|
opportunities that would enable each indi-
vidual student to develop to the maximum
of his potentialities, and they are not equal,
and they will not take the equal amount of
money or books or time or teachers.
There are teachers who are far better
than others. Would equal opportunity mean
that these teachers would not be permitted
because others would be denied their pres-
ence or their benefit?
Would equal opportunity deny a program
such as drivers education in the State of
Maryland. Only three counties instituted
this when it began. The others did not have
it, did not want it, in fact. When it was
proven to be successful, it then became a
statewide program. Would equal opportun-
ity for education have defeated the pro-
gram from even coming into being?
How about a program such as began in
1962 in Meadowbrook, Massachusetts.
Would equal opportunity permit a building
built for 1,000 student capacity to enroll
150, in a new concept of education? Let
the pupils choose the courses and the teach-
ers — would this be permitted under equal
opportunity? It took four years, until 1966,
before the entire enrollment was permitted
because by then, the pilot project had
proven successful. The students were able
to work out a program with the teachers,
and this is regarded as one of the greatest
innovations in education. Equal opportun-
ity, I contend, would not have permitted a
one teacher to ten pupil ratio in a state
that has a different ratio entirely.
It is true that we must judge by the end
result, but unfortunately all of us do not
come to the same end result. Given the
same amount of time and the same teach-
ers, we will not arrive at the same point.
Baltimore City needs federal funds, such
as New York has achieved. Baltimore City
need federal funds because it costs three to
four times as much to teach a pupil in
Baltimore City, who is culturally or so-
cially or economically deprived. That stu-
dent does have the right, but under equal
opportunity, he would not get it. He needs
additional opportunity, and I suggest to
you that the language that we are attempt-
ing to expunge from this particular ar-
ticle is language that must not go in. It
will do the reverse of that which we want.
We do want, and I am sure all educators
want, to develop to a maximum the in-
dividual's potentialities.
Let us leave the constitution free to do
that, with whatever expense, whatever
|
necessary, and whatever program the Board
of Education see fit to implement.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Wheatley—
I am sorry, you are reserving your time.
Delegate Lord. Delegate Lord, you have
four minutes remaining; Delegate Wheat-
ley? you have a little less than six minutes
remaining.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man, I had omitted one of the scheduled
people on our scheduled time, Dr. Pullen
for three minutes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. Delegate
Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: Mr. Chairman,
I am a little disturbed by the discussion
because I am sure that everybody here
wants the same thing, but we are talking
in the light of our background, which in
some cases is a little mingled, but I would
like to say, sir, I do not mean that criti-
cally, and if I have offended, I apologize;
but what I would like to say to one dele-
gate here is this: there should be no need
for a head start if we educate our children
all over these United States. Why should
poverty and ignorance exist anywhere in
this country? Why should it exist anywhere
in Maryland? We are talking about two
levels of educational opportunity. St.
Mary's County, my impassioned friend,
gets eighty percent or more money from
the State of Maryland than the federal
government to educate its people; Garrett
County, the same; Caroline and others.
That is what we mean by educational or as
near equal opportunity; the state and the
federal government going down and putting
money where it is needed to you. That is an
entirely different thing.
Then we have another level of educa-
tional opportunity, Mr. Chairman. This is
on the college level. I am not so much dis-
turbed how you vote on this, because I be-
lieve that the courts are going to decide
this case inside of ten or fifteen years. Let
me give you a simple illustration. We main-
tain public institutions, and we maintain
them for only those people who can afford
to pay. I hope you will forgive me for this
illustration. Two boys equally well quali-
fied applied for admission to our university.
One is accepted and goes through. The
other one cannot, and he is drafted; and as
Mr. Clark said at our meeting, in Vietnam,
God knows what happens to him. We have
passed here a Bill of Rights, a statement
that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property, for any reason, and yet we
deny by sins of omission which in my opin-
|
