A California state judge has refused to lift his order that students in the San Jose schools be given the option of not watching the Channel One classroom television show.
Judge Jeremy Fogel of Santa Clara County Superior Court heard further motions late last month in the lawsuit brought by the state education department against the East Side Union high school district in San Jose for its use of Channel One, the commercially sponsored daily news show for teenagers.
In an initial ruling in September, the judge declined to ban the program from the San Jose schools, but he said he remained concerned about the impact of the two minutes of advertising included in each daily Channel One telecast. (See Education Week, Sept. 16, 1992.)
Officials of the district and Whittle Communications, the producer of Channel One, said at the time that they had no problem with the judge's ruling, which included the provision that students be allowed to opt out of viewing the show.
However, both the district and Whittle later filed motions arguing that the judge was usurping school board authority by imposing the opt-out requirement.
In an oral ruling on Oct. 29, Judge Fogel declined to reconsider that requirement for San Jose students, but he also turned down the education department's request that the condition be imposed on other districts throughout the state.
The judge reiterated that he was studying the impact of the advertising on the students and said he would issue a final order in the case later this month.
The University of Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia have reached an agreement under which the institution will beef up its efforts to recruit city students.
Under the agreement, which will go into effect next September, the university pledges to spend nearly $4.8 million to increase the number of enrolled students from Philadelphia to 500 by the 1997-98 academic year.
The university also agrees to maintain its number of Mayor's Scholarships, which go to some top-achieving students in the city, at 125. Currently, those student are offered an aid package that included loans. Under the agreement, those students will receive an aid package that meets their total financial need without loan obligation.
Other Philadelphians accepted under the agreement will receive $500 on top of their regular aid package.
The agreement comes just four weeks before the city and the university are scheduled to defend their recruitment of Philadelphia students in a trial on Nov. 23.
The Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia has filed a lawsuit charging that, under city ordinance, the university must award 125 scholarships each year to Philadelphia students, rather than simply maintain 125 scholarships at any one time. The defendants dispute that interpretation. (See Education Week, Sept. 30, 1992.)
Officials of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have filed an appeal of a federal court ruling that the school's financial-aid practices violate federal antitrust laws.
The institute announced last week that it had filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia.
In September, U.S. District Judge Louis C. Bechtle held that M.I.T. broke federal law by colluding with the eight Ivy League Universities to fix the amount of financial aid they awarded students. (See Education Week, Sept. 9, 1992.)
The judge upheld the government's charges that the members of the so-called "overlap group'' violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by meeting regularly since the late 1950's to discuss applicants they had in common and, in some cases, to settle on the amount of financial aid they would offer each applicant.
The judge rejected the school's argument that its participation in the group served to promote its policies of need-blind admissions and need-based aid distribution.
The eight Ivies signed a consent agreement in May 1991 to stop
sharing information on individual applicants, but M.I.T. chose to go to
Vol. 12, Issue 10