|
|
||
|
|
The State Ballot Proposals - A Battle for Control by Robert E. Martin Ballot Proposal 1 - Tuition Vouchers & Teacher Testing. This proposed constitutional amendment would:1) Eliminate the ban on indirect support of students attending nonpublic schools through tuition vouchers, credits, tax benefits, exemptions or deductions, subsidies, grants or loans of public monies or property; 2) Allow students to use vouchers to attend nonpublic schools in districts with a graduation rate under 2/3 in 1998-1999 and districts approving tuition vouchers through school board action or a public vote. Each voucher would be limited to 1/2 of state average per-public school revenue; 3) Require teacher testing on academic subjects in public schools and in nonpublic schools redeeming tuition vouchers; 4) Adjust minimum per-pupil funding from 1994-95 to 2000-2001 level. People voting Yes argue that: 1) All students deserve a quality education. Vouchers will assist students who choose to seek that education outside of the public school system. 2) Vouchers empower parents who wish to send their children to private schools and cannot currently afford tuition. 3) Testing teachers will improve education in public schools that choose to accept vouchers. 4) The proposal guarantees that public school funding will not be reduced below the 2000-2001 level. People Voting NO argue that: 1) State funds should not be used to pay for private school tuition. Vouchers will reduce the funds available for local public schools, which will result in a tax increase. 2) Private schools will still be able to pick & choose students. They do not have to reveal how they spend public dollars, and are not subject to oversight by elected school boards. 3) Taxpayers should not subsidize parents' decisions to send their children to private schools. Tax dollars should not be used to provide religious education. 4) Vouchers will not cover the entire cost of private education. Discussion: Beginning in 1929, legislative policy in Michigan ran counter to direct support of nonpublic schools. Attempts to provide direct aid had been unsuccessful until Public Act 100 of 1970 provided that the state would pay to an eligible nonpublic school a sum not to exceed 50% of the salaries of certified lay teachers teaching secular subjects. In early 1970, several groups, coming together as the Council Against Parochiad, circulated petitions to amend the Michigan Constitution to prohibit both direct & indirect aid to nonpublic schools. The Michigan Supreme Court ordered this proposal placed on the November 1970 ballot as Proposal C. The voters, by a margin of 56.8% to 43.2% approved Proposal C, banning the use of public monies for nonpublic schools. Most of Proposal C was upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court in March of 1971 and it has conditioned financial relations between the State and private education since then. Three Considerations prompt The Review to encourage voters to vote NO on Proposal 1. First, The Dept. of Education has released four-year projection rates for 1998-99 and seven districts are calculated to have graduation rates of less than 2/3, which would make them ineligible for vouchers and drain public monies for private parochial purposes. 2) About 92% of nonpublic pupils attend sectarian schools. Should Prop 1 be adopted, its future would be determined on whether public aid would be permissible under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court noted such laws couldn't foster excessive government entanglement with religion, which this proposal clearly would do. Finally, private education 'franchises' such as the Advantage Schools that operate several charter-schools in Michigan and Georgia are getting rich on a 'cookie-cutter' approach to education that encourages uniformity and discourages 'thinking'. Ballot Proposal 2 - Local Government Control This proposed constitutional amendment would: 1) Require a super majority 2/3 vote of the state legislature to enact any law which addresses a matter which a county, city, township, village or municipal authority could otherwise address under its governing powers or which places a condition on unrestricted an extended local governments by the State. Currently, a simple majority vote of the Legislature is required to enact such laws. 2) Retroactively apply the super majority vote requirement to any such law enacted on or after Mar. 1, 2000. 3) Exempt from the super majority vote requirement any such law which can be applied at the option of local governments. People voting YES argue: 1) A state mandated approach does not address our unique needs & conditions. 2) Every local unit of government knows its own needs & conditions. We must protect local government's ability to regulate and nurture the health, safety and welfare of the community. 3) Local governments dispense services that directly affect people's everyday lives such as fire, police, water, sewer, and road maintenance. Decisions about how best to provide these services should be made locally. 4) The most responsive government is that found closest to the people. People voting no argue: 1) State intervention is always the last resort, but sometimes is necessary. Certain issues must be addressed and decided upon with a statewide standard because they affect the state as a whole. 2) Overlapping & duplicating regulations imposed by local units of government negatively impact the state's economic activity, business retention and job growth. |
|
|
|
Enable frames | |
|
home | out/about | events | personal | store | classified | real estate | forums | archives | contact |
||
