|
for a lay board of education. Frankly, I
was never aware of the subtleties of this
particular phase of the system until Com-
mittee deliberations took place. I was con-
tent to follow basically the Commission
draft and make a general statement con-
cerning education based on somewhat lofty
concepts. However, after hearing the testi-
mony offered, I have been convinced that
the lay board staffed by fellow citizens ap-
pointed or elected throughout the states in
case of local boards and appointed by the
governor in the case of state boards is
the preferable method of running school
systems compared to any others that have
been advanced throughout the years and
throughout the country. The alternatives
have proven to be unacceptable in the past.
A single head responsible to the governor
or local official fails in the words of the
local government article to insulate public
education from the risk of political
influence. The executive articles supply the
exception and the education article should
supply such board that has been anticipated.
Again, both the Commission draft and
the minority have recognized the value of
boards for higher education by designating
such in the constitution. We believe that the
same should be done for elementary and
secondary schools and the change from this
concept should be affected by all the people
on that same basis and not by legislative
or executive act alone.
To argue that which is running well,
need not be constitutionalized as is sug-
gested in the minority report is somewhat
begging the question. To say such is deny-
ing the trends toward centralized control
which while desirable in other areas are
grossly inconsistent with and totally repug-
nant to a free educational system. The
effectiveness of the State Board of Educa-
tion of this State was recently recognized
in an editorial in the Baltimore Sun.
Moving to section 5, we now deal with
the next part of the majority report in the
local school boards. The Minority in this
instance has again misquoted the Majority
Report in support of its contention. The
majority recommends an article to guaran-
tee for all times a system of free public
schools, not an organized system of inflexi-
bility. It seems unbelievable to us that
there can be any real opposition to the
recognition of local boards of education
that have been in existence in some parts
of this State since 1826. I submit to you
that they have passed the test of time and
are not fleeting flights into fantasy. They
have proven capable of the task of adjust-
|
ing themselves to many educational cli-
mates and educational philosophies. They
are the system and not the way by which
education is taught in itself.
The Committee has been unable to ob-
tain any explicit proof that an elective or
appointed board is superior to the other
and either is more or less efficient, although
a majority of witnesses spoke in favor of
appointive boards. We would say that by
express language the majority recommen-
dation is that no local board be changed
by the mere adoption of this constitution
from its existing status. We have provided
for such in our language. I might add an
historical note at this point.
The first local boards of education cre-
ated in this State in 1886 also provided
that there should be a local referendum to
determine the creation of these boards. We
submit that in matters so basic to the edu-
cational system of the State the people
should have the right to determine these.
However, in order to insure this flexibility
we have not looked into the existing system
of boards but we have indeed permitted the
change from an elective to an appointive
board through the local government by a
statewide act. We merely require that
people of those subdivisions affected first
be given the right to pass on such questions
by referendum. It might well be argued
that it would be possible under existing
petition procedures for those that would be
adopted locally. The majority believes, how-
ever, that the change proposed should be
submitted first to the people for their ap-
proval in a system that has proven itself
successful over the years rather than re-
quire a petition to stop such a proposed
change.
Indeed, it is possible that some county
may not include the general referendum
provision in its local instrument of govern-
ment, although it is not at all unlikely that
the percentage of signatures required may
be high or the time allocated for obtaining
such be relatively short. Indeed, if a taxing
measure is attached it may not be petition-
able at all.
Furthermore, the choice of appointment
by the governor for ones who are elected
rather than appointed by local officials is
designed to give the lay boards the maxi-
mum objectivity in assessing the educa-
tional needs of their county and presenting
these needs based on impartiality to the
elected officials who will decide on the funds
which are available for allocation in light
of the total needs — not merely on the needs
of education alone. Such a balance, if it is
|
