Advertisement

Think tanks wrap-up IV

WASHINGTON, March 26 (UPI) -- The UPI think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks. This is the fourth of four wrap-ups for March 26.


The Cato Institute

Advertisement

WASHINGTON -- Accountability to parents is best

By Marie Gryphon

If there is one mantra that dominates every discussion about education in America, it is "accountability." We've heard about "accountability measures" and holding schools "accountable for results." The president and Congress, understandably tired of throwing good money after bad, passed the No Child Left Behind Act to make schools accountable.

But to whom should schools be accountable? A recent briefing at the White House for advocates of school choice addressed that question.

Just as the No Child Left Behind Act was a political peace treaty between the president and a Democratic Senate, it also reflects an ideological detente between two different views of accountability. Some lawmakers want schools to be accountable to government, while others want schools to be accountable to parents.

Advertisement

That is no minor distinction. It reveals two fundamentally opposing views of the role of the state in family life.

Those who prefer government accountability think that future generations should be shaped based on a deliberative democratic process. They embrace the idea of a school system that unites society by teaching roughly the same things to all students. And they think that government agencies are best able to ensure that high standards of quality are met.

But many Americans believe instead that schools should be accountable to parents first. On the heels of a century of public education in neighborhood schools with no choices, this is a radical idea. Its adherents think that families have a right and a duty to shape the next generation. They also think that no bureaucrat can choose schooling for a child as well as a parent can.

Thoughtful lawmakers should join forces with this second group. Government has had decades to decide where children attend school, with poor results. Moreover, while states must now measure the progress of various subgroups -- minorities, disabled students, children from low-income families -- government agencies cannot hold schools accountable for the performance of individual children.

By contrast, school choice empowers parents to hold schools accountable for the personal success of each child enrolled. Because schools cannot be all things to all people, every parent should be free to choose a school that suits her child's specific needs.

Advertisement

Each faction in the "accountability" debate has its favorite part of the No Child Left Behind Act. Politicians who like government accountability tout new testing regimens and a complex system of monetary penalties and rewards. Those who want to empower parents see the Act as a way to force states to provide choices to families trapped in failing schools.

But the Act's school choice provisions have had little effect. The administration wanted states to give parents of children in failing schools the ability to choose private schools. But the private school option proved a losing battle in Congress, and accountability to parents is still elusive in most places.

School districts with failing schools must only provide transfers to another public school of the district's choosing, and only on a space-available basis. Parents who want to leave all schools that cannot teach -- and will not change -- are finding that they still have no alternatives.

For example, the Chicago Tribune reported last fall that Chicago had about 125,000 students in "failing" schools. But the city allowed fewer than 3,000 transfers to schools only marginally less dreadful than the failing ones.

States must innovate to make schools accountable to parents rather than to bureaucrats. Florida, for example, offers Opportunity Scholarships to children in failing schools. Parents can choose private schools that are "academically accountable to the parent or guardian for meeting the education needs of the student."

Advertisement

At the White House briefing, Education Secretary Rod Paige emphasized the importance of accountability to parents, saying: "Choice is a necessary condition to reform." All speakers implored parents to demand faster state action on the parental choice provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act.

As the besieged education establishment slowly gives ground to reform, the intellectual battle about what accountability should mean is no mere skirmish. It will determine how much educational freedom American parents may hope to secure.

Secretary Paige described the difficult nature of this battle, saying: "The problem today is not that we don't know what the solution is. We just haven't yet mustered up the political will for those solutions."

Lawmakers who think parents deserve to choose must fight for a version of accountability that empowers them to choose. Without choice, a public agency holding a public school accountable will quickly resemble one blind man leading another.


(Marie Gryphon is an education policy analyst with the Cato Institute.)


The Competitive Enterprise Institute

(CEI is a conservative, free-market think tank that supports principles of free enterprise and limited government, opposes government regulation, and actively engages in public policy debate.)

WASHINGTON -- C:\Spin: Who to watch? The Iraqi war and the myth of media concentration.

Advertisement

By James Gattuso

In Washington, the crowd of lawyers, lobbyists, and think tank analysts have gone through the motions of their usual routines this week, talking and writing about the vast multitude of policy issues that make Washington Washington. Yet, despite outward appearance, only one issue is on people's minds: the war in Iraq.

Like millions of others across America, I found myself glued to the television last Wednesday night, watching media reports on the launch of military action. And, like many others, one outlet wasn't enough. Starting with CNN, I watched Aaron Brown's comforting coverage of the unfolding events.

Perhaps it was too comforting, I thought, so I switched to Tom Brokaw, who had a more urgent tone. Then to Fox for the conservative spin. Then to Rather, for the, uh, Rather spin.

For better or worse, media coverage of this conflict is comprehensive and diverse. This is an inconvenient fact for those arguing that the mega-mergers of recent years would lead to a dangerous concentration in media.

To the contrary, sources and outlets available for news are broader and more varied than ever before. In the 1960s, for example, the sources available to Americans for news on the Vietnam War fairly limited. Three networks provided a half-hour or so of news nightly, in addition to the news offerings on a few independent channels (in large towns only), a few AM radio stations, and print media. By the time of the first Gulf War in 1991, the landscape had changed considerably. Cable TV had arrived, allowing CNN to make its mark on the news landscape.

Advertisement

Between 1991 and today, the world has changed by nearly as much again. Instead of one leading 24-hour news channel, there are three leading channels plus a number of smaller ones.

As important, television is increasingly sharing the media stage with a new competitor: the Internet. With over half of all U.S. households now connected to the Internet, websites are increasingly becoming an alternative -- and sometimes the primary -- source of news for Americans. Thousands of people now get their news first from Drudge or a blogger instead of waiting for Brokaw or Jennings.

Critics of today's media market, of course, rightly point out that many outlets doesn't necessarily mean many owners. NBC, MSNBC and Msnbc.com are hardly independent voices. It's no secret that because of mergers and internal expansion, media firms today tend to own a multitude of outlets -- putting broadcast, cable, print and even Internet outlets under the same roof. But such "media empires" may actually be good for consumers, providing each outlet with the resources needed to do a better job.

Moreover, there's evidence that despite these cross-media holdings, ownership concentration is not increasing. A study released by the Federal Communications Commission last fall found that the number of separately owned media outlets skyrocketed between 1960 and 2000 -- increasing over 90 percent in New York, for instance. Since 1980, levels have increased slightly in most cities.

Advertisement

This is more than an idle debate. In a few months, the FCC is expected to decide whether to ease several of its current media ownership limits. The debate promises to be a controversial one -- rankling special interests whose market niches are protected by current rules as well as demagogues warning of growing media octopi.

The debate will be filled with endless factoids and pleadings. But, just perhaps, when the commissioners finally sit down to assess the media marketplace, they will remember these days in March, and the cornucopia of information and perspectives that the market provided.


(James Gattuso is a research associate for the Project on Technology and Innovation at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.)

Latest Headlines