News
February 6, 2000
When Tony and Annette Ottino shopped for a new home, they focused on Macomb Township, in large part so their two children would attend Chippewa Valley schools.
But that was before Immanuel Lutheran Church became an important part of their lives.
"That church acted like a magnet," said Ottino, a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service. "We joined the church and kind of had a family conversion."
After their epiphany, the Ottinos sent their children -- which eventually increased to number four -- to church-sponsored schools. Some 14 years later, two Ottino children attend Immanuel Lutheran School and two more grace the halls of Lutheran North High School.
And the family spends a fair-sized chunk of its annual income to pay the way.
"Some of the years, we had to borrow money to keep them going through the system," Ottino said. "You end up making a lot of sacrifices. We don't have a cottage up north. I don't own a snowmobile."
Under certain circumstances, Ottino would support a school tuition voucher program that provided a little financial help.
"Not everybody is rich who sends their kids to private schools," he said.
In November, Michigan voters will decide if the Ottinos and other families ever get that chance. (The measure has not yet been officially placed on the ballot, but even opponents concede that supports have likely collected enough signatures to cause that to happen.)
A proposed amendment to the Michigan Constitution would eliminate a prohibition against public funding of private schools and clear the way for at least some parents to receive state funds to send their children to private or religious schools.
If the amendment is approved, Michigan would become the sixth state to adopt a tuition voucher program and the 10th to approve some form of private school choice.
But what it all means depends on who's offering the explanation.
Supporters and opponents of the amendment are working -- and spending -- to get their message across to voters well in advance of the anticipated ballot question in November.
Each side has developed its own Web site -- KidsFirstYes.org (supporters) and AllKidsFirst.com (opponents) to spell out their views for Internet surfers.
Proponents insist the amendment is about choice, accountability and affording students from the worst districts an opportunity to attend schools such as Immanuel Lutheran.
"What this really is is a rescue plan for children who are not getting the
education they're entitled to," said Matt Latimer, spokesman for Kids
First! Yes!, sponsors of the proposed amendment. "Parents should have
more power and choices."
Latimer and the Kids First! Yes! group cite three
key provisions of the proposed Constitutional amendment. The
initiative, they say, will:
The voucher system would initially work in the following way.
A school district that has a graduation rate below 67 percent for four consecutive years would qualify as "failing." The baseline year for graduation rates will be the 1998-99 school year. Those figures won't be available until later this year. It's not known if any Macomb County districts would qualify.
Parents of children in failing districts would automatically be eligible to receive vouchers equal to 50 percent of the per-pupil funding guarantee -- about $3,000 -- to offset the cost of sending their child to a private school. The remaining $3,000 would be returned to the state School Aid Fund.
But opponents, which include public school teachers, administrators, Gov. John Engler and other policy makers, tick off a laundry list of criticism:
"You remove the best students with the most support and take away resources from the rest," he said.
Families like the Ottinos won't benefit under the initial voucher plan because they reside in a school district that will not qualify.
But another provision would permit any district to become a voucher district through a vote -- either by the local board of education or by public referendum.
"Why should we deprive voters and parents (of non-qualified districts) of the opportunity to implement the same kind of system?" Latimer said.
Once a district qualifies as a voucher district -- either automatically or by vote -- it will always remain a voucher district. The proposed law offers no provision to opt out of the program.
"That's the only way to do it," Latimer said. "It's unfair to parents and children to bounce back and forth."
Gary Cynowa is president of Local 1 of the Michigan Education Association, the union that represents most Michigan teachers. Cynowa said the promise of "choice" for parents is an illusion.
"They don't really have a choice," he said. "It's a choice of the school, not the parent."
Opponents also criticize the lack of specifics. The ballot proposal leaves details of the teacher-testing program and implementation of other facets of the voucher program up to the state Legislature.
Opponents also fear the amendment could open the door for other funding alternatives like tuition tax credits.
"Once they get their foot in the door, all those other items could pass," Cynowa said.
Latimer dismissed the criticism as "nitpicking" and "scare tactics" designed to "protect the status quo that has failed."
"Right now, tax dollars are going to school districts that for years and decades are not graduating one-third of their kids," Latimer said. "The status quo for these districts has not worked."
Countered Cynowa: "Their theory is competition causes better schools. We think cooperation and collaboration causes better schools."
(Reprinted with permission from Author)
Voucher advocates say voters should decide the matter
By Frank DeFrank -- Macomb Daily Staff Writer
"Basically, it will come down to change vs. the status quo," Latimer said. "Those who want to maintain the status quo support a system that has failed hundreds of thousands of children every year."
James Edoff, superintendent of Fitzgerald Public Schools, said amendment backers are guilty of a "loss of logic."