What Do Public Radio Stations and Public Education Have in Common? One Possibility: Taxpayer Anger

Public radio stations routinely ask listeners for money, but lately are finding their fund raising abilities are diminishing. Why is money drying up for public radio? Is it the economy? Is it the perceived programming bias of public radio stations causing listeners not to contribute?

I received the following two letters from a reader in Jacksonville, Florida stating his belief on what public radio does well and what it fails to do. These letters were in response to a fund raising plea from WJCT in Jacksonville. As you read them, ask yourself how the radio programming issues he raises might relate to public education issues:

Dear WJCT :

I realize you are in need of funding. My wife and I enjoy some of your programming, but some of it I find so disheartening and troublesome that we don’t give to NPR in any fashion.

When you are ready to dump Diane Rehm (who seems to despise the America I love – or at least us conservatives), Michelle Martin (who recently highlighted and gushed over a father’s day story about two gay fathers adopting) and “Being” with Krista ?? Tippet (a vapid program that she seems to enjoy hosting immensely), then I’ll start writing checks. . Garrison Keillor was good when he stayed out of politics, which he can’t seem to do anymore. He is leaving none too soon. The news also has a liberal bias, but I usually learn something from it. However I always assume it tells the story from a progressive perspective. On the other hand, while I occasionally disagree with some things said, I don’t feel the same disdain from the hosts or for the content of This American life, Car Talk, What do you Know and others. Locally, Melissa Ross seems to try to be balanced. Far cry better than Rehm. And Florida History is excellent.

The other story that really scorched me recently was the ancestry Prof. from Brown (Lannie something with either Diane Rehm or Martin) who decided it best not to have children learn about their family trees anymore (in 4^th and 8^th grade) because they are all so complex and fouled up. She felt it might upset their little minds. She also concluded that family genealogy really doesn’t matter anyway – we are all raised by each other without boundaries. Just Lovely. I have the exact opposite view - it would be a valuable teachable moment to let all children see their family trees – and the more disastrous they are the more likely a child will make a commitment never to create one like it of their own. Why didn’t anyone on the program bother to make such a central point?

The view of the world by programming execs at NPR is not aligned with mine. If ever it becomes such – or at least includes hosts and writers who have respect for those of us who are apparently behind the times - then I’ll start writing checks. I am a believer in the exceptional nature of the American experiment in spite of our flaws and in the principle that one very simple family structure is the ideal. These are the difference between the American experiment succeeding or failing. Most NPR folks seem to see nothing special about America and the critical importance of the traditional family to its endurance. All of our institutions and us as people have warts, but if we lose site of the ideals for which we stand, we deteriorate and people stand for nothing of significance. NPR doesn’t stand for the ideals that I do and seems intent on making them irrelevant under the banner of providing insight and intelligent discussion.

The best thing that might ever happen to WJCT (and NPR nationally) is to have to cut some programming. Should you decide to do so, you might find a lot more Jacksonville people willing to give.

The next day, I received another email from the reader regarding the response he received from WJCT:

Mike – thank you for a quick and thoughtful response. I really appreciate your willingness to take the time to write to me. I didn’t expect to hear back at all. I have counterpoints to many that you raise and will make a couple, but it probably isn’t productive to get into all of them.

You say public radio is intended to be provocative and “challenge popular thinking”. You and I are together to this point. The problem is your definition and mine of “popular thinking” are different. I think in your definition, popular really means conservative. I don’t hear any programming guests that criticize, as an example, the gay marriage movement (which I would argue is quite popular these days) and instead propose traditional marriage as better for our society. Where are those guests? It sounds intellectually enlightened to “challenge popular thinking”. The way we define the words makes a difference.

It is not intellectually honest to promote only one view of a central societal issue. In the case of gay marriage/fatherhood, I think public radio does. If you can point out any public radio programming/guests in the past year that promoted the importance of the traditional family as opposed to gay marriage/parenting (without being ostracized in the process), point me to it.

You also intimate that I am asking for the programming to say “what I want to hear”. I did not and am not. I don’t know where you saw that in my note. What I do want (and what I did not see you respond to) is for my perspective to be represented in discussions on public broadcasting, for my views to be appreciated as legitimate alternatives, and for them to be represented by leading alternative (my definition for alternative being “more conservative”) thinkers in their field.

Mike, one of the reasons I wrote was the recent plea I have heard on WJCT for money. Only 6% of Jacksonville listeners give while 14% give nationally and you challenge us to step up. You are seeking more givers as is public radio nationally. The problem is the same here and nationally, just more concentrated here because we are a more conservative community.

I wrote to tell you why I and many people refuse to give. Nothing you wrote seemed to indicate you are inclined to change as a result of my feedback. You spent most of your response justifying why you do what you do, why it is the right thing to do and trying to convince me to reconsider the way I think. From a product marketing view, you have told me that I should like your product just as it is and buy it. I didn’t hear anything in your response indicating how interested you are in trying to serve this customer’s product needs. Do you see the irony in that as I do?

One thing that would help me would be to see the specific mission/charter that defines what WJCT is and what its mission is. Also – something that defines the criteria used when deciding which programs WJCT purchases for broadcast. Could you point me to where I could see this info? Perhaps it is on the website. The root of this issue for me is to better understand how WJCT makes decisions. Maybe I’d be presently surprised and become a contributor. But with what I know right now, I can’t support you.

Thanks again for writing.

I posted these letters because the same arguments he makes to a public radio station are the same arguments being made about the lack of local control of schools. Public radio stations use taxpayer dollars and the taxpayers have little to no input on programming. The Federal Government, state governments and local school districts take taxpayer money, and similar to this NPR/public radio fund mode of operation, the taxpayers have little to no input on standards, curriculum, or how their money is spent to educate their children.

Taxpayers are becoming frustrated paying into systems that reflect little to none of their values. Taxpayers are beginning to ask "why should we be supporting public radio stations or public school districts that don't speak to our needs or beliefs?"

The Death of Exceptionalism in our Culture and Education. We are Now to Strive for the "Common".

I keep my eyes open for the word "common" today in education articles as the Common Core standards are hotly debated in education circles. Proponents believe states should be studying the same subjects with the same assessments and as the plan is unfolding, with a common curriculum. Proponents believe this will equalize opportunities for students nationwide to learn and be tested on the same assessments which will result in a level "playing field" for students.

Opponents of the standards believe they will not make American students more globally competitive, nor will they increase test scores. Some opponents argue states have given up their state sovereignty and signed onto unfunded debt for an unproven system. These opponents have argued if standards are too low in a community, the state and local levels have the constitutional authority to adjust these standards. Conversely, some states are arguing their standards were higher than the new mandated standards set by the consortia.

The word "common" was also used recently by David Brooks in describing a culture in which immigrants could assimilate into and Hotair picked up the interview:

“Here’s the case: You know we have a common culture,” Brooks said. “If we’re going to assimilate people, if we’re going to be one nation – it helps to have a common culture. There’s some things that do join us. And government has some role in help creating those things, in funding the things that join us.”


Hotair takes exception to Brooks' argument:

Here’s the rebuttal case: the government’s role isn’t to create a “common culture.”

I would further that comment and add it's not the government's role to create a "common education" either.

Remember this administration's goal for education? From Arne Duncan:

The 2020 goal is the North Star guiding all our efforts to improve education. Roughly 60% of Americans will have to earn college degrees and certificates by 2020 to regain our international lead, compared with about 40% today. And the truth is that America can only have the best-educated, most competitive workforce if parents, students, educators and entire communities begin to rethink and remake the educational status quo. **(One issue with Mr. Duncan's statement: parents, students and communities were not invited to "rethink" and "remake" the educational status quo. This task was left to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the National Governor's Association and the Department of Education).

The Common Core standards will allegedly be the first piece in the puzzle of remaking the educational status quo. We will make all states teach the same subjects with the same standards with the same assessments and that will make our education experience common. Will it make it exceptional? I don't believe that's the goal of common core standards. Look at this document from Achieve, a partner in the crafting of the Common Core standards and how it addresses the issue of states being allowed to set additional standards for their state up to 15% (how's that for giving away sovereignty in education):

...a central driver in the creation of the CCSS was to develop standards that were
common across states lines – and clear and focused – the opposite of the “mile wide, inch deep” standards so prevalent in many current state standards. A literal interpretation by states of the 15% guideline (that is 15% added at every grade level and in each subject) would undermine the very reason the states developed the Common Core State Standards in the first place.

What's the definition of exceptional? Exceptional: Better than average: SUPERIOR. What's the definition of common? There are many definitions but one particularly caught my attention: Common: falling below ordinary standards: SECOND-RATE.

Just like David Brooks thinking the government should provide a common culture, there is the belief from the DOE that we should also have a common education (reference the above mentioned Achieve document). Think of that: a common culture and a common education. We truly are becoming a non exceptional country. We now have to depend on entities as NPR and the Department of Education to set our standards? My goodness. How did the immigrants 100 years ago and the states ever survive without Federal governmental funded entities nudging them in their lives?

Update: "Who REALLY Writes Legislation"? The Civics Lesson for the Day Evolves into a Mystery?

Please reread this previous blogpost which asked the question, "Who Writes Legislation?" We were asking specifically about the legislation being drafted by the Missouri Association of School Administrators (MASA) and Missouri School Boards' Association (MABA) entitled Vision for Missouri Public Education, questioning why DESE was not writing state legislation and instead, leaving such a proposal to be written by lobbying groups.

In researching this legislative writing practice, we linked to experts who were concerned the Department of Education's agenda was exactly the same as Bill Gates. They raised the question of who really was driving federal legislation. Lobbying groups and millionaires influencing and/or writing public policy is troubling and deserves scrutiny.

After reviewing "Educated Citizenry 2020", we began wondering if our state legislators crafted this language or if they received help from any outside groups. We wondered if one non-profit group, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which promotes charter schools, school choice, utilizing tests reflecting national standards, and pre and full kindergarten programs could have influenced the current educational legislative plan. Many of these same goals are listed in the Educated Citizenry 2020. This is a fair inquiry as ALEC has written "model" bills for state legislators to take back to their states in different areas such as education and health care.

Here is a story and transcript on ALEC from NPR aired in October 2010. Note this information from the story:

Much about ALEC is private. It does not disclose how it spends it money or who gives it to them. ALEC rarely grants interviews. Bowman won't even say which legislators are members.

Is it lobbying when private corporations pay money to sit in a room with state lawmakers to draft legislation that they then introduce back home? Bowman, a former lobbyist, says, "No, because we're not advocating any positions. We don't tell members to take these bills. We just expose best practices. All we're really doing is developing policies that are in model bill form."

At least one Missouri legislator involved in drafting the current education policy is a member of ALEC. The question we asked about the Vision for Missouri Public Education should also be asked about Educated Citizenry 2020: "Who Writes Legislation?" Has this legislation been crafted by our Missouri legislators or was it already modeled for the legislators? The goals of ALEC sound quite similar to those listed in Race to the Top and adhere to the use of common core standards, and these are the goals listed in our current state plan.

We don't know who authored this legislative educational plan. It might be prudent to ask those legislators listed as sponsors if they crafted this legislation and why. None of these goals create more local/state control or decreases spending. Parental choice is not expanded as the charter schools will be held under the same standards as public schools. Autonomy in curriculum and testing will not exist in the charter system.

Do you want to read about ALEC? The following information was taken from a pdf file as the website has disappeared and was still inoperable as of 10:50 PM EST. Perhaps this site will be back online soon:

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation's largest nonpartisan,
individual membership organization of state legislators, with over 2,000 legislator members
from all fifty states, and 85 former members serving in the U.S. Congress. www.alec.org