Reason #14 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 IV.
Read Part I here (Reason 18), Part II here (Reason 16) and Part III here (Reason 15).
This reason tackles the problems with the criteria by which the Board of Regents must abide, when it seeks to establish the criteria by which it must abide to award scholarships and tuition grants with the money that is alleged to be generated by the proposed amendment language. I know that sentence is one convoluted combination of words, but don't blame me. Read this prior reason first if you want to understand how it can be that the proposed language orders the Board of Regents to establish, all by its lonesome, the criteria by which it will award the scholarships and tuition grants, but must do so within criteria that the proposed language then delineates.
Sorry for the repetition, but for those who are just joining us, here is the section in the proposed language of the Learn and Earn Amendment (how queer for a constitution; sorry, but I just have to say that - I mean, look at the titles of all the other sections in the constitution, you know? blech; okay, anyway...) that is under the microscope today. The bolded portion is the specific section to be reviewed.
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:
"Such scholarships and grants shall include only the following:"
[AH! I see. The Regents will establish the criteria for who will be AWARDED the scholarships and grants? But the constitution establishes which scholarships and grants shall be in existence? Maybe that's what the drafters meant? Again - what. crappy. legal writing.]
1. "(A) Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts..."
Hmm - okay. "Learn and earn scholarship accounts" is a term of art in this section - even though it's not capitalized, shown in quotations or otherwise distinguished. How can I tell that it's a term of art? Because the entire paragraph defines that phrase, which is why, of course, entire amendments like this one should include definition sections, or at a minimum set off the phrase with quotations, or something. Because really, the language here is treating "learn and earn scholarship accounts" like a very specific thing, not just any old scholarship from any old program. And we all want to know, What the hell is a learn and earn scholarship account?
Since we don't have a definitions section, we'll try to figure it out from the rest of the paragraph which sort of goes on to define, more or less, what a Learn and Earn Scholarship is (I'm going to capitalize this phrase because I want it to be clear):
So, which students will have these accounts?
2. "Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts for current and future students...
The language of the amendment seems to indicate that the accounts are intended to be for "current and future students," as in,
The problem with this phrase is that it fails to define "current." As of November 7? As of when the General Assembly passes laws that enact the amendment? As of when the Regents establish eligibility criteria (which again, every time I write that, contradicts how OLE portrays Issue 3 as giving money to every Ohio kid, whatever)? As of when is a student considered a current student, exactly?
Leaving that for now,
What characteristics must the current and future students possess in order to have an account?
There are several, so let's look at them one at a time.
3. "Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts for current and future students who, prior to enrolling in college..."
So, whatever characteristics are about to be described must attain with the current and future students "...prior to enrolling in college...".
Thus, the student can't start college and then get the money. All conditions for an account to be set up must be met before he or she ENROLLS in college. Okay - that's an important distinction. Could be admitted, just not enrolled. And the general idea is, you have to do certain stuff in high school to be eligible. Nothing wrong with that, except 1) it doesn't belong in a constitution, 2) it was just stated that the Regents were going to devise this stuff and 3) it's poorly written.
Now, what conditions must they meet prior to enrolling in college in order to have an account set up for him or her:
a. "Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts for current and future students who, prior to enrolling in college, take core and advanced academic courses,..."
Problem 1: This phrase uses the verb "take." Not "complete." Not "pass." But "take." Hmmm. Way too inexact for me.
Problem 2: Without a definitions section, we have no clue as to what "core and advanced academic courses" are, or by whose definition of those courses students will have to abide.
Additionally, this condition says "and," not "or." So, does that mean that current and future students, prior to enrolling in college, must have taken BOTH core courses AND advanced academic courses? How many districts offer enough advanced academic courses for ALL its students? How many students are capable of "taking" advanced courses? Well, with the verb "taking," of course, anyone can "take" - they just might not pass or complete.
See why that definitions thing is so crucial? (I want my money back.)
Well, this condition sounds unnecessarily stringent, especially if you want to promote OLE as providing every Ohio kid a piece of this money, or even a shot at a piece of this money. Cuz honey, some kids ain't never going to be able to take advanced courses. And not even because they can't do the work, but because a district might not offer them.
Did I mention how this proposed language is a cluster you know what?
Sigh.
Okay.
b. "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,..."
AH. Now this section has gotten some traction in a few newspapers. Why?
Not because of the part about participating in college readiness programs, as well as assessment and testing (though those last two items are far too vague for me; assessment for what? That they're ready for college? Well, isn't that part of a college readiness program? So what exactly is assessment referring to? I don't know. Likewise "testing" - what kind of testing? The writers might know what they're talking about (and I emphasize "might"), but I guarantee you that I'm not the only one who has no idea what they're expecting out of the current and future students as far as "assessment, and testing."
No - none of these weaknesses is why the MSM has written about this particular condition.
This particular condition is under attack because, if, and this is a big if because of how the language is written, the phrase at any accredited public or non-public high school in this state,..." applies to all the conditions, then this Ohio Learn and Earn Amendment, without the Board of Regents lifting a finger, EXCLUDES every single child who is home-schooled. It may or may not exclude kids in charter schools and I'll explain.
In Ohio, schools of any sort are not "accredited." They are granted charters and are referred to as either chartered or non-chartered. And in fact, to reduce confusion in Ohio (although increase confusion for those outside Ohio), what most other states call "charter schools" are called "community schools" in Ohio because Ohio uses the word "charter" to indicate accreditation. It would sound too awkward to say Ohio has chartered a charter school - just doesn't work.
Now, every single school (with the exception of schools in something called the 08 category - like those that operate for the Amish students, which are called non-chartered, non-public) must go through some process with the state. And that leads to a classification of being either a public or a non-public chartered school. Non-public schools are your parochial and independent private schools.
So, under the proposed language, 08 current students are excluded because they're at non-chartered, non-public schools. But additionally, all homeschooled kids are excluded. And, possibly, kids who take courses online.
How many kids is this? Ohio has approximately 60,000 homeschooled students, as of 2004, out of a total of nearly 2 million school-aged residents. Some of their parents might even like casinos and slots. But guess what? Under the proposed language, they may not be eligible for Learn and Earn Scholarship accounts. Oh, I know - maybe they could just "take" a core or advanced academic course here or there (remember - there's no requirement yet that says they have to have graduated with diploma or pass the Ohio Graduation Test). And then they could just find some college readiness programs, assessments and tests and take those.
But really, now - that's all just too loosey goosey. BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT SUCKS.
Anyway - I don't know what the overlap of homeschooling adults and gamblers looks like. But to automatically, via a CONSTITUTIONAL provision, disenfranchise any Ohio student who doesn't attend a public or non-public school? Sounds unconstitutional to me.
[NB: there's no severability clause in this amendment - meaning that if this section is unconstitutional, the whole damn amendment might, might, be unenforceable too. Just making a possible argument.]
Phew. Okay. There's still three more conditions that the Board of Regents must abide by when they are establishing, solely, the eligibility criteria:
c. "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,..."
The MSM has highlighted problems with this condition also. To begin with, many schools don't require any kind of service component in their high school curriculum. Those that do often do it on a discretionary, honor system basis.
How many hours are required? What activities will qualify? If we're talking about public schools and public institutions of higher education, and what will become public funds as soon as the 30% is handed over to the state, can kids swap service done in the name of religious institutions for public money? Is there a church and state problem? Unfair enrichment? I don't know. But then again, no one else knows the answers to any of these questions either.
BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE SUCKS.
The answer is not, "The Board of Regents will decide." The Regents have NO authority over high school curriculums. Even the Ohio Department of Education cannot mandate that public schools teach certain things (it can only mandate that students must pass the OGT to get a diploma, so if you're a district that wants your students to pass, you gotta teach them what's on there, and what's on there is closely aligned with the curriculums coming from the ODE). And the ODE absolutely cannot mandate what non-public schools teach.
Now, yes, the Regents can establish eligibility criteria that will make it incumbent on the schools to offer programs to help kids who want to access OLE money to fulfill this condition. But then, it wouldn't be VOLUNTARY now would it? I mean, you say that the money is there for the kids, but only if they do all these things. That's not voluntary and that's not a wide-open "it's guaranteed in every student's name by the Ohio constitution" scholarship or grant money. No way, no how.
Of course, it might free up a lot of that 30% - wonder where the unused money goes if there aren't enough eligible kids.
Totally, f-ing nuts.
Alrighty.
Last thing on this condition: voluntary. I don't see how that is possible. If you're saying that you have to do it in order to get one of these here Learn and Earn Scholarship accounts, well, to me - that makes it mandatory - not voluntary. Total oxymoron. Or something. Or just plain counterintuitive, which still means that it makes no sense.
d. "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..."
Okay. Now this fourth condition is what we call really fercockt.
First off, the accounts are supposed to be for eligible kids who go on to attend public or independent not-for-profit institution. Well - that's what it says.
But when I look at my flyers from OLE, it says "in-state community college, 4 year college or technical school." There's nothing there about public or not-for-profit. And then, Ohio Learn and Earn's FAQ's specifically says the following:
Will Learn & Earn funds require attending a particular Ohio college or university? Learn & Earn provides funding for students to attend the Ohio college or university of their choice. By completing all requirements through K-12, individuals will be eligible to receive Learn & Earn tuition grant funding, as determined by the Ohio Board of Regents, equal to the average of full tuition at OhioÂs public universities. However, it may be applied against tuition payments at any Ohio public, or private, nonprofit college or university, substantially reducing if not completely covering the institutions overall cost.
Guess what? NONE OF THAT IS IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT LANGUAGE. So, unless OLE controls the Board of Regents, this FAQ is an outright lie.
Second, I cannot figure out the timing of when the account starts to accrue based on this mumbo jumbo of requirements.
Is it when you're born, no holds barred and you can't lose it? (No - I'm sure of that.)
Is it from the date you're born, but only after it's determined (and I'm not sure who it is that will assess your eligibility - I assume, the Regents?) that you've met all the college pre-enrollment conditions AND the college attendance conditions?
How many kids won't meet all that? Someone has an idea and isn't saying what that idea is and is still letting OLE spread lies about the number of kids who will benefit.
e. "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.
Do the Regents authorize such institutions that have principal offices outside the state? Like the University of Phoenix or Cappella University? So students attending those wouldn't be included - that seems logical (unbelievably so).
I do believe they did that correctly.
Done!
So, to recap: NOT A SINGLE OLE ACCOUNT CAN BE SET UP FOR ANY ONE UNTIL AND UNLESS THESE CONDITIONS ARE MET:
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.
For a proposed constitutional amendment that says, "Eligibility criteria for such scholarships and grants, and the amounts, shall be established solely by the Ohio Board of Regents," it sure looks to me like the Regents have a multitude of eligibility criteria to apply that, even if the Regents didn't say another word about eligibility, would be able to disenfranchise thousands of Ohio born and educated current and future students.
P.S. Let me make it clear: I understand, more or less, what the writers of this proposed language wanted to do - make money available, from gambling proceeds, to a group of students from Ohio who did certain things in high school that make them worthy of getting this money to help with college.
The problem is, the directives are so poorly described and detailed as to be impossible to determine what they are, who they apply to, who is to apply them, when they begin, why they might not be awarded, and what to do with unawarded moneys.
In very unsophisticated language? It's a disaster. Not waiting to happen. It already is in fact a disaster.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn):
Read Part I here (Reason 18), Part II here (Reason 16) and Part III here (Reason 15).
This reason tackles the problems with the criteria by which the Board of Regents must abide, when it seeks to establish the criteria by which it must abide to award scholarships and tuition grants with the money that is alleged to be generated by the proposed amendment language. I know that sentence is one convoluted combination of words, but don't blame me. Read this prior reason first if you want to understand how it can be that the proposed language orders the Board of Regents to establish, all by its lonesome, the criteria by which it will award the scholarships and tuition grants, but must do so within criteria that the proposed language then delineates.
Sorry for the repetition, but for those who are just joining us, here is the section in the proposed language of the Learn and Earn Amendment (how queer for a constitution; sorry, but I just have to say that - I mean, look at the titles of all the other sections in the constitution, you know? blech; okay, anyway...) that is under the microscope today. The bolded portion is the specific section to be reviewed.
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.
Okay - so what criteria must the Regents abide by, even though they're not establishing them but rather the constitution establishes them?"Such scholarships and grants shall include only the following:"
[AH! I see. The Regents will establish the criteria for who will be AWARDED the scholarships and grants? But the constitution establishes which scholarships and grants shall be in existence? Maybe that's what the drafters meant? Again - what. crappy. legal writing.]
1. "(A) Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts..."
Hmm - okay. "Learn and earn scholarship accounts" is a term of art in this section - even though it's not capitalized, shown in quotations or otherwise distinguished. How can I tell that it's a term of art? Because the entire paragraph defines that phrase, which is why, of course, entire amendments like this one should include definition sections, or at a minimum set off the phrase with quotations, or something. Because really, the language here is treating "learn and earn scholarship accounts" like a very specific thing, not just any old scholarship from any old program. And we all want to know, What the hell is a learn and earn scholarship account?
Since we don't have a definitions section, we'll try to figure it out from the rest of the paragraph which sort of goes on to define, more or less, what a Learn and Earn Scholarship is (I'm going to capitalize this phrase because I want it to be clear):
So, which students will have these accounts?
2. "Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts for current and future students...
The language of the amendment seems to indicate that the accounts are intended to be for "current and future students," as in,
The problem with this phrase is that it fails to define "current." As of November 7? As of when the General Assembly passes laws that enact the amendment? As of when the Regents establish eligibility criteria (which again, every time I write that, contradicts how OLE portrays Issue 3 as giving money to every Ohio kid, whatever)? As of when is a student considered a current student, exactly?
Leaving that for now,
What characteristics must the current and future students possess in order to have an account?
There are several, so let's look at them one at a time.
3. "Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts for current and future students who, prior to enrolling in college..."
So, whatever characteristics are about to be described must attain with the current and future students "...prior to enrolling in college...".
Thus, the student can't start college and then get the money. All conditions for an account to be set up must be met before he or she ENROLLS in college. Okay - that's an important distinction. Could be admitted, just not enrolled. And the general idea is, you have to do certain stuff in high school to be eligible. Nothing wrong with that, except 1) it doesn't belong in a constitution, 2) it was just stated that the Regents were going to devise this stuff and 3) it's poorly written.
Now, what conditions must they meet prior to enrolling in college in order to have an account set up for him or her:
a. "Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts for current and future students who, prior to enrolling in college, take core and advanced academic courses,..."
Problem 1: This phrase uses the verb "take." Not "complete." Not "pass." But "take." Hmmm. Way too inexact for me.
Problem 2: Without a definitions section, we have no clue as to what "core and advanced academic courses" are, or by whose definition of those courses students will have to abide.
Additionally, this condition says "and," not "or." So, does that mean that current and future students, prior to enrolling in college, must have taken BOTH core courses AND advanced academic courses? How many districts offer enough advanced academic courses for ALL its students? How many students are capable of "taking" advanced courses? Well, with the verb "taking," of course, anyone can "take" - they just might not pass or complete.
See why that definitions thing is so crucial? (I want my money back.)
Well, this condition sounds unnecessarily stringent, especially if you want to promote OLE as providing every Ohio kid a piece of this money, or even a shot at a piece of this money. Cuz honey, some kids ain't never going to be able to take advanced courses. And not even because they can't do the work, but because a district might not offer them.
Did I mention how this proposed language is a cluster you know what?
Sigh.
Okay.
b. "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,..."
AH. Now this section has gotten some traction in a few newspapers. Why?
Not because of the part about participating in college readiness programs, as well as assessment and testing (though those last two items are far too vague for me; assessment for what? That they're ready for college? Well, isn't that part of a college readiness program? So what exactly is assessment referring to? I don't know. Likewise "testing" - what kind of testing? The writers might know what they're talking about (and I emphasize "might"), but I guarantee you that I'm not the only one who has no idea what they're expecting out of the current and future students as far as "assessment, and testing."
No - none of these weaknesses is why the MSM has written about this particular condition.
This particular condition is under attack because, if, and this is a big if because of how the language is written, the phrase at any accredited public or non-public high school in this state,..." applies to all the conditions, then this Ohio Learn and Earn Amendment, without the Board of Regents lifting a finger, EXCLUDES every single child who is home-schooled. It may or may not exclude kids in charter schools and I'll explain.
In Ohio, schools of any sort are not "accredited." They are granted charters and are referred to as either chartered or non-chartered. And in fact, to reduce confusion in Ohio (although increase confusion for those outside Ohio), what most other states call "charter schools" are called "community schools" in Ohio because Ohio uses the word "charter" to indicate accreditation. It would sound too awkward to say Ohio has chartered a charter school - just doesn't work.
Now, every single school (with the exception of schools in something called the 08 category - like those that operate for the Amish students, which are called non-chartered, non-public) must go through some process with the state. And that leads to a classification of being either a public or a non-public chartered school. Non-public schools are your parochial and independent private schools.
So, under the proposed language, 08 current students are excluded because they're at non-chartered, non-public schools. But additionally, all homeschooled kids are excluded. And, possibly, kids who take courses online.
How many kids is this? Ohio has approximately 60,000 homeschooled students, as of 2004, out of a total of nearly 2 million school-aged residents. Some of their parents might even like casinos and slots. But guess what? Under the proposed language, they may not be eligible for Learn and Earn Scholarship accounts. Oh, I know - maybe they could just "take" a core or advanced academic course here or there (remember - there's no requirement yet that says they have to have graduated with diploma or pass the Ohio Graduation Test). And then they could just find some college readiness programs, assessments and tests and take those.
But really, now - that's all just too loosey goosey. BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT SUCKS.
Anyway - I don't know what the overlap of homeschooling adults and gamblers looks like. But to automatically, via a CONSTITUTIONAL provision, disenfranchise any Ohio student who doesn't attend a public or non-public school? Sounds unconstitutional to me.
[NB: there's no severability clause in this amendment - meaning that if this section is unconstitutional, the whole damn amendment might, might, be unenforceable too. Just making a possible argument.]
Phew. Okay. There's still three more conditions that the Board of Regents must abide by when they are establishing, solely, the eligibility criteria:
c. "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,..."
The MSM has highlighted problems with this condition also. To begin with, many schools don't require any kind of service component in their high school curriculum. Those that do often do it on a discretionary, honor system basis.
How many hours are required? What activities will qualify? If we're talking about public schools and public institutions of higher education, and what will become public funds as soon as the 30% is handed over to the state, can kids swap service done in the name of religious institutions for public money? Is there a church and state problem? Unfair enrichment? I don't know. But then again, no one else knows the answers to any of these questions either.
BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE SUCKS.
The answer is not, "The Board of Regents will decide." The Regents have NO authority over high school curriculums. Even the Ohio Department of Education cannot mandate that public schools teach certain things (it can only mandate that students must pass the OGT to get a diploma, so if you're a district that wants your students to pass, you gotta teach them what's on there, and what's on there is closely aligned with the curriculums coming from the ODE). And the ODE absolutely cannot mandate what non-public schools teach.
Now, yes, the Regents can establish eligibility criteria that will make it incumbent on the schools to offer programs to help kids who want to access OLE money to fulfill this condition. But then, it wouldn't be VOLUNTARY now would it? I mean, you say that the money is there for the kids, but only if they do all these things. That's not voluntary and that's not a wide-open "it's guaranteed in every student's name by the Ohio constitution" scholarship or grant money. No way, no how.
Of course, it might free up a lot of that 30% - wonder where the unused money goes if there aren't enough eligible kids.
Totally, f-ing nuts.
Alrighty.
Last thing on this condition: voluntary. I don't see how that is possible. If you're saying that you have to do it in order to get one of these here Learn and Earn Scholarship accounts, well, to me - that makes it mandatory - not voluntary. Total oxymoron. Or something. Or just plain counterintuitive, which still means that it makes no sense.
d. "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..."
Okay. Now this fourth condition is what we call really fercockt.
First off, the accounts are supposed to be for eligible kids who go on to attend public or independent not-for-profit institution. Well - that's what it says.
But when I look at my flyers from OLE, it says "in-state community college, 4 year college or technical school." There's nothing there about public or not-for-profit. And then, Ohio Learn and Earn's FAQ's specifically says the following:
Will Learn & Earn funds require attending a particular Ohio college or university? Learn & Earn provides funding for students to attend the Ohio college or university of their choice. By completing all requirements through K-12, individuals will be eligible to receive Learn & Earn tuition grant funding, as determined by the Ohio Board of Regents, equal to the average of full tuition at OhioÂs public universities. However, it may be applied against tuition payments at any Ohio public, or private, nonprofit college or university, substantially reducing if not completely covering the institutions overall cost.
Guess what? NONE OF THAT IS IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT LANGUAGE. So, unless OLE controls the Board of Regents, this FAQ is an outright lie.
Second, I cannot figure out the timing of when the account starts to accrue based on this mumbo jumbo of requirements.
Is it when you're born, no holds barred and you can't lose it? (No - I'm sure of that.)
Is it from the date you're born, but only after it's determined (and I'm not sure who it is that will assess your eligibility - I assume, the Regents?) that you've met all the college pre-enrollment conditions AND the college attendance conditions?
How many kids won't meet all that? Someone has an idea and isn't saying what that idea is and is still letting OLE spread lies about the number of kids who will benefit.
e. "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.
Do the Regents authorize such institutions that have principal offices outside the state? Like the University of Phoenix or Cappella University? So students attending those wouldn't be included - that seems logical (unbelievably so).
I do believe they did that correctly.
Done!
So, to recap: NOT A SINGLE OLE ACCOUNT CAN BE SET UP FOR ANY ONE UNTIL AND UNLESS THESE CONDITIONS ARE MET:
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.
For a proposed constitutional amendment that says, "Eligibility criteria for such scholarships and grants, and the amounts, shall be established solely by the Ohio Board of Regents," it sure looks to me like the Regents have a multitude of eligibility criteria to apply that, even if the Regents didn't say another word about eligibility, would be able to disenfranchise thousands of Ohio born and educated current and future students.
P.S. Let me make it clear: I understand, more or less, what the writers of this proposed language wanted to do - make money available, from gambling proceeds, to a group of students from Ohio who did certain things in high school that make them worthy of getting this money to help with college.
The problem is, the directives are so poorly described and detailed as to be impossible to determine what they are, who they apply to, who is to apply them, when they begin, why they might not be awarded, and what to do with unawarded moneys.
In very unsophisticated language? It's a disaster. Not waiting to happen. It already is in fact a disaster.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn):
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
4 Comments:
Take v. complete is a Mack Truck loophole.
voluntary -- they meant to say volunteer.
Why wasn't this thrown out by the courts on grounds of obvious vagueness?
Thanks, Tom.
What I really have been trying to understand is the role of the Ballot Board - I mean, shouldn't they be detecting when this stuff doesn't pass muster? Who is the gatekeeper on this stuff? Does the Ballot Board just okay signatures? I couldn't figure this all out, in the time I've researched. Do you have any additional knowledge?
Yes - it is absolutely positively legally insufficient to do ANYTHING.
NO, I wish I did. I just know in other states ballot measures have been thrown out by the courts. I have had the impression that in those states all measures were subject to a mandatory judicial approval before submission to the voters (i.e., opponents don't have to bring action to force a judicial review, it automatically happens).
I don't immerse myself in it, though, and I could be wrong. In Ohio, it appears you might have to bring action to force ANY judicial review, and that appears not to have happened in this instance.
As much as I have disliked judges throwing out ballot measures the judges personally oppose on frivolous or made-up grounds, I believe that there has to be some kind of smell test (stench test?) before a measure goes before the voters.
I don't recall seeing anything that indicates that a court reviews the language but again, I haven't looked carefully. It shouldn't be such an issue in general but the problem with Issue 3 is that its $20million being spent on PR distorts for the purpose of promoting one view and one view only of what the proposal is. As we know, that view isn't the full truth, at all. And that's what I object to.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home