CHARTER SCHOOLS

            Parents across the nation have made it clear that there is widespread dissatisfaction with traditional public schools.  Disappointing academic scores, low graduation levels and in-school crime are among a myriad of problems that plague this least successful function of government.  Massive infusions of cash have done little to address the problem.  Many families with available resources have voted with their feet, sending their children to private academies and religious-based schools.

            A key response to this challenge has been the formation of “charter” schools.  The National Education Association defines these institutions as “Publicly funded elementary or secondary schools that have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools, in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school’s charter.”  The concept, according to the US Charter Schools Association, may have originated in the 1970s when a New England educator suggested that small groups of teachers be given contracts to explore new ideas.  Over 4,000 charter schools have been established in forty states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.   

Charters can be tailored to the specific needs of a local community, thus avoiding the “cookie-cutter” approach of general public schools.  The “charter,” according to the U.S. Charter School Association, is a “performance contract detailing the school’s mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success.”  According to the USCA, charter schools were formed to: increase opportunities for access to quality learning for all; create choices; provide accountability; encourage innovation; promote parent and community involvement; and leverage broad educational opportunity. These institutions are accountable to a sponsor—generally, a state or local school board or similar body—and must successfully fulfill their mandate within a fixed period of time, usually a three-to-five year period.  The Center for Education Reform notes that charter schools are judged on how well they perform.  This, of course, differs sharply from regular public schools. 

The essential question is, of course, how well charter schools actually work.  In general, parental satisfaction with charters appears to be higher than in regular public schools.  More innovation was also seen to arise from charters than traditional public schools—and this innovation has a “spillover” effect on the general public school system.  The Center for Education Reform’s August 2001 report summarized 65 research studies performed on charter schools.  The report noted that most charters, particularly those that had matured, moderately outperformed traditional public schools in academic achievement.  Perhaps most tellingly, however, the rate of improvement in charters also exceeded that of regular public schools.

While charter schools are public schools, they have made teachers’ unions nervous, despite official support for the concept.  The American Federation of Teachers states that it “strongly supports charter schools.”  In fact, former AFT President Albert Shanker was one of the first to endorse the concept.  However, while not openly condemning the charter school concept, the current AFT, and large local affiliates such as New York’s United Federation of Teachers, frequently notes that test scores are not that much different in charter schools.  More to the point, however, is AFT President Randy Weingarten’s concern, expressed in her April 23, 2009 statement, that charters may be “a wedge for privatization” of public schools…[that could] eviscerate teacher voice.”

CONCLUSION:  In America’s public schools, everyone—teachers, principals, administrators, janitors, who enters a school building has a contract that guarantees a specific reward for the effort they put in.  Everyone, that is, except the students.  Charter schools attempt to provide students with a guarantee of quality education.  

RUSSIA IN THE ARCTIC

            The Cold War may be over, but a chilly conflict is brewing in the icy realm of the Arctic.  Moscow has claimed a huge swath of the Arctic region as its own territory, and has made it clear that it is not hesitant to use military force to defend its position.  These moves occurred in the wake of two Russian expeditions, one to the Mendeleyev underwater chain in 2005, and, in 2007, to the Lomonosov ridge, in which a flag was planted 14,000 feet underwater on August 2 of that year as a symbol of Russian claims.

            The move is far more than symbolic.  Vast deposits of oil and natural gas are within the contested region, along with an extraordinary treasure trove of other raw materials.  Russian oceanographer Vladislav Lavin says that plans to develop the rich Leningradskoye field include use of a manned nuclear-powered submarine.

Moscow alleges that the North Pole is an extension of its continental shelf, which, under the Law of the Sea Treaty, may give it rights over the resources found there.  Under the Treaty, nations have rights to natural resources present on or beneath the sea floor up to 200 nautical miles beyond their shoreline.  This gives the US, Canada, Russia Norway and Denmark claims to the Arctic’s resources. Further rights to claim up to 350 nautical miles from the shoreline for those areas that can be proven to be an extension of the continental shelf are provided, if appropriate documentation is provided to the United Nations. While several nations  (including the U.S.A., Canada, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Russia) have long made claims or border on various parts of the north polar region, only Moscow has demonstrated a uniquely military aggressiveness in doing so, and the worst may be yet to come.  The Lomonosov Ridge, depending on the evidence, could be within the rights of Russia, Greenland or Norway.  Over the years, there have been numerous claims and conferences, such as the Greenland Sovereignty Conference in May of 2008, to address the issue.  Until now, however, the threat of militarizing the disagreement has been kept in check.  

According to Ria Novosti, Russia is establishing a dedicated force “To protect its political and economic interests in the Arctic,” although the article maintained that the nation does not plan to militarize the region. However, it goes on to note that the military will be deployed.  The force, which will be called the Arctic Group of Forces, will be under the aegis of the Russian Federal Security Service.   Ria Novosti notes that the RFSS’s former chief “is a strong proponent of an aggressive state policy in the Arctic,” and that Russian strategic bombers have been carrying out patrols over the region.  Moscow’s policy statement, “Principles for Russian Politics in the Arctic in the Period 2020 and in a Further Perspective” maintains that the nation will establish a “general purpose military force” in the area.  Moscow’s lead in naval icebreakers could give it a decisive edge in any armed conflict. 

In response to Moscow’s looming militarization, Canadian forces have stepped up training for and activities in the region, completing an exercise entitled “Operation Nunalivut” in April.  Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon stressed, on March 11, that Canada is “an Arctic Power” and will defend its interests.  American naval exercises are also ongoing.  In March, Two Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarines, USS Helena and USS Annapolis, participated in an Arctic training exercise.

Conclusion: As oil resources continue to dwindle, the Arctic’s role as a potential flashpoint continues to grow.