Commentary on Michigan Public Education Voucher System

!"##$%&'()*+)*,-./'(0*12*3.4$55'%* November 11, 2013 Contents: !"##$%& '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' () *+,)-+%#./0102&3)45"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%= ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' () !70>+)0?)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%@ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' A) B0,):<+);0"7<+%)C0/:%0D+%@&)!:$%:+9 ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' E) B0@:.1.:&):0)F"@./+@@'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' G) -<+)H+$1)I@@"+@3)J0/+&)$/9)C0/:%01 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' G) -%$9.:.0/$1)K+?./.:.0/@)0?):<+)-+%#);0"7<+% ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' L) M>>+/9.N)M3)B.@:0%.7$1)*0:+@)O/)89"7$:.0/)4;0"7<+%@=)I/)J.7<.2$/'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' P) 8N7+%>:@3)C0"/7.1)0?)O%2$/.Q$:.0/@)$/9)O:<+%@)?0%)89"7$:.0/)M60":)5$%07<.$.9R) I/7')D')S0D+%/0%'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''(T) M>>+/9.N)F3)J.7<.2$/)C0/@:.:":.0/$1)5%0D.@.0/@ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''(U) V+&)81+#+/:@)0?)5$%07<.$.9)5%0D.@.0/)WM%:');IIIR)XUR)YUZ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''(U) M>>+/9.N)C3)I/.:.$:.D+@)$/9)H+?+%+/9"#@)[/9+%):<+)C0/@:.:":.0/)0?):<+)!:$:+)0?) J.7<.2$/)0?)(PGA ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''(E)

!"##$%&'
The State of Michigan has created a broad and diverse set of public education entities, and funds each Michigan resident student with a per pupil allowance applicable in multiple public school schools. In sum, these structures, laws and financing mechanisms amount to a public education voucher whereby a student and his or her parents can shop for public education services (but not private, i.e., nonpublic schools). Since 1970, Michigan voters have four separate times rejected using taxpayer funds for most private and parochial students expenses. But the public and the Michigan Legislature have embraced choice, change and diversity within the public school arena. This document outlines the evolution of the term public education voucher in Michigan and the structure that underlies the term.

()*'+)%#,-./.0&1'23"4/,5'67"5$8,.-'9."5:)%;'
The term vouchers has previously been toxic to Michigan public school unions and administrators because of its connection to private education. Politically, it has been a code word for any effort to provide taxpayer funds to students that attend private schools, whether it is tax credits, indirect support, or direct vouchers. The meaning of the term, at least within Michigan, seems to have shifted away from a focus on support for religious schools. Since Governor Rick Snyder assumed office in

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 2 of 16 ) 2011 and called for a reinvention of public education there has been a wide-ranging public debate regarding school funding, the scope of public education choice, and expansion of types of public schools. It is this broad public school choice that has come to be called vouchers by some. For example, John Austin, elected President of the State Board of Education has said: "This is a voucher system," when speaking of public school choice.i In addition, the public radio station owned by the University of Michigan reported: State Board of Education president John Austin said it was "very unnerving" to hear of the secret group aimed at creating a voucher system for public education in Michigan.ii Chad Livengood a reporter with Detroit News Lansing Bureau has written about education reform group forges voucher-like plan for Michigan and asserted that a public school choice proposal was: A lower-cost model for K-12 public education with a funding mechanism that resembles school vouchers.iii Liberal publication, the Daily Kos continued the approach: A secret work group that includes top aides to Gov. Rick Snyder has been meeting since December to develop a lower-cost model for K-12 public education with a funding mechanism that resembles school vouchers.iv Others have said the proposal would create a "voucher" system that would allow dollars to flow out of public schools into for-profit charter schools and cyberschools. State Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer has saidv: The deeply flawed plan would end public education as we know it in Michigan by enacting nearly the same voucher system that Michigan voters overwhelmingly rejected in 2000. There is logic to redefining school vouchers to broadly include any student/parent directed allocation of taxpayer funds for the students public school education. While a public school voucher does not help finance attendance at a religious or private school, it does enable access to the array of public school choices permitted under Michigans system of free public elementary and secondary schools. The following chart compares public school vouchers and private school vouchers: 3%,<$8)'!5:../'9."5:)%' Use public (taxpayer) funding. Government sets amount of voucher. 3"4/,5'67"5$8,.-'9."5:)%' Use public (taxpayer) funding. Government sets amount of voucher.

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 3 of 16 ) 3%,<$8)'!5:../'9."5:)%' 3"4/,5'67"5$8,.-'9."5:)%' Parents/students can select school from among participating schools and education programs (public or private). Public education authorities determine what courses are covered by voucher financing. State approved teachers are required. Parents/students can choose school a school that provides religious education in addition to conventional education. Parents/students can select school from among participating schools and education programs (public, i.e., government, only). Public education authorities determine what courses are covered by voucher financing. State approved teachers are required. Only secular government-run schools are included.

Pursuant to this new definition, voucher no longer has the traditional definition of referring solely to taxpayer funding of religious and private education. It now refers to any mechanism that facilitates selection within public school options. But the differences between public school vouchers and private school vouchers are significant and writers should be careful to distinguish between public school vouchers and private school vouchers. The primary distinction is that public school vouchers are permitted under Michigans Constitution and private school vouchers are prohibited.

!5.=)'.>'3"4/,5'67"5$8,.-'9."5:)%?'
As a result of this change of definition, it is fair to say that Michigans system of robust choice in public education amounts to public school vouchers. Under Michigan law for more than a decade, parents and students have had extensive, but not complete, ability to select the public school a student chooses to attend, including: The right to attend another school district within the ISD of the students residence. Extensive intra-district choice. Many districts have established a wide range of type of public schools for students in their district, including: Magnet (public) International Baccalaureate Middle College Schools New Technology Schools STEM/STEAM Schools STRIVE Schools Blended Schools Online (cyber) schools International tuition school Exam schools International tuition student schools A wide range of charter and cyber schools, including:

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 4 of 16 ) o Fine arts schools, o Math and science focus, o Ethnocentric schools, o Life skills schools, o Dropout recovery schools, o College prep schools, o Flight academy airline o Henry Ford Academy, The Ford Museum o Tribal charter schools, part charter, part Bureau of Indian Affairs schools o Academy of Style, cosmetology St Clair ISD o Career Prep Academy The ability, under certain circumstances, for a student to attend two different school districts at the same time and have the state aid allocated among the districts. Dual enrollment whereby a student attends both a high school and a postsecondary institution with school aid funds paying for both. Note that the only use of taxpayer funds for nonpublic schools is for nonessential elective coursesvi, e.g., band.

@.*'8:)'9."5:)%'A.-8%.<)%?&'!8$%8)7'
The controversy over public education vouchers arose as a result of Governor Rick Snyders 2011 Education Message and an implementation attempt that included the following instructions: The State School Aid Act of 1979 is severely out of date and prohibits the effective implementation of many of the new education concepts. A proposed Revised School Aid Act would replace the current membership and school district-centric model with education financing based on a more modern vision of public education, including the following from my Education Message: Michigans education system has revolved around a static approach to education delivery that can be at odds with individual learning styles. I am proposing a new !Any Time, Any Place, Any Way, Any Pace public school learning model. Proficiency-based funding rather than seat time requirements. Michigans state foundation allowance should not be exclusively tied to the school district a child attends. Instead, funding needs to follow the student.

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 5 of 16 ) Eliminate barriers to true choice in education and give parents and students the flexibility to employ education programming that ensures their future success. The effort was essentially abandoned in 2013, but the controversy over even considering eliminating barriers and providing flexibility met with furious opposition from traditional school interests. Those interests decided to use the word voucher in an organized campaign against the proposed changes even though there was no suggestion that private schools would, or could, benefit. Even if the Governor had wanted to propose government funding for nonpublic schools, he would have been prohibited by the state constitution from doing so. Michigans constitution has the strongest language among the states in prohibiting public funding for private schools and limits any form of vouchers (private). And the voters of Michigan have, with increasing margins, rejected any change in what was called in 1970, the Parochiaid provision. The School Code and the School Aid Act of 1979 focus solely on Michigans system of free public (i.e., government-controlled) schools. The recent policy issues in education have revolved around the degree to which there should be a diversity and ability to choose among more than one government school. These issues have involved expansion of charter and cyber schools, cross district enrollment issues, dual enrollment in community colleges and the expansion of online education. None of the policy choices has involved religious or private schools. In addition, none of the policy changes proposed by Gov. Snyder for reinventing public education involved private schools. They all were focused on the existing public school system and eliminating barriers to give parents and students the flexibility to employ education programming that ensures their future success. These proposals were viewed by the traditional education interest groups as threatening a fundamental aspect of the traditional school district system the ability of a school district to control the options available to students resident in the district. The Governor directly challenged this district control by proposing: Michigans state foundation allowance should not be exclusively tied to the school district a child attends. Instead, funding needs to follow the student. This child-centered rather than district-centered approach was threatening to the existing establishment and led to an organized campaign to block the changes. Although nothing in the proposals involved private schools, the education establishment was aware that private school vouchers was a toxic term to the electorate since the concept had been defeated four times. They decided to appropriate the term voucher and change its definition to mean anything that shift funds away from the existing districts or gives students and parents expanded options.

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 6 of 16 )

@.?8,/,8&'8.'B"?,-)??'

The use of the voucher term is also used to address another issue a hostility to the private business community and business in general. Some education leaders reflect their anti-private sector ideology through comments such as: ! ! ! ! The legislationwould essentially open up the state to creation of an unlimited number of schools run byjust about anyone else. I really don't think it's a matter of choices here. I think it's a move to privatize schools and to create a for-profit system. It takes taxpayer dollars and hands it over to for-profit corporations to run our schools. The absolute worst part of the plan is that some of these schools will be managed by for-profit operators and even corporations.

These comments generally ignore the reality that private business both supports public education with taxes and supplies many of the goods and services used by schools. This hostility to business is troubling in that one of the greatest education challenges Michigan faces is preparing students to be globally competitive in the information age. It may be that this attitude contributes to the separate K-12 silo frequently is neither integrated well with post-secondary institutions or with career training institutions. The hostility is not universal. Many educators and superintendents who recognize and respect the differing roles public educators and private sector businesses provide in our society. Many school-business collaborations exist and are based on mutual respect. The education leaders who treat the for-profit part of our society with disdain are those in charge of the anti-reform effort in Michigan. But, most teachers and administrators recognize that to be successful, a majority of their pupils will make their careers in the private sector, maybe even providing goods or services to public schools.

+:)'C)$/'D??")?1'E.-)&'$-7'A.-8%./'
Setting most of the voucher term aside, the real concerns are that the Governors approach will allow dollars to flow out of public schools and school administrators will lose control over the students that are the source of their taxpayer funds. A reinvention of the public education delivery model, including the adoption of a new Any Time, Any Place, Any Way, Any Pace public school learning model, will create challenges and opportunities for educators and administrators. The challenge will not be from for-profit companies; it will be competing public schools. Public school authorities -- and only public school authorities -- will select the courses, teachers, books and course material for public education pupils. The choice of whether to use a textbook published by a for-profit company or teacher-collated material from public sources, is a matter for the public schools. Unless there are no government sources, e.g., for electric service, school busses, liability insurance, etc. public school authorities that are hostile to for-profit corporations cannot avoid doing business with them.

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 7 of 16 ) Some administrators are concerned that other public school authorities may be willing to use a diversity of education service providers, profit and nonprofit, to give parents and students the flexibility to employ education programming that ensures their future success.

+%$7,8,.-$/'F)>,-,8,.-?'.>'8:)'+)%#'9."5:)%'
Voucher is a term that is used in many non-education contexts. Examples from the Internet include: The common definition of voucher is: A small printed piece of paper that entitles the holder to a discount or that may be exchanged for goods or services. (Google) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voucher: In part, (a) a form authorizing a disbursement of cash or a credit against a purchase or expense to be made in the future; (b) written authorization; credential. The World English Dictionary gives a British definition: a ticket or card serving as a substitute for cash: a gift voucher. Dictionary.com indicates the sense of "document, which can be exchanged for goods or services" is attested from 1947. Voucher can also be used as a verb: to pay for, guarantee, or authorize by voucher. The Free Online Dictionary includes: A written authorization or certificate, especially one exchangeable for cash or representing a credit against future expenditures. Your Dictionary: A voucher is a document that entitles you to something or that serves as proof of some expense. Includes: A document granting a certain amount of money per child from public education funds. Travel Industry Dictionary: A coupon or other document, either prepaid or given free, entitling the bearer to certain goods, services, or discounts upon presentation. School Voucher: A school voucher, also called an education voucher, is a certificate issued by the government, which parents can apply toward tuition at a private school (or, by extension, to reimburse home schooling expenses), rather than at the state school to which their child is assigned. An alternative to the education voucher is the education tax credit, which allows individuals to use their own money to pay for the education of their children or to donate money towards the education of other children. School vouchers are subsidies given directly to parents for tuition at any school (there is technically no such thing as a "voucher school"). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher) Other examples of vouchers include: o Book token - a gift voucher that can be exchanged for books costing up to an amount given on the voucher.

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 8 of 16 ) o Luncheon voucher, meal ticket - coupon redeemable at a restaurant and entitling the holder to a meal. o Drink ticket at a cocktail party. o Twofer - a coupon that allows the holder to purchase two items (as two tickets to a play) for the price of one. o Government Food Stamp (now Bridge Card). o Rent voucher authorizing welfare recipients to rent, with government subsidy, private housing. Education is a service that, in the U.S., is provided by a wide range entities including government schools, nonprofit private institutions, for profit proprietary schools, private tutors, and religious institutions. The payment for these education services comes from a number of sources: government funds, parental payments for tuition, scholarships and vouchers from third parties. In Michigan (but not in all other states) there is only one form of education service payment that is prohibited government funds being paid to non-government schools for basic elementary and secondary education services. (Government funds, however, can be paid to private schools for special education services, post-secondary education, nonessential courses, in-school health services, and student transportation.) While many forms of government support for nonpublic schools are possible teacher subsidies, payment for textbooks, assignment of public school teachers to nonpublic schools, etc. all these approaches have been lumped into the concept of private school vouchers.

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 9 of 16 )

G==)-7,H'G1'@,?8.%,5$/'(.8)?'I-'67"5$8,.-'29."5:)%?;'D-'E,5:,0$-'
In 1970, the Legislature funded tax support for religious and nonpublic schools under the Legislatures plenary power. At the time, there was no prohibition in the Michigan Constitution limiting the use of public funds for the attendance of students at nonpublic schools. With a massive campaign by the Catholic Church and the support of Gov. William G. Milliken, the statutory funding was approved. It was not a voucher but direct support to the nonpublic schools. Later in 1970, the Michigan Education Association (MEA) and others launched a constitutional amendment petition drive to ban what they called Parochiaid in the Constitution and won with a 338,098 margin. The language of the Constitutional amendment reads:
No public monies or property shall be appropriated or paid or any public credit utilized, by the legislature or any other political subdivision or agency of the state directly or indirectly to aid or maintain any private, denominational or other nonpublic, preelementary, elementary, or secondary school. No payment, credit, tax benefit, exemption or deductions, tuition voucher, subsidy, grant or loan of public monies or property shall be provided, directly or indirectly, to support the attendance of any student or the employment of any person at any such nonpublic school or at any location or institution where instruction is offered in whole or in part to such nonpublic school students. The legislature may provide for the transportation of students to and from any school.

In the intervening 43 years, vouchers or any other aid to religious (or other private) schools have been prohibited by the Michigan Constitution. The Catholic Conference came back in 1972 and tried to replace the Parochiaid provision. They lost by a margin of 490,424. In 1978, the first specific voucher proposal lost with a margin of 1,357,143. In 2000, Dick and Betsy DeVos funded a ballot proposal that lost with a margin of 1,531,787. When Gov. Engler and the Legislature authorized public school academies, i.e., charter schools, the MEA and others challenged the charter schools before the Michigan Supreme Court as being nonpublic schools because they did not have an elected school board. They lost and the Court ruled that charter schools were public schools. See below for excerpts from Supreme Court ruling. Over the years, various forms of support or cooperation between nonpublic schools and public education have developed, including: transportation (specifically permitted in the Constitution), limited dual enrollment for nonessential elective courses (permitted by Supreme Court ruling), special education provided by public school teachers within nonpublic school buildings, and health benefits. None of these services has been found to be a violation of the Constitution.

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 10 of 16 ) 6H5)%=8?1'A."-5,/'.>'I%0$-,J$8,.-?'$-7'I8:)%?'>.%'67"5$8,.-'G4."8'3$%.5:,$,7K'D-5L'<L' M.<)%-.%' The MEA and its allies saw charter public schools as a threat equivalent to government support for private schools. When Michigan adopted its charter school law, allowing the creation of public schools outside the established district control system, the education establishment immediately challenged the law. Among other things, the plaintiffs asserted that only a school with an elected school board could be considered a public school in the state. The MEA lost in the Michigan Supreme Court where a bipartisan group of Justices upheld the right of the legislature to establish alternative forms of public schools without violating the ban on aid to private schools. Excerpts from The Legislature has had the task of defining the form and the institutional structure through which public education is delivered in Michigan since the time Michigan became a state. See Const. 1835, art. 10, 3. Our constitution does not mandate exclusive control, it requires that [t]he legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools! Art. 8, 2. Therefore, plaintiff's first assertion fails because there is no requirement in our constitution that the state must have exclusive control of the school system. Michigan's public school academies meet this requirement because they are under the ultimate and immediate control of the state and its agents. o First, a charter may be revoked any time o Second, because authorizing bodies are public institutions, the state exercises control over public school academies through the applicationapproval process. o Third, the state controls the money. The framers of our constitution stated that restrictions as to finance and definitions as to basic qualifications needed to be eligible for state aid are better left to legislative determination. 2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, p. 3395. If a school meets the qualifications set by the Legislature for state funding, and does not offend any constitutional protection, it qualifies as a public school. (Emphasis supplied.) This Court has stated: The authority granted by the Constitution to the Legislature to establish a common or primary school system carried with it the authority to prescribe what officers should be chosen to conduct the affairs of the school districts, to define their powers and duties, their term of office, and how and by whom they should be chosen.

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 11 of 16 ) While the boards of the public school academies may or may not be elected, the public maintains control of the schools through the authorizing bodies. However, we do not have a requirement in our state constitution that mandates that the school be under the control of the voters of the school district. (Emphasis supplied.) This review of the history of the education article shows that there was never a requirement that the local school board had to be appointed by a public body as opined by the Court of Appeals majority in this case. Finally, we note that several schools in the state are organized and maintained without any local control. Further, subsection 503(5) provides that a public school academy shall comply with all applicable law, a requirement that incorporates the constitutional provision in issue. Additionally, other statutes establish the authority of the state board over public schools.

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 12 of 16 )

G==)-7,H'B1'E,5:,0$-'A.-?8,8"8,.-$/'3%.<,?,.-?'
Michigan Constitution of 1963 Article VIII, Education 1 Encouragement of education. Sec. 1. Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. 2 Free public elementary and secondary schools; discrimination. Sec. 2. The legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law. Every school district shall provide for the education of its pupils without discrimination as to religion, creed, race, color or national origin. [Parochiaid Provision] No public monies or property shall be appropriated or paid or any public credit utilized, by the legislature or any other political subdivision or agency of the state directly or indirectly to aid or maintain any private, denominational or other nonpublic, pre-elementary, elementary, or secondary school. No payment, credit, tax benefit, exemption or deductions, tuition voucher, subsidy, grant or loan of public monies or property shall be provided, directly or indirectly, to support the attendance of any student or the employment of any person at any such nonpublic school or at any location or institution where instruction is offered in whole or in part to such nonpublic school students. The legislature may provide for the transportation of students to and from any school.
History: Const. 1963, Art. VIII, 2, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. Initiated Law, approved Nov. 3, 1970, Eff. Dec. 19, 1970 Constitutionality: That portion of second sentence of second paragraph of this section, prohibiting use of public money to support attendance of any student or employment of any person at any location or institution where instruction is offered in whole or in part to nonpublic students, was held unconstitutional, void, and unenforceable because it contravened free exercise of religion guaranteed by the United States Constitution and was violative of equal protection of laws provisions of United States Constitution. Traverse City School District v Attorney General, 384 Mich 390; 185 NW2d 9 (1971).

N)&'6/)#)-8?'.>'3$%.5:,$,7'3%.<,?,.-'OG%8L'9DDDK'PQK'RQS' 1. Creates a category of schools: nonpublic school defined as any private, denominational or other nonpublic, pre-elementary, elementary, or secondary school. 2. Prohibits any government funds to be used for nonpublic funds: No payment, credit, tax benefit, exemption or deductions, tuition voucher, subsidy, grant or loan of public monies or property. 3. Covers all forms of government assistance: appropriated or paid or any public credit utilized, directly or indirectly, credit, tax benefit, exemption or

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 13 of 16 ) deductions. Includes all of tuition voucher, credit, exemption or deductions. 4. Prohibits assistance by any level of government: legislature or any other political subdivision or agency of the state. 5. Covers both teachers and students: to support the attendance of any student or the employment of any person. 6. Includes at both nonpublic school site and at any location or institution where instruction is offered in whole or in part to such nonpublic school students. But the Michigan Supreme Court ruled this provision unconstitutional as violative of the equal protection of laws provisions of United States Constitution. 7. Does not cover student transportation: The legislature may provide for the transportation of students to and from any school. Notes: A. The Michigan Supreme Court recognized charter schools as public schools (in spite of claims by the MEA) and not subject to the Parochiaid provision. B. See Study: "Parochiaid" and the 1970 Amendment, By Patrick L. Anderson, Richard D. McLellan, Joseph P. Overton, and Dr. Gary L. Wolfram, published on Nov. 13, 1997. http://www.mackinac.org/1082. C. The Mackinac Center proposed, but did not initiate a petition drive for, The Universal Tuition Tax Credit: A Proposal to Advance Parental Choice in Education.

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 14 of 16 ) November 29, 2010

G==)-7,H'A1'D-,8,$8,<)?'$-7'C)>)%)-7"#?'T-7)%'8:)'A.-?8,8"8,.-'.>'8:)' !8$8)'.>'E,5:,0$-'.>'UVWX<,,'
!"#$%&%'%&"#()*+,-#.,-#%$* Since the adoption of the State Constitution of 1963, 69 proposed amendments to the Constitution have been presented on the ballot for a vote of the people. Thirtytwo of the amendments were approved and 37 were rejected. Of the 69 proposed amendments, 43 were placed on the ballot by the State Legislature (22 were approved and 21 were rejected) and 26 were placed on the ballot by initiative petition (10 were approved and 16 were rejected). In addition, the automatic proposal relating to the calling of a constitutional convention (Art. XII, Sec. 3, of the State Constitution) was presented in 1978, 1994 and 2010; in all three instances the proposals were rejected.

1970. Prohibit public aid to nonpublic schools and students. Amend Art. VIII, 2. For Against Losing Margin 1,416,838 1,078,740 338,098

1972. Limit property tax for school, county, and township purposes and require legislature to establish a state tax program for support of schools. Amend Art. IX, 6 For Against Losing Margin 1,324,702 1,815,126 490,424

1978. Prohibit use of property taxes for school operating expenses and establish a voucher system for financing education of students at public and nonpublic schools. Art. VIII, 2 and Art. IX, 6. For Against Losing Margin 718,440 2,075,583 1,357,143

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 15 of 16 ) 1980. Make local school boards responsible for school personnel and programs, reduce local property tax maximums for operational purposes, provide additional property tax relief for senior retirees, and require the state to raise revenues necessary for equal per pupil funding of public schools. Art. VIII, 2 and Art. IX, 2, 6, 31, 6a, 26a. For Against Losing Margin 746,027 2,769,497 2,023,470

2000. To permit the state to indirectly support nonpublic school students. Art. VIII, 2 and 8. For Against Losing Margin Other Significant Proposals March 1994. Proposal A. To increase sales and use tax rates from 4% to 6%; limit annual increases in property tax assessments, exempt school operating milages from uniform taxation requirement, and require 34 vote of legislature to exceed statutorily established school operating millage rates. Art. IX, 3, 5, 8, 11, 36 For Against Winning Margin 1,684,541 750,952 933,589 1,235,533 2,767,320 1,531,787

2002. To grant state classified employees the constitutional right to collective bargaining with binding arbitration. Art. XI, 5. For Against Losing Margin 1,336,249 1,591,756 255,507

2004 Gay Marriage: Specify what can be recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose. Art. I, 25. For Against Winning Margin 2,698,077 1,904,319 793,758

C0##+/:$%&)0/)J.7<.2$/)5"61.7)89"7$:.0/);0"7<+%)!&@:+#) Page 16 of 16 ) 2006. Ban affirmative action programs. Art. I, 26. For Against Winning Margin 2,141,010 1,555,691 585,391

2008. To address human embryo and embryonic stem cell research in Michigan. Art. I, 27. For Against Winning Margin 2,521,026 2,271,083 521,026

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) .)<::>3\\,,,'#.7<.2$/7$>.:0170/?.9+/:.$1'70#\(LPG()
..)<::>3\\#.7<.2$/%$9.0'0%2\>0@:\$?:+%].:],$@]0":+9]@+7%+:]+9"7$:.0/]2%0">],.11]/0,]#++:]>"61.7) ...<::>3\\,,,'9+:%0.:/+,@'70#\$%:.71+\UT(ATE(P\!CBOO^!\ATE(PTAG(_.NQQU`DGTaV5b) .D)<::>3\\,,,'9$.1&c0@'70#\@:0%&\UT(A\TE\UT\(UTAdEA\]!+7%+:]J.7<.2$/]@7<001]%+?0%#]2%0">]

,0%c@]:0]9+@.2/]$]?0%]>%0?.:]@7<001]#09+1],.:<]S0D]@]61+@@./2) D)) D.)!++)JC^)X)AeT'(ULeWPZ') D..)8N7+%>:@)?%0#)<::>3\\,,,'#.7<.2$/'20D\907"#+/:@\@0@\I/.:.$fH+?f[/9+%fC0/@:.f(U] TefAAPAPPfL'>9?)