stated that Obama "has faced such questions [about his patriotism] for months, mostly on the Internet," adding, "It's a campaign to sow doubts about him." Previously, the editor of CBS' now-defunct Public Eye blog criticized an April 2007 video by Evening News anchor Katie Couric in which, as Media Matters for America noted, Couric asserted that Obama's "background sparked rumors that he had studied at a radical madrassa, or Quranic school" without noting that the rumors were false. Couric's "Notebook" was later updated to note that the madrassa "rumors [were] later disproved" and that the source for the claim that Obama "grew up praying in a mosque" later backed off that assertion. According to a March 25, 2007, Chicago Tribune article, Obama attended a Catholic elementary school and then a public school during the four years he spent in Indonesia as a child. As Media Matters previously documented, a January 24, 2007, Associated Press article reported that while enrolling at Fransiskus Assisis (St. Francis of Assisi), the Catholic school Obama attended for grades 1 through 3, Obama was "required" to "choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering -- Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant." The AP reported that "documents showed [Obama] enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather" and that Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs "said he wasn't sure why the document had Obama listed as a Muslim." The article also quoted Gibbs as stating, "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim." The Tribune article further reported on Obama's enrollment status: At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said Darmawan, Obama's former teacher. Because So