Marketing of Usha Appliances Essay Example

particular interpretation of those conditions. Additionally, policy serves to legitimize specific meanings that gain authority once they are incorporated into policy. Moreover, policy works to reinforce institutional authority by conveying an institution's dedication to specific values and ideas.

The Press School is a public charter school located on the SCUDS campus. It was established in 1998 as a response to the removal of affirmative action in University of California (ICC) admissions across the state. The objective of this charter school is to prepare economically disadvantaged and underrepresented students for admission into the US education system without relying on "racial preferences" during both its own admissions process and that of the university.Students' eligibility for the program is determined based on their low-income status, and they are chosen through a lottery system that complies with state laws. The creation of The Press School followed a heated public debate about racial preferences in admissions and emphasized the importance of educational change and the social context of education policy.

LISA ROSEN, a Research Associate (Assistant Professor) at the Center for School Improvement in Chicago, IL, is particularly interested in these areas. She can be contacted at [email protected].

HUGH MEAN, a Professor of Sociology at the University of California, San Diego, is the director of the Center for Educational Equity and Teaching Excellence (CREATE). His work combines research and practice focused on educational equity.

In 1997, there was a proposal to establish a charter public high school on the university campus. This proposal received both support and controversy but was ultimately rejected due to lack of full support from faculty and Robert Dyne's as the university's new chancellor. This rejection led to public outcry,

negative publicity, and pressure from the Regents. As a response, a more comprehensive plan was developed which included a newly configured charter school, a research center overseeing the school, partnerships with public schools, and an evaluation unit for university outreach activities.The chancellor and the faculty approved this plan. Our analysis focuses on the debate surrounding charter schools and how the university responded to it. We approach this from a constitutive theory of social action, which highlights that human social activity, including discourse on public policy, both expresses and constructs meanings defining our social world. These processes often involve the "politics of representation," where different actors compete for power to define situations for others. Additionally, social actors cooperate to create diverse political coalitions through compromises and agreements that integrate multiple interests in support of specific actions. This process leads to modifications in attributed meanings and sometimes transformations regarding certain objects. Our analysis is divided into two dimensions: organizational and political. The organizational dimension examines how shared norms and established routines influenced the university's response to the controversy as these mechanisms help maintain stability within an institution when disruption occurs, such as with the charter school controversy.When analyzing this issue, we anticipate that individuals within organizations will utilize their existing meanings and practices to handle new situations. When examining the university's response to the charter school controversy, our analysis focuses on how it aligns with the university's established priorities (such as prioritizing research over community service) and administrative structures. This approach helps incorporate elements of the charter school proposal that may not conform to dominant organizational norms. Additionally, our analysis considers the political aspect and how the

university's response addresses social conflicts between groups vying for university resources.

From a political standpoint, policy plays a role in resolving social conflicts by fairly distributing limited resources among different interest groups. The influence of specific groups on policy-making is determined by their relative power. In the case of the charter school controversy, various interest groups competed for both tangible resources (like state funding, faculty time, and campus space) and symbolic resources (like recognition within the university's mission).

Regarding politics, we emphasize how competition, compromise, and power imbalances influenced the course and outcome of the debate.The charter school proposal resulted from a compromise between liberal and conservative factions, each supporting it for different reasons. However, other interest groups, such as faculty and community members, also played a role due to their competing interests. The resolution of the charter school debate had two significant effects: (a) it legitimized a specific definition of inequality in higher education that attributes the lack of diversity among selective universities' students primarily to inadequate academic preparation. The inclusion of charter schools in public research universities like SCUDS was not despite the controversy surrounding it but because of it. This controversy reflected and contributed to a crisis in institutional legitimacy that emerged from a breakdown in the previous agreement allowing the university to pursue two goals in its admissions policies: equal representation of the state's diverse population and selection based on academic merit. Prior to the ban, the university balanced its emphasis on pure meritocracy with an acknowledgment that systemic racial discrimination still existed and required additional admissions criteria beyond test scores, grades, and traditional measures of merit.This compromise acknowledged that diversity is important

and recognized that equality in university admissions should consider the social and cultural factors that influence opportunities for success.

While affirmative action in university admissions shed light on the negative impact of social and cultural factors, it failed to address these conditions. This includes the issue of inadequately prepared elementary and high school teachers who struggle to effectively teach diverse students. Additionally, affirmative action did not adequately prepare admitted students for success in college.

The decline in support for affirmative action can be attributed, at least in part, to ongoing criticism from conservative critics. These critics argue that equal representation and meritocracy are fundamentally incompatible goals, rejecting any possibility of compromise between them.

Instead of advocating for equal representation, these critics emphasize the importance of equal opportunity. They believe individuals should have the chance to compete with others to improve their social standing through their own efforts. This perspective places individual agency as the primary means to achieve success.Critics of affirmative action oppose the idea of leveling the "playing field" and argue that barriers to equal opportunity have been mostly eliminated. They believe that race should not play a significant role in determining academic success, and admissions decisions should be based solely on merit. However, these critics also focus on the university's use of race in admissions while neglecting other factors like athletics, state residency, and political connections. They question the legitimacy of aiming for equal representation based on characteristics such as race or gender instead of achievements. Their viewpoint suggests that if everyone has an equal opportunity to compete, a more diverse student body will naturally arise as a byproduct rather than being the

ultimate goal. The controversial charter school proposal addressed both the breakdown of support for affirmative action and intensified conflicts within the university and surrounding community.

One conflict at Scud involved differing interpretations of the university's mission.One definition focused on research and educating top-performing students, while the other had a broader focus on social betterment, including improving K-12 schools and increasing educational opportunities. The resolution of this debate strengthened the latter definition.

This debate also caused a crisis of institutional legitimacy. The university's decision to not build a harder school made it appear unconcerned about equal access to higher education for students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. This perception posed a political problem for the university as various stakeholders expected them to take action to increase student diversity after the ban on affirmative action. Many believed that greater involvement in K-12 education was the solution.

Ward Connelly, a regent of the University of California and chairman of the California Civil Rights Initiative, argued that due to increased political pressure, the university should take more responsibility for improving K-12 education. He believed that addressing the academic preparation of K-12 students was not their problem; instead, their job was to select from among the students they receive and prioritize their own interests. However, Connelly acknowledged that politically it would be unacceptable to deny responsibility.The university's vulnerability in a climate of heightened political expectations could lead to accusations of elitism and hypocrisy if it failed to increase diversity after the ban on affirmative action. Critics had already leveled such accusations following the rejection of a charter school proposal. At the same time, the university needed to maintain its

dedication to meritocracy in order to keep public support for its competitive admissions system. If the public perceived that admissions practices were arbitrary or biased towards certain students based on race or gender, support would decline. To address this situation, the university had to embrace diversity while upholding meritocracy and resolving conflicts related to resources and values. We argue that these objectives were achieved by incorporating the charter school into the existing administrative structure and establishing a new framework that justified its existence and university sponsorship, specifically catering to public school students. However, as this crisis was resolved, contradictory consequences emerged: it affirmed a narrower understanding of inequality while promoting a more progressive definition of the university.The contradiction in question arose from the processes employed to resolve the debate. These processes involved integrating diverse political interests to support a solution that aimed to improve the academic preparedness of underrepresented students. This solution appealed to actors from various points on the political spectrum.

Our article primarily focuses on the processes by which meaning is constructed through political compromise. To gather our data, we relied on a range of sources, such as symposium and community meeting transcripts, versions of the charter school proposal, recommendations from university committees, e-mail list postings, and local news media coverage. Additionally, we conducted interviews with key individuals involved in the described events. It is worth noting that one of our authors participated in many of these events and thus serves as both an author and subject.

To comprehend the significance of the charter school debate, it is crucial to consider its interconnected contexts or conditions. These include a national political backdrop characterized by conservative

ideas gaining traction through groups like the New Right. Furthermore, an education reform movement emerged partially in response to criticisms leveled against public education by New Right organizations.The text discusses the impact of political decisions on affirmative action in California, particularly in relation to the elite SCUDS amp's and the broader San Diego community. It mentions that these decisions were influenced by a national context shaped by the "conservative revolution" in Congress, which led to a reevaluation of liberal social programs like welfare and affirmative action. President Bill Clinton declared an end to Big Government, with politicians advocating for personal accessibility rather than state intervention. Connelly's statement reflects this viewpoint, emphasizing fair competition and administration as determinants of outcomes instead of government interference. Critics condemn affirmative action and welfare programs, arguing that they patronize individuals and undermine values such as hard work, equal opportunity, competition, and classification. They claim that these programs encourage laziness and create dependency on the state.They believe that affirmative action is both immoral and ineffective because it fails to provide individuals with the necessary skills for social competition without special treatment. Governor Wilson firmly believes that preferences do not achieve the efforts needed to ensure equality of access to opportunity. He stresses the importance of a comprehensive approach starting from prenatal care, ensuring children's health, focus in school, and receiving an education that prepares them for life's competition [emphasis added]. During this time, affirmative action programs were seen as unfair since they favored certain citizens while disadvantaging others, particularly minorities and the poor. This created division among Californians along racial lines and threatened the American ideal of merit-based advancement. It was

argued that these programs undermined individual merit and hard work by giving special treatment to certain individuals. Moreover, there was a shift towards values such as freedom, individualism, limited government, and free-market solutions. This meant that while government should eliminate barriers to ensure equal opportunity, the outcome of social competition should be determined solely based on individual merit.During this period, education was a focal point, with an emphasis on personal responsibility and reduced overspending as means to achieve social and educational equality. The text discusses the dual focus in education, encompassing enthusiasm for both curricular and structural reforms. Curricular reforms, like the standards movement, stress hard work and high academic expectations to attain educational equality. Conversely, structural reforms such as the charter and voucher movements prioritize limited government, innovation, entrepreneurship, and competition. It is noted that support for structural reforms is strong among parents of historically disenfranchised children. Connelly's editorials highlight this connection between educational inequality and structural reforms rather than affirmative action which addresses root causes of social inequality directly. The significant support for innovative solutions is reflected in a survey where 57.3% of African Americans endorse school choice. Moreover, among African Americans aged 26 to 35 who are most likely to have young children, an astounding 86.5% support vouchers according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (Connelly, 1998). Throughout the text's argument prevails that inadequate public schools are a fundamental cause of inequality.The conclusion of the article further supports the argument by discussing how the charter school debate resolves. In California, affirmative action became a prominent issue due to several political events. One notable case in 1978, Regents of the

University of California v. Bake, involved a White student who sued after being denied admission to US Davis School of Medicine. Despite having higher grades and board scores than underrepresented students admitted through affirmative action, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student. Justice Lewis Powell, who casted the deciding vote, acknowledged that considering race for college admissions is justified if it leads to a more diverse and enriching educational environment. However, in 1995, the US Regents decided to completely eliminate racial considerations in admissions and promote alternative methods for achieving diversity on campuses. The passing of Proposition 209 by California voters in 1996 further solidified the elimination of "racial preferences" across all aspects of business in California including hiring, promotions, contracts, and university admissions.The legality of affirmative action and the legitimacy of the university itself were both called into question by these political events, which resulted in pressure from both the Left and the Right. The university had to address the "underrepresented problem" while also maintaining a merit-based admissions process. Similar challenges have arisen nationwide, leading to similar responses from institutions. Critics across the political spectrum have targeted universities for various issues, including their financial situations and perceived cultural conservatism or "political correctness." Many universities have responded by prioritizing improvement in local public schools as part of their service. In response to these challenges, SCUDS redefined its role and adapted to the new definition of equality in admissions that emerged from discussions about charter schools. The debate on charter schools in San Diego is influenced by suspicions held within African American and Latino communities. SCUD's connection to these communities, combined with national and

state events, reinforces the perception that SCUD's does not welcome students from these neighborhoods, as it is located in an affluent area isolated from poorer areas where Black and Latino students resideThe political challenges to affirmative action have intensified the perception that Scud's has not effectively engaged with public schools in the past. Many local educators and community members believe that Scud's is only interested in students from local schools if they can be subjects of experiments. Although their teacher education program is distinguished, it is small and not deeply involved in many schools. In the past, there were multiple independent outreach activities on campus, but they lacked coordination. The controversy surrounding the charter school proposal at the SCUDS campus worsened the perception that the university was uninterested in the welfare of residents living south of Interstate 8, which separates the affluent beach community from their less privileged neighbors.