Weekend Question 3: What are the Latest of Jill’s 57 Reasons to Reject the Ohio Learn & Earn Initiative (102906)?
NOTE: This post was put up prematurely in anticipation of Reasons 12 and 11 getting posted by Jill; I apologize for that. Apparently she is on the road and not able to post (how DARE she have a life), so this post will only contain Reason 13. I’ll catch up with the backlog tomorrow or Tuesday.
______________________________________________
From Jill at Writes Like She Talks (original entry relating to Jill’s effort is here) –
- Reason 13 is the last of five parts, beginning at Reason 17, that shreds the language in the amendment, language that would be enshrined in the state’s Constitution if OL&E passes Jill identifiies vagueness and lack of specificity that would (or should) embarrass a first-year law student. Just one: What does “solely on academic merit” mean? Just a few questions (these are mine): Does that mean only grade-point average (GPA)? Should classes like phys ed and music be considered “non-academic” and be thrown out of any GPA-based determination of what the top 5% of a high school graduating class is? Does the “sole” criterion of academic merit mean that someone with a violent criminal history who happens to be in the top 5% of his or her class would get a scholarship anyway instead of someone else with a clean record?
I would think that it intends to leave the door open so that students whose parents make just enough money not to qualify for most scholarships can still be eligible.
Ohio ranks 49th in college affordability. This amendment is intended to help change that and allow Ohio students more affordable access to college education.
Please, check out my coalition’s website at http://www.ohiolearnandearn.com
We have a lot of information about the amendment as well as FAQs that help to address many of these questions.
Comment by LearnandEarn — November 1, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
#1, The WHOLE POINT is that it doesn’t matter what it INTENDS, it matters what IT SAYS.
Vague “intentional” language should not be going into the Constitution.
Jill’s valid point is that it is so poorly written that even IF it was something desirable (which it isn’t), it shouldn’t be passed.
I just visited OL&E’s home page. The word gambling does not appear (gaming yes, gambling no). The word casino does not appear. The word slot appears in the final paragraph of the page’s main text. OL&E is as much as it can hiding the gambling that is the reason for the amendment behind the skirts and shirts of little girls and boys. Charming. There are infinitely better ways to address affordability.
Comment by TBlumer — November 1, 2006 @ 2:08 pm