|
calling for a broadened educational view
and thereby follows the committee recom-
mendations.
Section 2 has been subject to the greatest
misinterpretation by the critics. I will read
it to you: "The General Assembly shall
provide by law for equal educational op-
portunities for all residents. Fears have
been raised this will lead to a never-never
world with dangers as yet unimagined. The
minority will further argue that such a
Constitutional provision would make Mary-
land unique." With this the majority is in
complete agreement. Maryland has often
been the forerunner in educational matters.
Much more, however, must certainly be
done in this respect.
It is at this point that the majority feels
the minority is mostly incorrect in its in-
terpretation. The terms of section 2 in no
way mandate free public education at all
levels. In fact, this specific question was
raised in the Committee and was specifi-
cally rejected. We in no way mean to in-
clude a mandate of a basket-to-the-casket
approach of free education. We believe, in-
stead, that mere references to anti-dis-
crimination are not sufficient. These are
negative in approach and very limiting.
Equality of educational opportunity cannot
be measured purely in terms of number of
dollars spent per child for books purchased
or schools built. It must be judged instead
in terms of the end product of the system.
We must evaluate the child who has com-
pleted that degree of formal education of-
fered him by the State in his ability to
cope with the problems of the society. The
determination of equality or inequality of
development will point up the opportunity
which has been afforded him. Studies have
shown conclusively that the students who
are unable to compete because of inferior
education ultimately become unskilled, un-
employed citizens at best and at worst
chronic welfare recipients or criminals.
Having served on the Ways and Means
Committee of the legislature, I can tell you
that the choice of payment for welfare and
crime is not optional: that is there whether
we want it or not. The question raised by
the amount of education to be provided is
in effect an optional one. But the results of
the failure to so provide are dramatic and
have been demonstrated throughout this
State and throughout the nation. Failure to
provide equal educational opportunity is
deleterious not only to those children so
denied but to the society in which they
are unable to participate fully. The judg-
ment for providing this equal education op-
portunity must be set against the test of
|
reasonable differences which the legislature
must consider.
Perhaps to make this point clear, we
should say we are not setting any absolute
standard of equality, but rather one in
which the finding is in the seeking.
The Committee will ask to amend this
section to clear doubts in the minds of
some who have expressed them that the
word "provided" be amended to "promote",
thereby alleviating this difficulty.
To deny a commitment to this concept of
equality of educational opportunity, is to
make the entire democratic process of an
informed citizen a sheer mockery. The Gen-
eral Assembly has a responsibility to work
to this end in evaluating the needs of any
given community at any given time.
Section 3 was written not in reference
to an archaic school fund but instead, as
the Committee expressed in a unanimous
vote at one time, to insure that funds
designated for educational purposes should
not be appropriated for other purposes.
This was a unanimous vote at that time
and since then the Committee on Taxation
and Finance has come up with those pro-
visions relating to all funds in the State
which would imply that such has been
covered.
Moving to section 4, it is rather curious,
at best, that the minority rejects the con-
cept mentioned of a state board of educa-
tion in the constitution. Twenty-three
states recognize a state board of educa-
tion. Yet the minority in their proposed
section 804 refers to governing boards of
higher learning and later in the section
mention such types of acts which these
boards can provide.
Again, the executive article which has
been given tentative approval by the ma-
jority of the people here today was backed
by a report which made specific provision
for a board in the educational area. It ap-
parently had anticipated some action in
this field by the Committee referring to
education.
We contend that after ninety-seven years
in being, the naming of the State Board
of Education and its superintendent se-
lected by that board is complementary in
nature with those sections providing for
such exceptions in the executive article.
Certainly it is restrictive only in the event
that one is not committed to the lay board
concept for the governing of educational
institutions. It may well be desirable at this
point to discuss what the concern is about
|
