Letters from Readers

The Charter School Proposal: Critical Issues, Wrong Answer
What follow are my own thoughts on the charter school proposal, which do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of my employer the Illinois Education Association, or its local Urbana and Champaign affiliates.
Let me state at the outset that there is much in Nathaniel Banks’ February 2002 public i article with which I find agreement. There is no doubt in my mind that our pubic education system is not working to its full capacity, let alone its full promise. And there is no doubt that a strong sentiment of alienation persists among African-Americans. Furthermore, it is entirely appropriate to question the power relationships in public education - particularly those relationships which perpetuate, intentionally or not, the conditions of white supremacy and racism.
Having said that, I nevertheless cannot accept Mr. Banks’ answer to the problems of public education. The charter school movement in general, and the Champaign-Urbana proposal in particular, represent a diversion from needed action and ultimately a deadend for the reform efforts. Part of the problem is the wrong assumptions upon which charter school proponents build their argument.
A correct starting point for genuine school reform is funding equity. This issue is virtually unaddressed by Mr. Banks. But if one is serious about combating the effects of poverty and racism, the funding issue stands out as a critical factor. There is a growing consensus that at least eighty percent of student achievement is related to socioeconomic status, and by and large school funding in Illinois has exacerbated the problem. There remains a fifteen to one funding ratio in per student expenditures. The richest schools are getting richer, and the poorer schools more economically challenged. Every politician recognizes the need for a more progressive approach, but to date change has been incremental at best. Everyone truly serious about reform should unite around a new funding mechanism that reverses the inequity and puts dollars where they are needed most. The state should pick up 51% of the costs of educating our children, and those funds should be derived from the state income tax. Currently the state picks up 35% to 37% of the cost of education. The chance to prevail on the funding issue may be before us in this next state electoral cycle. None of us can afford to miss this opportunity.
Also unaddressed by Mr. Banks is the teacher shortage crisis. Over the next few years there will be a full sixty percent turnover of veteran Illinois teachers, representing a demographic reality of staggering proportions. At a time when recruitment and retention of qualified motivated instructors is center stage, one can only assume that the ability of untried charter experiments to obtain a committed staff will be increasingly difficult. One answer for school districts such as those in Urbana and Champaign is to use this crisis to begin “growing our own”; that is, to begin investing in the professionalization of teaching assistants by providing access to higher education and teacher preparation. These same teacher assistants and support staff ranks also tend to be much more diverse, and by extension could help build the “affinity” culture Mr. Banks seeks. But, of course, this is an investment like any other, and would require the necessary dollars to make it happen.
Mr. Banks does correctly identify community-parent-family involvement as critical to any real education reform. Yet the charter school proposal does not advance anything new in terms of how to make this happen. I would like to draw Mr. Banks’ attention to the work of Fields and Feinberg, Education and Democratic Theory (SUNY, 2001), which relates the saga of an Urbana community organizing/parent empowerment project. The fundamental lessons are two-fold. First, community outreach is hard, labor-intensive work. One cannot simply “conjure up” sustained, self-determined involvement. It must be built slowly, carefully, and consciously over time. Second, involvement demands (you guessed it) resources. The book details a variety of material supports - e.g., a stipend for participation, independent information supports, assistance with transportation, care for dependents (children and others). With these supports meaningful participation is possible. A struggle to achievethis program would be a tremendous boost to improve the role of parents and community. To isolate oneself from such a critical effort does a disservice to all who care for public education.
There is much more to this story which I believe goes a long way to address one of the principal concerns Mr. Banks raises, and that is the question of who makes decisions and who controls the K-12 operation. The goal of the Urbana project was to substantially improve the diversity of participants in various levels of shared decision-making. This commitment came out of union-school board negotiations. It recognized that certain groups, particularly African-Americans, have been effectively excluded from the decision-making process.
Moreover, the project created a cadre of activists who took enfranchisement a step further. With the goal of breaking down the old patterns of selecting school board members at-large, and thus reinforcing the power of one small segment of the population, project cadre went on to create a movement for sub-districts, which would over time create the conditions for a more racially and economically diverse school board in Urbana Unit 116.
My fear is that Mr. Banks’ proposal has a siphoning-off effect. This is a phenomenon noted by other critics of the Charter concept. It occurs on two levels. The more active parents and their children are pulled into the charter school, and thus their presence and participation are lost from the “regular” K-12 environment. The second level is in the area of activism per se. It is the loss to the equity funding movement, to the shared decision-making project, and to the sub-districts effort of those good people, who now devote precious time and resources to a separate, isolated charter.
A fundamental weakness of the charter movement in Illinois is its exclusion of the Labor Act, and the resulting loss of union rights for charter employees. To call for social justice, and to ignore at the same time the rights of employees, causes those of us in the union movement to question the charter concept at its core. It is sad to see a fine activist such as Nate Banks fall prey to the labor-bashing which characterizes so much of the anti-public-education lobby. My experience in Urbana and Champaign tells me that the unions havebeen in the front lines of change. I can’t attest to how universal this is beyond Champaign County, but I feel strongly that it is inappropriate to deny the leadership that the IEA and IFT have brought to the causes of equity, diversity, and democracy.
Mr. Banks needs to consider yet another fact: the charter experience is not yet proven! Thus far, analyses of charter results show a mixed bag - some charter schools do better, some charter schools do worse, some charter schools stay the same with respect to student achievement. A similar study of public school management demonstrated the same results. The bottom line is the same - systematic change is the way to “lift all boats.” Absent that kind of overhaul, no dramatic change is sustainable.
In summary, I call on Nate and his charter supporters to join us in the fight currently before us. Help us make funding equity a reality for all the children. Help us make diversity in effective shared decision-making the norm. Help us elect a truly representative school board. Success on these fronts will begin to bring about the transformation that Mr. Banks wants, and that every child needs.
Gene Vanderport
Savoy, IL

Napster Didn't Hurt Music Sales
I would like to thank the public i for running the article by the wonderfully talented Rose Marshack. Her insights into the music business were very interesting and informative.
I do, however, have one point to make, and that is to question the assumption that the trading and downloading of Mp3s hurt music sales.
In 2000, the heyday of the music trading service Napster (the largest and most widely used peer-to-peer network at that time), sales of CDs actually grew by 8 percent as compared with the previous year.
In fact, record sales didn’t start dropping until six months after the closing down of Napster. In the first half of 2001 sales were down 5.4 percent, according to SoundScan. (SoundScan is the system, introduced in 1991, that measures album purchases at their point of sale, giving the music industry precise sales figures.)
You could infer that Napster and other peer-to-peer networks actually bolstered sales rather than hindering them. Most of the claims by labels that music trading was hurting music sales were discredited, or else derived from polls that were taken beforeNapster (and similar services) even existed.
The ability to copy and trade media has never hurt the entertainment industry, despite their traditional and now predictable hue and cry. Cassette taping didn’t kill the music industry, VHS tapes didn’t kill the movie industry, and Mp3s shouldn’t take the blame for the lack of interest in the moribund and stale releases the major labels push on the masses.
Otherwise a great article. I hope the public i keeps up the good work!

Jason Pitzl-Waters
host of “The Skys Gone Out”, Sundays 10pm-12am on WEFT 90.1 FM, Champaign
http://www.wildhunt.org/sky/

Memories of Ashcroft
In times of emergency, nations have historically set aside certain civil liberties - a notable (and shameful) example in our own country being the herding of Japanese-Americans into detention camps during World War II. Many of us are concerned now at the abrogation of civil liberties since 9/11, with a special concern for Arab-Americans incarcerated in a sort of legal limbo as possible ‘terrorists’, awaiting trial by special ‘military tribunals’. Adding to the horror is the secrecy and threat of torture which attends their detention, along with the usual propaganda meant to instill fear and hatred of them in order to make these measures more ‘palatable’.
Such worries are contingent upon whether or not we trust our leaders. Polls indicate an 80-90 percent approval rating for President Bush. But we must remember that, despite the cult of ‘individualism’, one of the greatest fears in American culture is that of having an opinion which deviates from the majority. That which most Americans see as a beloved national trait -“coming together during a national emergency” - is seen by some of us not as a predilection for community but as a fear of non-conformity, not altogether unlike mob reactions displayed at football games and political rallies - and at lynchings.
All of which brings me to the subject of John Ashcroft. I was once the unfortunate victim of his dubious notions of due process
During the years when Ashcroft was Attorney General, then Governor, of Missouri, I resided in a small rural town (300 souls) in the central part of the state, an area where Baptists call the shots - a rather literal metaphor. I had purchased some land, built a passive solar house, established a small non-profit artists’ colony, and was quietly practicing Zen Buddhism.
When my religious preferences became known in the town, I was declared a ‘witch’ - a ‘terrorist’ of a sort - and what followed was nothing less than terrorism against me. For four and a half years - until I left the state - my house was pelted with rocks, my trees cut down, fires set, my garden and myself sprayed with pesticide, my road repeatedly blocked. There were continual threats to “run me out, burn me out, make me sorry I ever came there,” night“visits”, assaults, and finally a brutal beating.
My long search for justice during those years began with the local sheriff, who was notified of each instance - some 93 of them - of trespassing, property destruction, assault, and threats to my safety. When this availed nothing, I appealed to the county prosecutor, who declared everything a ‘civil’ matter, including the assaults and the beating. He said I would “just have to shell out for a lawyer...and my fee is $40 per hour.”
My neighbor, a deacon in the local Baptist Church, was clearly a ringleader, so I tried to retain a local attorney to bring a civil suit against him. But all of them refused, admitting that since they tried cases before the local prosecutor they were concerned about reprisals if they took my case.
The ACLU at first promised to help me, but then backed out at the last moment because the chapter’s president “was a minister”, leaving me fully exposed and in even greater danger. Many of you may believe, as I did, that the ACLU are the guys on the white horses. And they are, sometimes. But it is important to realize that local chapters are made up of local lawyers who reflect local attitudes and ethics and are, in addition, often lacking in competence.
Finally I appealed to the state’s Attorney General, giving a concise history of the crimes against me and the local law enforcement officials’ refusal to act. But Attorney General John Ashcroft never responded to my plight. The terror continued, even intensified, since the perpetrators by now felt that they could act with impunity. I literally lived in constant fear for my life. (I suggest that you read my book, Habits: A Journal, Niangua Press, for a revealing glimpse into what passes for justice in more parts of this country than you might imagine.)
A year or so later Ashcroft had become Governor, and I again appealed to him for assistance. This time he did respond. He pretended that I had requested a referral to a lawyer, and said that though he “regretted” it, he was prohibited by law from doing so. I wrote again, pointing out that I had requested neither referral to nor recommendation of an attorney, that my appeal was more in line with a Writ of Mandamus, an official demand for law enforcement officials to act in accordance with their mandate. This would at the very least provide me with protectionand prosecute the wrongdoers. (I was now being coached by the new president of the local ACLU chapter who, though capable and empathetic, feared to represent me openly when she learned that the county prosecutor was on the board of regents at the university where she was employed.) I received no further response from Governor Ashcroft.
At last, in a city sixty miles away, I was able to find a lawyer willing to take my case since he rarely, if ever, tried cases in my jurisdiction andso was not vulnerable to recrimination. Just entering private practice, he had previously been an assistant prosecutor in a southern county of the state. After learning of my appeals to my county prosecutor and then to Ashcroft (in both of his capacities as Attorney General and as Governor), he told me of some of his experiences. First, I learned from him that my local prosecutor was also Ashcroft’s campaign manager. He told me further that in the county where he’d been assistant prosecutor, the prosecutor there had made a practice of putting locals in jail whenever he or the sheriff had a quarrel with them. Often enough, my lawyer told me, they were held forup to a YEAR without being charged, then released. Shocked, I asked if Ashcroft was aware of this. “Oh, yes,” my lawyer replied. “I told him.”
The outcome of my case? Exhausted and ill, and after spending over $7,000 on legal fees without visible result, I finally gave up and left the state of Missouri.
So there you have it. For John Ashcroft and his cronies, the undermining of civil liberties is not a daring new approach to protect America in these unusual circumstances. It’s merely John’s same old, same old. And this has frightening implications not only for those held hostage since September 11 under conditions of strictest secrecy, but for all Americans who care about their Constitutional guarantees of liberty and due process.

Wilhelmine Bennett
Urbana, IL