100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

July 16, 1997 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily Summer Weekly, 1997-07-16

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, July 16, 1997
Edited and managed by ERIN MARSH JACK SCHILLACI
students at the Editor in Chief Editorial Page Editor
31 University of Michigan
Unnvers otherwise noted, uigned editorials re/lect the opinio
420 Maynard Street niiajrity of die Dain edioial hoan. All oher ardclesieei
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 cartoons (o not neeiard), iefleti the df inion of TheA MichignLi D

B udgets get tighter, checking accounts
get smaller and plans for retirement
move back a few more months. The July
University Board of Regents meeting
marks the annual discussion of the
University's budget for the 1997-98 acade-
mic year. Along with the budget comes the
inevitable question: How much will the
regents augment tuition? The University's
healthy economic picture allows for a
minor increase. In previous years, a signif-
icant drop in the severity of tuition
increases occurred - a pattern the regents
should continue.
The University has vast educational
resources - high tuition and fees can
block qualified students from accessing
them. The University should remain com-
mitted to providing the best education to a
diverse array of applicants - not just
those who can afford the exorbitant price
tag. The regents should keep in mind the
quality of the University's student body
hedges on their ability to make tuition a
feasible expense.

Tpuo ioa sn
Tuition increase should remain low

The government founds its' annual
inflation rate on the Consumer Price
Index, which compares the prices of cer-
tain goods and services against their costs
in previous years. The University previ-
ously used its own mechanism to calculate
annual interest rate, claiming that interest
rises faster in a university setting than in
CPI's model. However, the students and
families paying tuition are more likely to
see income increases in line with CPI -
by increasing tuition using its own mecha-
nism, the University overtaxes students'
financial resources. By following CPI, the
regents could ensure that the tuition
increase followed students' budget
changes more closely - creating a greater
opportunity for access to the University.
The University is not in sore need for a

financial boost from student dollars. Last
year's low tuition increase followed a sig-
nificant state appropriation. This year's
appropriation weighed in at $314 million
- an improvement over even last year's
large numbers. In addition, last year's
appropriation contained a rider that that
prevented the University from receiving its
full appropriation due to its extension of
health benefits to employees' same-sex
partners. State Attorney General Frank
Kelley decided earlier this year that the
rider violated the University's autonomy
from the state - further augmenting the
University's coffers.
The Campaign for Michigan - a
fundraising drive that surpassed its $1 bil-
lion goal more than a year ago - also aids
the University's economic picture. With

contributions coming from the state
alumni, a large tuition hike would
unnecessary - the regents should m
tuition as manageable as possible.
Last year's primary tuition pr4
came from University Provost J. Bert
Machen. His proposal included a 3-
cent increase for in-state residents an
percent for out-of-state students.
Office of the Provost should again wor
create a budget proposal that aids
dents' concerns.
The regents face a grueling task
Thursday. Managing the budget fc
multi-billion dollar goliath like
University is no easy task - bu
must address University students' to
Given the University's financial w
being, there is no reason for the regf
not to make a mild tuition increase in
with the CPI inflation rate. The reg(
should work to make tuition manage;
for students' and parents' bank accoi
and in so doing, enhance the Univer
community.

School dimes
Funding will benefit special education
In one budgetary swoop, Gov. John additional sigh of relief once the current
Engler has a chance to reverse his long- funding session passes. Earlier this year,
standing abuse of Michigan's public many districts - including a number in
schools. The school-funding package the metro Detroit area - were unpleas-
passed by the state House and Senate last antly surprised by an announcement from
week delivers substantially more money to the governor's office. Citing declining
schools in the wake of a Michigan standardized-test scores, Engler unveiled
Supreme Court decision favoring local a plan that would wrest control of acade-
districts. However, the debate surrounding mic and administrative matters from
school funding may be more remarkable school districts beset by poor test perfor-
for proposals left on the cutting-room mance. At the time, the proposal was slat-
floor. ed for inclusion along with the funding
Monetarily, the state legislature allo- issue, but it encountered heavy opposi-
cated nearly $650 million more to public tion. School officials were joined in
schools for the next fiscal year. Much of protest by Democratic and Republican
this increase goes toward special-educa- lawmakers alike, who felt Engler's pro-
tion funding. Under an amendment to posal inappropriate for the current
Michigan's Constitution, the state must debate.
pay a certain share of costs for programs Some hinted, however, under different
it mandates that local schools provide, circumstances, they might agree with
including special-education programs. Engler's proposal. Engler may believe that
Last month, the state Supreme Court having hand-picked lieutenants in Lansing
ruled that the state had consistently controlling low-achieving school districts
underpaid its share of costs for the last 17 is the best solution for low test scores, but
years, a major victory for public school his solution ignores the side effects such a
districts. take-over might have on these school dis-
While recompense for past funding tricts. Communities surrounding school
shortfalls have yet to be determined, state districts are best suited to select its admin-
lawmakers moved quickly to ascertain the istrators and guide its policy decisions.
state does not fail its students again. Regardless of the state's success, once
Ditching a complex, formulaic approach control passed back to the communities,
to special-education funding, they voted districts would be returned to local hands
for an overall $752 million increase. out of touch with the district's day-to-day
Although opponents charge supporters administration. While Lansing is ultimate-
with playing an economic shell game - ly responsible for the state's public
diverting funds already earmarked for schools, it should not have control over
public school to specifically pay for spe- small portions of the system.
cial education - the gesture is necessary. Given adequate funding, students' per-
Regardless of the path taken, school dis- formance in these districts will improve
tricts will welcome every funding increase without state intervention. Engler must
they get. permanently retire his blueprint for educa-
Several districts will also emit an tional disaster,

Ineffective insulation'
TV-rating system does not protect childrei
L ast Wednesday, many television net- and First Amendment freedoms that
works surrendered to family advocacy work programming deserves could
groups in a settlement to upgrade the cur- jeopardized.
rent television-rating system that has been Vice President Al Gore excitedly
in effect since January. Though the cussed how the changes would granq
arrangement was voluntary, the networks ents control over their televisions. In
caved into a compromise - possibly to of the nuclear family gathering to wa
get some peace from legislative pressure television is outdated. Even with a r
and a hailstorm of criticism from parents' rating system, working parents fight a I
groups. Instating a rating format may ing battle with their TV sets. Ratings
seem to be a positive step, but it is misdi- only a misleading comfort device.
rected, ineffective and could easily be mis- Families should not rely on the rati;
used. system to guide their children - it is
During a three-year trial run starting in an adequate tool to discriminate betw
October, shows will carry an age-group good and bad television. High-qual
distinction and content ratings of 'V,' 'S,' shows that utilize violence may be nI
' or 'D' - indicating violence, sexual with the same ratings that poorer-qua:
content, coarse language and suggestive ones would receive. Consequently,
dialogue. Children's shows and popular new system promotes a false security t
cartoons could also receive an 'FV' rating children are exposed to "better" televisi
for depicting consequence-free fantasy Parents should take responsibility for w
violence. The previous system rated pro- their children watch by taking time to a
grams according to their estimated age- cuss programs with their children or wa
appropriateness. However, rating a pro- with them. They should not abuse the I
gram for a 14-year-old belies the fact that ing system as a way to justify televisior
children mature at different rates - some a babysitter - there is no substitute ft
may be able to understand adult themes or parent's role.
the consequences of violence at younger Developing a rating system in host
ages. The new system is more explicit than improving the quality of television p
its predecessor; it rates content rather than grams is like firing at a target without ai
relying on subjective evaluations of matu- ing. Ratings cannot - and should not
rity. However, vestiges of the old system's change television. What they probably v
problems still exist. so is make parents believe their child
One of the networks' main concerns is are insulated from televised violence a
the likelihood that politicians and advertis- sexual content. Assigning a program a ]
ers could misuse the new rating system ter-rating does nothing to determine cl
and dictate television programming. dren's emotional readiness to handP1
Members of Congress have already pro- underlying themes - that must be 1
posed bills to dedicate certain hours exclu- their parents. Relying on television r
sively to "family shows" and to dictate that ings to protect children will not work
shows with a violence rating are aired only parents must invest time to ensure t
after 10 p.m. In this position, the liberties children understand what they watch.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan