Reason #13 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3
CLICK THIS TEXT TO VISIT THIS BLOG'S CURRENT SITE
Because it fails technically as a constitutional amendment, Part V.
[It's long - but really? It's worth the punchline at the very end.]
Read Part I here (Reason 18), Part II here (Reason 16), Part III here (Reason 15) and Part IV here (Reason 14).
With Reason 14, I started to review how, even though the language of the amendment would seem to give the Board of Regents the ability to set ALL eligibility criteria for the scholarships and tuition grants created by the proposed language (as well as set the amounts of the awards), Paragraph A and Paragraph B both set out numerous criteria which would conceivably be constitutionally required to be met by every Ohio student who wants some of this money.
To re-cap, VERY contrary to OLE's assertions that every child who lives in Ohio will have an opportunity to get all kinds of money to cover college costs, the following conditions would be constitutionally required to be met before any Ohioan could get any amount of the alleged proceeds from gambling that would go to scholarships and grants:
1-you're a current or future student
2-who, prior to enrolling in college,
3-took core and advanced academic courses
4-participated in college readiness programs, assessment and testing
5-at any accredited public or non-public high school
6-in Ohio and
7-you contributed to public life
8-through voluntary civic activity and
9-you attend any public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education 10-authorized by the Regents that
11-has its principle office in Ohio
Additionally, from the prior section you must be
12- US citizen and
13- resident of Ohio.
The bolded portion below is the specific section to be reviewed in this Reason:
Eligibility criteria for such scholarships and grants, and the amounts, shall be established solely by the Ohio Board of Regents. Such scholarships and grants shall include only the following:
"For the first twelve such high school graduating classes,"
What we have here is Paragraph (B) trying to set out conditions related to the awards and also more conditions related to who can receive the awards.
First, these conditions in (B) apply only to the first 12 "such" high school graduating classes.
Problem: Which "such" classes? Does that mean that entire classes - as opposed to individual students - must meet those first 13 criteria? Typically, that word "such" would refer to a subset of the larger group. In this case, it perhaps would refer to the classes within the first 12 graduating classes that met all the criteria in Paragraph (A).
Of course, "classes" don't meet those criteria, "students" do. Or even graduates of high school. Or Ohioans with high school diplomas as of a certain date.
This section should probably say something like, "For all students in the first 12 high school graduating classes, beginning with the class for which the graduation occurred on or after X date.... and who met the criteria in Paragragh (A)..."
But it doesn't say that. So really, this paragraph is almost unenforceable from the get-go. The word "such" really messes things up. There are much better ways to legally define a distinguish the group of people who might be eligible, from the group who will not be.
The problem in doing it the right way would be that then OLE would have to expose to everyone that NOT all Ohio kids can get this money, not by a long shot.
The second problem is with the term "graduating." How many people graduate but still have classes left? What exactly constitutes graduating? Do you have to go through the ceremony? What if you go through the ceremony but you don't have all the credits?
Just as with "take" a course versus "complete" a course, "graduating" versus complete all required courses and pass the Ohio Graduation Test may or may not be required, based on just using the word "graduate."
Next section:
"For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants,..."
"Uniform" means that the amounts of the tuition grants shall all be the same.
Hmm, but what about the scholarships? We don't know, since the word "scholarships" isn't mentioned anywhere.
Hmm - so, what exactly can the Regents award? Just tuition grants? Not scholarships? Then why does the amendment refer to scholarships earlier on? I'm confused. I didn't think scholarships and tuitions grants were interchangeable. Seems like that definitions section sure would have been a handy thing to have. And if this thing passes, I bet there will be lots of folks looking up these words, with no luck, too. Kind of like trying to figure out what a "current" form of ID is for voter registration and ID when you go to vote.
One more thing about the uniform amounts: What's really curious about that is that previously, the amendment stated that the Regents would be establishing the amounts for the scholarships and tuition grants. I guess the Regents will determine the specific amount - so long as they're all uniform?
Again, clarity is a really important concept in legal writing.
"For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities,..."
So, the amount to be given to the students can't be higher than the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities.
"Average" as determined by whom? And as of when? Will kids in 2012 get the same uniform amount as kids got in 2009? Sounds cheap and unfair. Of course, if the slots don't in fact turn in the gross receipts OLE says they will, but the average tuition keeps going up, then what? Who will make up the difference so that all these Ohio students OLE says will benefit, will in fact benefit, as promised, constitutionally? Forest City - will they be making up the difference?
Determined by whom and as of when should be stated in this section. And if you're thinking that that seems to specific for a constitutional amendment, you're right - because it should be in the statutes, not the constitution. But if you don't like this level of specificity, or lack of clarity that makes it unconstitutionally vague, just wait until we start going over the paragraphs about gambling!
Next section:
"For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school..."
So, the same amount of money, in the form of grants, must be given to the top 5% of students at EACH accredited public and non-public high school...uh oh! They didn't say in this state. But okay - we know they MEAN top 5% of students at each of those public and independent private or parochial schools that operate in Ohio.
And again, we see here how the 60,000 residents who are homeschooled will NOT reap this benefit. (And that word "accredited" should be "chartered.")
Well - the public school population in Ohio is around 1.7 million. Each graduating class is...I don't know actually, how many kids graduate every year from Ohio's public and parochial and private schools and five minutes googling the web and searching the Ohio Department of Education website didn't turn up anything.
I believe that there are about 613 school districts in the state. My district only graduates about 160 kids a year, but some districts graduate as many as 500 or 1000. Cleveland Muni had 69K students in 127 schools in the 2005-2006 year. I've read that its graduation rate is less than 50% and for African-American males, it's about 29%. HOWEVER, I could not find any specific numbers from the district's site itself.
So - for my district, out 160 kids graduating, 99% of whom go to college, and a large number who go to college in Ohio, only 8 kids would be eligible in 2009. How much you want to bet that of those eight students, all the families would love the help - but how many actually need help?
For Euclid, where I spent two years as a freelance writer, the graduating class is somewhere around 500 students. So out of 500 students, 25 would be eligible (remember, they still have to meet all those other criteria).
Now, in Cleveland, with less than 50% of all students graduating high school, then only 5% of that total would be eligible. And, again, they have to have taken core and advanced courses, done community service, gone to readiness programs and through assessments and testings as required by the constitution and the Regents.
How many kids you think are gonna get this money?
I don't know - but I bet all of them can spell "sham" "scam" and "flimflam."
Okay - next section:
Now, before you read the next section, remember this part about how the amount of the tuition grant is "not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities."
"For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education..."
Now this language is truly fascinating. If a high school graduate attends a public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education. What exactly is an independent not-for-profit institution of higher education?
Well, according to this definitions section at the Regents website, and this front page of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio (which lobbies by the way; think they had something to do with this language?), there are 52 of these types of institutions on Ohio. You can see which ones here (think: Case Western, Oberlin, Xavier, Marietta, Hiram, University of Dayton). And how much do you want to bet that their tuition is multiple times higher than "the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities"?
So, first, the money goes to kids whether they go to Ohio's publicly supported universities, or go to private universities.
But the amount of the awards is to be uniform. So the kids who go to private universities will only get a smidge of whatever their tuition is, which will be an even smaller smidge in proportion to their tuition and in comparison to what the kids who'll attend public universities will get.
And? Those independent schools' tuitions aren't figured into the amount the Regents will award. Wouldn't want to unnecessarily inflate what you're going to give college students to alleviate the unaffordable nature of college tuition these days.
In all honesty, I don't know how I feel about this. I mean, every kid should get the money, if in fact we're going to be told that every kid can get the money.
But for starters, in addition to all the hoops they must jump through that I outlined yesterday, only 5% of the graduates will even get a chance to get the money. Even. get. a chance.
And they can't have been homeschooled.
And maybe they can't have gone to a charter school.
And if they're in the 2009 class, and that's the one that OLE says is the first class to get the money, well - what if they haven't done the requirements outlined for all four years of school, since we're talking about the graduating class TWO YEARS following when this thing is approved?
But in the future, will kids have to do this stuff for all four years? What about schools that only have 10, 11 and 12 in the high school, so the offerings are different?
And then they only get the average of the tuitions of Ohio public universities. But we don't know if that average will be adjusted (up or down) annually, if at all, between 2009 and 2021.
And now, by reading, we learn that, indeed, private universities can receive these tuition dollars.
What a mess.
I suppose I want the kid to get what the kid is going to get, regardless of what institution he or she chooses in Ohio. However, if you're going to let a kid go to a private Ohio college, why can't the kid go to a private school anywhere in the country since there's nothing in the proposed language that says one of the goals is to keep kids and the money in Ohio?
The argument that we want to keep them and the money in Ohio doesn't do much for me because 1) the proposed amendment doesn't say anything about inspiring students, from an early age, to want to go to college IN OHIO, and improve their academic preparation so that they can compete for this money (because this is actually going to be a VERY competitive grant, given all the requirements even before the Regents get a hold of it) AND STAY IN OHIO, and make college affordable IN OHIO.
In which case, hey. The kids should get this money and go to any school they want. Screw the Ohio thing. That's not in the proposed language, at all.
VERY cool! Though of course, it isn't really cool. Because ideally, a grant like this could and maybe even should be geared to keep kids and the money in Ohio.
But whoops - no one was watching those paralegals or quasi-legals or pseudo-legals who drafted this proposed amendment language.
And now - guess what? The intent of the amendment has nothing to do with keeping the money in Ohio. In which case, someone could easily challenge that if kids can take money to private universities in Ohio, why can't they take the money to a private university outside Ohio? There is NO constitutional reason that the money needs to stay in Ohio. Even if there should have been one written in.
By the way, where do the gross receipts sit and accrue interest while the Regents are figuring this all out and the kids are jumping through the hoops?
Sigh. Okay - last piece of this very first sentence in Paragraph (B):
"For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state."
Anyone know how to assess whether an office is a principal office or not? Like for your taxes, what is a business deduction, or whether you can take a home office deduction?
Yeah, me neither.
And now, the last words written in the entire proposed language about anything having to do with kids, money and education (because the next three pages, single-spaced typed proposed language? all about gambling. all. about. gambling.)
For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state. Such tuition grants shall be based solely on academic merit.
WTF is that? I have no CLUE what that means, since the previous gobbledyguck was all about all the other things the students have to do - you know:
-community service
-"take" core and advanced courses - not get the highest score in each
-participate in college readiness programs, assessments and testing
WTF is this proposed amendment now, in the absolute last f-ing sentence of the whole g-damned thing saying, "Oh, never mind! We're only giving you the grants based on your academic merit."
WHAT THE HELL IS THAT ABOUT? And you can bet your sweet definitions section for slot machine paraphenalia that NO ONE, not a single person who signed those petitions has a CLUE that this money - this money that the flyers say will go to every child in Ohio for full scholarships (yup, that's what some of the ads say) - shall be given out solely on academic merit.
Unless you want to argue about what "shall be based solely on" means. Soley sure doesn't seem to mean by oneself, given how the amendment says the Regents establish criteria "solely" and then the amendment does it for them.
Also - "based solely on" - does that mean awarded "based solely on"? Or just assessed "based solely on"?
No one knows. I am 100% certain of that. Because no one with a brain read this language. I must believe that because I can't believe that someone would purposely make something this awful. That would be too mean of me. And I don't usually go in for conspiracy theories.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 14
Reason 15
Reason 16
Reason 17
Reason 18
Reason 19
Reason 20
Reason 21
Reason 22
Reason 23
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn).
[It's long - but really? It's worth the punchline at the very end.]
Read Part I here (Reason 18), Part II here (Reason 16), Part III here (Reason 15) and Part IV here (Reason 14).
With Reason 14, I started to review how, even though the language of the amendment would seem to give the Board of Regents the ability to set ALL eligibility criteria for the scholarships and tuition grants created by the proposed language (as well as set the amounts of the awards), Paragraph A and Paragraph B both set out numerous criteria which would conceivably be constitutionally required to be met by every Ohio student who wants some of this money.
To re-cap, VERY contrary to OLE's assertions that every child who lives in Ohio will have an opportunity to get all kinds of money to cover college costs, the following conditions would be constitutionally required to be met before any Ohioan could get any amount of the alleged proceeds from gambling that would go to scholarships and grants:
1-you're a current or future student
2-who, prior to enrolling in college,
3-took core and advanced academic courses
4-participated in college readiness programs, assessment and testing
5-at any accredited public or non-public high school
6-in Ohio and
7-you contributed to public life
8-through voluntary civic activity and
9-you attend any public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education 10-authorized by the Regents that
11-has its principle office in Ohio
Additionally, from the prior section you must be
12- US citizen and
13- resident of Ohio.
The bolded portion below is the specific section to be reviewed in this Reason:
Eligibility criteria for such scholarships and grants, and the amounts, shall be established solely by the Ohio Board of Regents. Such scholarships and grants shall include only the following:
(A) Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts for current and future students who, prior to enrolling in college, take core and advanced academic courses, participate in college readiness programs, assessment, and testing at any accredited public or non-public high school in this state, and contribute to public life through voluntary civic activity, and who attend any public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state.
(B) For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state. Such tuition grants shall be based solely on academic merit.
So, to continue:"For the first twelve such high school graduating classes,"
What we have here is Paragraph (B) trying to set out conditions related to the awards and also more conditions related to who can receive the awards.
First, these conditions in (B) apply only to the first 12 "such" high school graduating classes.
Problem: Which "such" classes? Does that mean that entire classes - as opposed to individual students - must meet those first 13 criteria? Typically, that word "such" would refer to a subset of the larger group. In this case, it perhaps would refer to the classes within the first 12 graduating classes that met all the criteria in Paragraph (A).
Of course, "classes" don't meet those criteria, "students" do. Or even graduates of high school. Or Ohioans with high school diplomas as of a certain date.
This section should probably say something like, "For all students in the first 12 high school graduating classes, beginning with the class for which the graduation occurred on or after X date.... and who met the criteria in Paragragh (A)..."
But it doesn't say that. So really, this paragraph is almost unenforceable from the get-go. The word "such" really messes things up. There are much better ways to legally define a distinguish the group of people who might be eligible, from the group who will not be.
The problem in doing it the right way would be that then OLE would have to expose to everyone that NOT all Ohio kids can get this money, not by a long shot.
The second problem is with the term "graduating." How many people graduate but still have classes left? What exactly constitutes graduating? Do you have to go through the ceremony? What if you go through the ceremony but you don't have all the credits?
Just as with "take" a course versus "complete" a course, "graduating" versus complete all required courses and pass the Ohio Graduation Test may or may not be required, based on just using the word "graduate."
Next section:
"For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants,..."
"Uniform" means that the amounts of the tuition grants shall all be the same.
Hmm, but what about the scholarships? We don't know, since the word "scholarships" isn't mentioned anywhere.
Hmm - so, what exactly can the Regents award? Just tuition grants? Not scholarships? Then why does the amendment refer to scholarships earlier on? I'm confused. I didn't think scholarships and tuitions grants were interchangeable. Seems like that definitions section sure would have been a handy thing to have. And if this thing passes, I bet there will be lots of folks looking up these words, with no luck, too. Kind of like trying to figure out what a "current" form of ID is for voter registration and ID when you go to vote.
One more thing about the uniform amounts: What's really curious about that is that previously, the amendment stated that the Regents would be establishing the amounts for the scholarships and tuition grants. I guess the Regents will determine the specific amount - so long as they're all uniform?
Again, clarity is a really important concept in legal writing.
"For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities,..."
So, the amount to be given to the students can't be higher than the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities.
"Average" as determined by whom? And as of when? Will kids in 2012 get the same uniform amount as kids got in 2009? Sounds cheap and unfair. Of course, if the slots don't in fact turn in the gross receipts OLE says they will, but the average tuition keeps going up, then what? Who will make up the difference so that all these Ohio students OLE says will benefit, will in fact benefit, as promised, constitutionally? Forest City - will they be making up the difference?
Determined by whom and as of when should be stated in this section. And if you're thinking that that seems to specific for a constitutional amendment, you're right - because it should be in the statutes, not the constitution. But if you don't like this level of specificity, or lack of clarity that makes it unconstitutionally vague, just wait until we start going over the paragraphs about gambling!
Next section:
"For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school..."
So, the same amount of money, in the form of grants, must be given to the top 5% of students at EACH accredited public and non-public high school...uh oh! They didn't say in this state. But okay - we know they MEAN top 5% of students at each of those public and independent private or parochial schools that operate in Ohio.
And again, we see here how the 60,000 residents who are homeschooled will NOT reap this benefit. (And that word "accredited" should be "chartered.")
Well - the public school population in Ohio is around 1.7 million. Each graduating class is...I don't know actually, how many kids graduate every year from Ohio's public and parochial and private schools and five minutes googling the web and searching the Ohio Department of Education website didn't turn up anything.
I believe that there are about 613 school districts in the state. My district only graduates about 160 kids a year, but some districts graduate as many as 500 or 1000. Cleveland Muni had 69K students in 127 schools in the 2005-2006 year. I've read that its graduation rate is less than 50% and for African-American males, it's about 29%. HOWEVER, I could not find any specific numbers from the district's site itself.
So - for my district, out 160 kids graduating, 99% of whom go to college, and a large number who go to college in Ohio, only 8 kids would be eligible in 2009. How much you want to bet that of those eight students, all the families would love the help - but how many actually need help?
For Euclid, where I spent two years as a freelance writer, the graduating class is somewhere around 500 students. So out of 500 students, 25 would be eligible (remember, they still have to meet all those other criteria).
Now, in Cleveland, with less than 50% of all students graduating high school, then only 5% of that total would be eligible. And, again, they have to have taken core and advanced courses, done community service, gone to readiness programs and through assessments and testings as required by the constitution and the Regents.
How many kids you think are gonna get this money?
I don't know - but I bet all of them can spell "sham" "scam" and "flimflam."
Okay - next section:
Now, before you read the next section, remember this part about how the amount of the tuition grant is "not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities."
"For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education..."
Now this language is truly fascinating. If a high school graduate attends a public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education. What exactly is an independent not-for-profit institution of higher education?
Well, according to this definitions section at the Regents website, and this front page of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio (which lobbies by the way; think they had something to do with this language?), there are 52 of these types of institutions on Ohio. You can see which ones here (think: Case Western, Oberlin, Xavier, Marietta, Hiram, University of Dayton). And how much do you want to bet that their tuition is multiple times higher than "the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities"?
So, first, the money goes to kids whether they go to Ohio's publicly supported universities, or go to private universities.
But the amount of the awards is to be uniform. So the kids who go to private universities will only get a smidge of whatever their tuition is, which will be an even smaller smidge in proportion to their tuition and in comparison to what the kids who'll attend public universities will get.
And? Those independent schools' tuitions aren't figured into the amount the Regents will award. Wouldn't want to unnecessarily inflate what you're going to give college students to alleviate the unaffordable nature of college tuition these days.
In all honesty, I don't know how I feel about this. I mean, every kid should get the money, if in fact we're going to be told that every kid can get the money.
But for starters, in addition to all the hoops they must jump through that I outlined yesterday, only 5% of the graduates will even get a chance to get the money. Even. get. a chance.
And they can't have been homeschooled.
And maybe they can't have gone to a charter school.
And if they're in the 2009 class, and that's the one that OLE says is the first class to get the money, well - what if they haven't done the requirements outlined for all four years of school, since we're talking about the graduating class TWO YEARS following when this thing is approved?
But in the future, will kids have to do this stuff for all four years? What about schools that only have 10, 11 and 12 in the high school, so the offerings are different?
And then they only get the average of the tuitions of Ohio public universities. But we don't know if that average will be adjusted (up or down) annually, if at all, between 2009 and 2021.
And now, by reading, we learn that, indeed, private universities can receive these tuition dollars.
What a mess.
I suppose I want the kid to get what the kid is going to get, regardless of what institution he or she chooses in Ohio. However, if you're going to let a kid go to a private Ohio college, why can't the kid go to a private school anywhere in the country since there's nothing in the proposed language that says one of the goals is to keep kids and the money in Ohio?
The argument that we want to keep them and the money in Ohio doesn't do much for me because 1) the proposed amendment doesn't say anything about inspiring students, from an early age, to want to go to college IN OHIO, and improve their academic preparation so that they can compete for this money (because this is actually going to be a VERY competitive grant, given all the requirements even before the Regents get a hold of it) AND STAY IN OHIO, and make college affordable IN OHIO.
In which case, hey. The kids should get this money and go to any school they want. Screw the Ohio thing. That's not in the proposed language, at all.
VERY cool! Though of course, it isn't really cool. Because ideally, a grant like this could and maybe even should be geared to keep kids and the money in Ohio.
But whoops - no one was watching those paralegals or quasi-legals or pseudo-legals who drafted this proposed amendment language.
And now - guess what? The intent of the amendment has nothing to do with keeping the money in Ohio. In which case, someone could easily challenge that if kids can take money to private universities in Ohio, why can't they take the money to a private university outside Ohio? There is NO constitutional reason that the money needs to stay in Ohio. Even if there should have been one written in.
By the way, where do the gross receipts sit and accrue interest while the Regents are figuring this all out and the kids are jumping through the hoops?
Sigh. Okay - last piece of this very first sentence in Paragraph (B):
"For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state."
Anyone know how to assess whether an office is a principal office or not? Like for your taxes, what is a business deduction, or whether you can take a home office deduction?
Yeah, me neither.
And now, the last words written in the entire proposed language about anything having to do with kids, money and education (because the next three pages, single-spaced typed proposed language? all about gambling. all. about. gambling.)
For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state. Such tuition grants shall be based solely on academic merit.
WTF is that? I have no CLUE what that means, since the previous gobbledyguck was all about all the other things the students have to do - you know:
-community service
-"take" core and advanced courses - not get the highest score in each
-participate in college readiness programs, assessments and testing
WTF is this proposed amendment now, in the absolute last f-ing sentence of the whole g-damned thing saying, "Oh, never mind! We're only giving you the grants based on your academic merit."
WHAT THE HELL IS THAT ABOUT? And you can bet your sweet definitions section for slot machine paraphenalia that NO ONE, not a single person who signed those petitions has a CLUE that this money - this money that the flyers say will go to every child in Ohio for full scholarships (yup, that's what some of the ads say) - shall be given out solely on academic merit.
Unless you want to argue about what "shall be based solely on" means. Soley sure doesn't seem to mean by oneself, given how the amendment says the Regents establish criteria "solely" and then the amendment does it for them.
Also - "based solely on" - does that mean awarded "based solely on"? Or just assessed "based solely on"?
No one knows. I am 100% certain of that. Because no one with a brain read this language. I must believe that because I can't believe that someone would purposely make something this awful. That would be too mean of me. And I don't usually go in for conspiracy theories.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 14
Reason 15
Reason 16
Reason 17
Reason 18
Reason 19
Reason 20
Reason 21
Reason 22
Reason 23
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn).
JBlog Me
5 Comments:
You are making the assumption that this amendment was written as a legal document.
It wasn't. It was written as a political document.
The paragraphs related to 'grants' and 'tuition' are filler. Nobody was ever intended to read this as carefully as you do. Not even it's authors. Why? Because the grants are irrelevant. How they are to be managed was intentionally for another group to decide at a later time. Like the unconstitutional primary school funding problem.
The core of the amendment relates to legalized gambling in the state of Ohio, with this privilege begin granted to existing racetracks and two oddly specific plots of land in downtown Cleveland, the owners of which, you can be sure, won't need the grants to send their kids to school.
Vague language is often written into laws for the express purpose of making the regulators and courts work out the messy details, so the lawmakers don't have to exercise their brains too hard or make tough calls that might alienate voters or lobbyists (not necessarily in that order).
OL&E is a particularly egregious example of this process run amok. You don't have to wear a tin foil hat to recognize the reality that many of these details will be worked out later in what used to be called smoke-filled rooms.
Jill:
They didn't CARE enough to make the language relating to the scholarships straightforward, but they sure CARED enough to make sure that they spelled out the parameters of the gambling portion of the scheme.
It is such a shame that these con artists are allowed the opportunity to try to make our Ohio Constitution nothing but a front for smokefilled room deals, but unfortunately that is the case.
All along the proponents of this amendment have said that every Ohio child will have a scholarship to attend an institution of higher learning in the State of Ohio.
When we met with David Hopcraft, Ian James, and company in Columbus. We asked what would happen to the scholarship account of a student in the top 5% who did not want to attend an Ohio school, but wanted to take advantage of the many other scholarship opportunities available to him or her. Would it filter down to the next 5% and so on? I believe the answer was to the affect that that would be up to the appointed Board of Regents. No one has questioned what happens to the money if not used. Since these accounts are shown as passbook savings accounts with each Ohio child's name on it. Would that student have to sign a waiver? And if so, where does the money then go?
This who;e thing is such a sham. I live in the city and those Issue 3 signs are EVERYWHERE lying and equivocating to all who see them. I sure hope that the voiting public are so tired of being lied to that it carries over into the vote on this issue and not just to candidates.
Great job, Jill!
Tom - what bothers me the most about that issue with the vague language is that it's only vague where it's convenient. Then, the specificity gears up into tantalizing levels. There is no consistency and no fairness and no trust in this proposed language. Seriously - if students were given an assignment to draft a constitutional amendment that would legalize gambling and give the proceeds to education, and someone handed this thing in - they'd flunk.
Gloria - thanks for taking the time still to read and comment. I agree with all of your feelings. For the third day in a row, I got a robocall - and this time it didn't even say who it was - that got cut off! And again the person stated how it's for all kids, not just wealthy and privileged. No one is arguing that it's for wealthy and privileged - at least, I'm not. I'm only saying that it's for the same pool of kids who'll already get offers of assistance.
Blech.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home