I feel like this same discussion has metastasized into several different threads.
Here's my take: there's the letter of FCC rules, and there's the way in which they're actually interpreted by the Commission and its staff.
If you want to argue that there should be a strict definition of what constitutes an "educational" station, you can go ahead and do it to your heart's content, but it seems kind of pointless here on a message board that isn't any kind of official anything. Pointless, IMO, because it runs against what's now 20 years of FCC interpretation of its LPFM rulebook.
The reality on the ground (or 30 meters up in the air) is that regardless of what Kelly or Dutchman think the rules "should" mean, the FCC has accepted and will continue to accept almost anything that looks like a statement of educational purpose, so long as the applicant is a not-for-profit entity of pretty much any kind.
Why? Politics, history, the First Amendment. There have been some fairly serious attempts over the years to narrow the definition of "educational" broadcasting that have run up against strong opposition. But they've come in the context of trying to exclude Christian preaching formats from qualifying for NCE status - and inevitably, the FCC has backed down, because why would it want to get in the middle of that kind of a fight?
That, in turn, makes it difficult if not impossible for the FCC as a regulator to even think about trying to draw any kind of line that would allow a Daystar or a 3ABN or an EWTN to qualify as NCE while ruling out the "Oldies Preservation Society" or what have you. And, really, how would you draw a line like that that would hold up to the inevitable court challenges? The FCC has been adamant that it does not want to be in the business of regulating program content unless Congress gives it a law to enforce (hence the 3 hours of mandatory E/I programming for TV stations - that's a law passed by Congress, not an interpretation of something in 47 CFR).
As a broadcaster, I don't particularly want this (or any) FCC wading that deeply into regulating program content, either. That should be a job for broadcasters, not for the government.
So: do you disagree with that? Great. The FCC isn't interpreting its rules based on repetitive arguments on R-D. There is, in fact, a process for petitioning the FCC to modify or reinterpret its rules. That's how we got LPFM in the first place. There were a lot of ideas tossed around, everything from a 1000-watt commercial service to 5-watt quasi-unlicensed micro-radio. Anyone was free to weigh in on the process in rulemaking comments. Nobody got everything they wanted. The service that resulted was a compromise that's still being revisited from time to time.
Got an idea for changing the rules? File a rulemaking petition or comment on a docket when one is open. That's how the sausage actually gets made. Just ask someone like Michi, who has platinum frequent flyer status in the FCC comment process, not because she has any special authority the rest of us lack, but simply because she's been in the trenches commenting and pulling together constituencies since before Day 1 of LPFM.
See an LPFM that isn't playing by the rules, as they're currently interpreted? The FCC listens to petitions to deny renewals or new CPs when there's cause. If you really believe that only bona fide educational programs (whatever your definition of those may be) are qualified to hold these licenses, you've got the chance to file against 500 or so applications right this very minute if that floats your boat. But unless you can show that an applicant isn't actually a nonprofit or has violated any other rules, it's highly unlikely that you'll get the FCC to deny a CP grant.
I put my filings where my mouth is - when an LPFM up my way was moving sites without filing for CP mods, and then was silent for over a year, I did my due diligence, collected documentation, opposed their license renewal and they withdrew and surrendered the license. It was a hell of a lot more effective than posting the same thing over and over and over again on a message board.
