|
lic education, secondary and elementary?"
Here is what he said, and I think that you
people should remember this, because cer-
tainly you have made some bold changes
and extensive changes in the constitution
up to this point.
Here is what he says. It comes from an
article in The Star, written by Ralph Mc-
Gill, "Crisis in Education, Students and
Finances": "We are in a grave and deep-
ening crisis in public education," says Mr.
Bundy. "The burden of proof is not on
those who urge change. The burden of
proof is on those who do not urge change."
I would like for you to keep that in mind
also. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Lord, you
have a little less than four and a half
minutes to allot.
DELEGATE LORD: Mr. Chairman, fel-
low delegates, I will use probably most of
this time, and then will yield back the
remainder.
I want to make perfectly clear what the
Minority Amendment No. 1 does. It stirkes
out the entire language of sections 1 and 4
of the Majority Report, and substitutes
the language contained in the amendment.
By doing this, the resultant substitution
will be roughly one-third as long as the
language for which it is substituted.
Section 1 is redundant in light of section
4. In fact, it is difficult to see why it is
repeated; so I will not dwell on that subject.
We have already discussed the fact that
the minority, in light of the executive ar-
ticle as adopted, has agreed to dovetail
this section with the executive article in
providing that the statewide system of free
public schools shall be headed by a govern-
ing board appointed by the governor.
Hence, I am somewhat at a loss to under-
stand the discussions brought to this floor
by Delegate Kathleen Robie in urging that
the board be recognized in the constitution.
Indeed it is if this amendment is adopted.
What you are doing by adopting mi-
nority Amendment No. 1 specifically, from
the standpoint of draftsmanship, is to im-
prove considerably the language, and as I
say, the language is roughly one-third as
long as the language for which it is sub-
stituted, but more specifically we are strik-
ing the language that the board must rep-
resent geographic areas, whatever that
means. It is submitted that in its present
form it is meaningless; striking the lan-
guage on page 2, lines 4, 5, and 6, that the
|
state board shall formulate policy and ex-
ercise control and direction over the public
school system, and also striking in effect
the right of the board to appoint the state
superintendent of schools who by virtue of
this language of the majority would be-
come a constitutional office for the first
time in the state history.
We feel, and for the reasons eloquently
stated by Delegate Gallagher, that these
are extremely important deletions, and
must be made by this body.
Delegate Kirkland talks about the fact
that change must take place and cites Mc-
George Bundy. I believe it is the recent
report he has submitted on the New York
City public school system. We of the mi-
nority agree completely with that state-
ment and suggest that there is nothing in
section 4 that represents change in the
slightest. This is statutory language. At the
risk of being redundant it has been in the
statutes for decades, and in some instances
almost essential. There is no reason to
think that this language is ever going to
be changed by the General Assembly, but
in the event that the General Assembly
should wish to change it, this change, ex-
actly what Delegate Kirkland is talking
about, should be fully considered by the
General Assembly, which meets every year,
rather than by a Constitutional Convention,
which may meet only every one hundred
years.
In closing, this amendment does not
affect in any way sections 2, 3 or 5 of the
Majority Report; amendments to delete
these sections will be offered later on. At
this time we urge the adoption of the mi-
nority Amendment No. 1.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley,
you have one minute.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man, ladies and gentlemen of the Conven-
tion, I find myself in a rather awkward
position in that the minority having in-
corporated reference to the State Board
makes it difficult to vote against this par-
ticular amendment. However, in further
considering this it would seem apparent
that if this amendment were adopted, we
would then be faced with additional ques-
tions concerning language of the state su-
perintendent section. Therefore, I would
urge the Committee of the Whole to vote
against the particular amendment, even
though it does not appropriate the refer-
ence to the board and suggest further that
the debate could be limited to more specific
issues in section 4.
|
