Opinion/Essay on
Education Issues and
Michigan “Fresh
and Pure Air” Precedents
in 'Good Neighbor' Context

We should have teaching so that our youth have routinely available a full range of courses of a high and wide range and level of teaching, class availability, attainment, and understanding.

Improving education in this way will help halt the further deterioration at college level. Note the National Association of Scholars' Report on College Deterioration 1955 Vs 2002. When grade-middle-high school education declines, college level education declines as well. Worse, parents must pay for costly college education, for education that should have occurred PRIOR thereto.

There is financial benefit in “classic” education. Schools will have more funding. The current 2003 Michigan budget “crisis” (causing reductions in funding to various districts) is one of the results of deteriorated education. State officials don't know how to prevent budget cuts affecting schools! Educated people of a century ago knew how to prevent them, and this budget-cut situation. We need to restore into the schools, this now untaught data. Both schools, and society as a whole, will benefit, from all aspects, including learning how to prevent avoidable budget difficulties.

We could then avoid local bond issues that prevent pre-planned millage reductions. Details on millages are below.

We also need to assure employees, especially in tough budget times, of concern for them, details below.

And since libraries will be part of "education" for many of us after graudation, we need strong skill-teaching on using the full range of available libraries. For example, here is what we could learn by using our local public library. They often have copies of the U.S. and Michigan Constitution, laws, and court decisions.

Suppose you want to know about your rights concerning what appears to be a nuisance (noise, smoke or other garbage-type pollution). Or you want to have your child ready for civics or history class on a “practical,” everyday-situation, right.

You'll find information saying that the Fifth Amendment bans “taking” property, include by “taking” the use and enjoyment thereof, via noise, smoke, water pollution, or any other type of “taking.”

You'll find that the “common law” elaborates these matters. The “common law” is mandated recognition by the Seventh Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.

What is the “common law,” you ask. You'll find that the “common law” is a major aspect of the “rights of Englishmen” for which the Founding Fathers fought the American Revolution. The common law rights provides for our rights such as against nuisances, and for the rights to fresh and pure air, and to put out fires. These rights are for everyone, protected by the Ninth Amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”); and by the Eight Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

At the library, you'll find that the Supreme Court has upheld these rights many times. Let's look at this example: Camfield v United States, 167 US 518, 522-523; 17 S Ct 864; 42 L Ed 260 (1897). It says:

“There is no doubt of the general proposition that a man may do what he will with his own, but this right is subordinate to another, which finds expression in the familiar maxim, 'Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas' [the Golden Rule]. His right to erect what he pleases upon his own land will not justify him in maintaining a nuisance, or in carrying on a business or trade that is offensive to his neighbors.

“Ever since Aldred's Case, 9 Coke, 48 [1610], it has been the settled law, both of this country and of England, that a man has no right to maintain a structure upon his own land, which, by reason of

  • disgusting smells,
  • loud or unusual noises,
  • thick smoke,
  • noxious vapors,
  • the jarring of machinery, or
  • the unwarrantable collection of flies,
    • renders the occupancy of adjoining property dangerous, intolerable, or even uncomfortable to its tenants.”

    At the library, you'll also learn to use the index of cases. Then you'll start finding Michigan cases.

    You'll learn that Michigan's courts have said likewise:

    Pennoyer v City of Saginaw, 8 Mich 534 (13 Oct 1860) (A local government cannot lawfully continue a nuisance)

    Wilkinson v Detroit Steel & Spring Works, 73 Mich 405; 41 NW 490 (1889) (The exercise of reasonable care in the creation or maintenance of a nuisance can never be an absolute defense to an action for an injury occasioned thereby.)

    People v Detroit White Lead Works, 82 Mich 471; 46 NW 735; 9 LRA 722 (1890) (Neither the fact that a business is carried on in a careful and prudent manner, and that nothing is done by those managing it that is not a reasonable and necessary incident of the business, nor the fact that, when the business was commenced, the lands in the vicinity were open common, will authorize the continuance of a business in the midst of a populous community, which constantly produces odors, smoke, and soot, of such a noxious character and to such an extent that they produce headache, nausea, vomiting, and other pains and aches injurious to health, and taint the food of the inhabitants.)

    After a while, you'll be glad the library has photo copy machines! There would otherwise be a lot of writing for you, just copying the case names, citations, and summaries.

    Skelton v Fenton Electric Light & Power Co, 100 Mich 87; 58 NW 609 (1894) (In an action for injuries . . . resulting from iron rust and soot falling from a smoke stack on adjacent land, the fact that the stack was erected for defendant by an independent contractor, and had not been accepted at the time of the alleged injuries, does not relieve defendant from liability in the absence of evidence that the stack was improperly built.)

    Brady v Detroit Steel & Spring Co, 102 Mich 277; 60 NW 687; 26 LRA 175 (1894) (enforcing a city ordinance forbidding deposit of “any refuse, drippings, or nauseous liquid or other substance from distributing pipes or gas conductors into any sewer,” a nuisance does not depend upon the intent of the party causing it, and when one suffers a fluid to percolate through the soil into a sewer, and pernicious gases arise therefrom, to the damage of another, the latter may recover therefor.)

    Kilts v U B D, 162 Mich 646, 651; 127 NW 821 (27 Sep 1908) (“a nuisance involves not, only a defect, but threatening or impending danger to the public, or, if a private nuisance, to the property rights or health of persons sustaining peculiar relations to the same.”)

    Attorney General v City of Grand Rapids, 175 Mich 503; 141 NW 890; 50 LNS 473; Ann Cas 1915A, 968 (28 May 1913) (emptying sewage into river creating nuisance to lower riparian owners and the public, and quoting with approval Spokes v Board of Health, LR 1 Eq 42, “What difference can it possibly make as to the commission of an illegal act, whether a man acts on behalf of thousands or on behalf of himself only?”)

    Whittemore v Baxter Laundry Co, 181 Mich 564, 565; 148 NW 437; 52 LRA (NS) 930; Ann Cas 1916C, 818 (1914) (A private nuisance is anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements or hereditaments of another.)

    Birchard v Board of Health of City of Lansing, 204 Mich 284; 169 NW 901 (27 Dec 1918) (enjoining a pesthouse, a “hospital for the treatment of infectious diseases” to ban placement in residential area.)

    Trowbridge v City of Lansing, 237 Mich 402, 405; 212 NW 73, 74; 50 ALR 1014 (4 Feb 1927) (“the garbage itself . . . is a nuisance per se. It is malodorous, and the quality is persistent.”) [Perhaps your issue is bus pollution. You'll figure that bus smoke is garbage, i.e., what buses are throwing away as such, and persistent, remaining lingering in the ambient air].

    Albaugh v Abbott, 253 Mich 588, 592; 235 NW 263, 264 (27 Feb 1931) (“Garbage is a nuisance per se.” The judge inspected on-site!)

    Waier v Peerless Oil Co, 265 Mich 398; 251 NW 552 (1934) (Fact that other perpetrators foul air with odors does not justify introduction of another cause of discomfort to householders, but presence of other odors is circumstance bearing on degree of annoyance and scope of relief.)

    Pezo v Lester, 284 Mich 369; 279 NW 864 (1938) (A landowner has the legal right to protection against added water burdens from adjoining property. A landowner who suffered damages from water coming on his land from a flowing well located on property which was situated across highway would be entitled to have nuisance stopped and to be compensated.)

    McDonell v Brozo, 285 Mich 38, 43; 280 NW 100 (1938) (A “nuisance” involves not only a defect but threatening or impending danger to the public, or, if a private nuisance, to the property rights or health of persons sustaining peculiar relations thereto.)

    Northwest Home Owners Ass'n v City of Detroit, 298 Mich 622, 629, 646-7; 299 NW 740, 747, 750 (2 Sep 1941) (“'Independently of other objectionable features or effects . . . the gases emitted . . . have an adverse and injurious effect on health.” In determining whether there is a nuisance, the court offered guidance: “We quote the following pertinent description or definition from 46 C.J. 677: 'The question in all cases is whether the annoyance produced is such as materially to interfere with the ordinary comfort of human existence. It is not of course necessary that the annoyance and discomfort should be so great as actually to drive the person complaining thereof from his dwelling, but if the alleged injury be a plain interference with ordinary comforts and enjoyment, there is a nuisance, no matter how slight the damage, provided the inconvenience be actual and not fanciful.”)

    Mitchell v Hines, 305 Mich 296, 301-2; 9 NW2d 547, 550 (18 May 1943) (“Where a board of health institutes an action on the basis that the business is detrimental to public health, that detriment must be proved. However, detriment to health need not be proved to show a 'private nuisance. Trowbridge v City of Lansing, supra.”)

    Kobs v Zehnder, 326 Mich 202; 40 NW2d 120 (1949) (Injury or detriment to plaintiff's health was not required to be proved to establish that defendants' acts in dumping garbage and other matter on defendants' adjacent farm which caused nauseating odors, constituted a “private nuisance.”)

    Rockenbach v Apostle, 330 Mich 338, 344, 346; 47 NW2d 636, 639-640 (14 May 1951) (“A nuisance will not be upheld solely on the ground that it has been permitted by municipal ordinance.” That nuisance involved not a genuine health threat, but merely constituting a “constant reminder of death,” thus having a “depressive influence,” that did “deprive them [litigants] of the comfort and repose to which they are entitled.”)

    Denny v Garavaglia, 333 Mich 317; 52 NW2d 521 (1952) (One class of nuisances are those which are intentional in that the creator intended to bring about the conditions which are in fact found to be a nuisance, and in actions for injuries resulting from such nuisances, which are characterized as absolute, contributory negligence of a person injured is not a defense. One class of nuisances are those which result from conduct which is in itself a violation of law, and contributory negligence does not preclude recovery for injuries resulting from such a nuisance.)

    Awad v McCoigan, 357 Mich 386; 98 NW2d 571, 573 (1959) (“Nuisance” comprehends interference with an owner's reasonable use and enjoyment of his property by means of smoke, noise, or vibration; obstruction of private easements and rights of support, interference with public rights, such as free passage along streams and highways, enjoyment of public parks and places of recreation, and in addition, activities and structures prohibited as statutory nuisances.)

    Young v Gronendal, 10 Mich App 112; 159 NW2d 158, 159 (25 March 1968) aff'd 382 Mich 456; 169 NW2d 920, 922 (3 Sep 1969) (“A 'classic,' 'standard,' or 'absolute' nuisance . . . arises when one so uses land as to cause unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land of another.” 73 ALR2d 1381)

    Buckeye Union Fire Insurance Co v Michigan, 383 Mich 630, 636; 178 NW2d 476, 480 (1970) (“Primarily, nuisance is a condition. Liability is not predicated on tortious conduct through action or inaction on the part of those responsible for the condition. Nuisance may result from want of due care (like a hole in the highway), but may still exist as a dangerous, offensive, or hazardous condition even with the best of care.”)

    Ebel v Board of County Road Com'rs of Saginaw County, 386 Mich 598, 607; 194 NW2d 365, 369 (25 Feb 1972) (“No state agency is free to maintain a nuisance, and hence it cannot permit or require another person to do so.” See 58 Am Jur 2d, Nuisances, §§ 229, 230, pp 833-835.)

    Rosario v City of Lansing, 403 Mich 127, 132; 268 NW2d 230 (24 July 1978) (A nuisance arises from the existence of a dangerous condition.)

    Melendres v Soales, 105 Mich App 73, 79; 306 NW2d 399, 402 (7 April 1981) (Defendant who intentionally creates condition with knowledge that it is substantially certain to interfere with plaintiff's property or person has established “intentional nuisance,” a category of “nuisances which are intentional, using that word as meaning not that a wrong or the existence of a nuisance was intended but that the creator of them intended to bring about the conditions which are in fact found to be a nuisance.”)

    Beard v State, 106 Mich App 121; 308 NW2d 185 (1981) (Liability for nuisance is predicated on the existence of a dangerous condition.)

    Martin by Martin v State, 129 Mich App 100; 341 NW2d 239, 243-244 (26 Sep 1983) app den 422 Mich 891; 368 NW2d 226 (13 May 1985) (“A nuisance arises from the existence of dangerous condition. . . . There are two categories of nuisances: nuisances per se and nuisances in fact. The latter category is further divided into intentional nuisances and negligent nuisances.” “An intentional nuisance is one 'created by conduct intended to bring about conditions which, in fact, constituted a nuisance.' . . . To establish the necessary intent, a plaintiff must show that the defendant who created or continued the nuisance knew or must have known that harm to the plaintiff was substantially certain to follow as a result of defendant's actions.”)

    Bronson v Oscoda Township, 165 Mich App 431; 419 NW2d 27 (4 Jan 1988) cause remanded 430 Mich 883; 423 NW2d 574 (1988) appeal after remand 435 Mich 852; 456 NW2d 713 (26 June 1990) on remand 188 Mich App 679; 470 NW2d 688 (6 May 1991) app for lv held in abeyance 479 NW2d 655 (31 Jan 1992) app den 440 Mich 877; 487 NW2d 441 (31 July 1992) (Omission to act, as well as commissive act, can constitute intentionally created nuisance.)

    You'll eventually say, that sure is enough cases in Michigan on this. Polluters ought to know better!

    A constitution is not satisfied with half-way measures and does not prefer dissimulation to straightforwardness; duties and requirements may not be avoided on ground that it might be a lot of work to comply. Alan v County of Wayne, 388 Mich 210, 200 NW2d 628, 67 ALR3d 1079, adhered to, 388 Mich 626, 202 NW2d 277 (1972).

    Then you might ask yourself, since this issue involves federal constitutional rights, I wonder if other states have similiar precedents? Perhaps I can go over to the courthouse library! I helped pay for that one too!

    Let's check, let's say, Iowa. You'll find there the same thing. You'll find that that state has a case saying the bottom line, that “cases recognize that the statutory definition of nuisance” [such items as ppm, decibles, devices, curfew times, etc.] does not “modify the common-law's application to nuisances.” Weinhold v Wolff, 555 NW2d 454, 459 (1996). Rather, the statutory provisions “are skeletal in form, and [we] look to the common law to fill in the gaps.”

    You'll find Guzman v Des Moines Hotel Partners, 489 NW2d 7, 10 (1992) (“A public or common nuisance is a species of catchall criminal offenses, consisting of an interference with the rights of a community at large. This may include anything from the obstruction of a highway to a public gaming house or indecent exposures. A private nuisance, on the other hand, is a civil wrong based on a disturbance of rights in land. . . . The essence of a private nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of land. Examples include vibrations, blasting, destruction of crops, flooding, pollution, and disturbance of the comfort of the plaintiff, as by unpleasant odors, smoke, or dust.”)

    You'll find precedents showing that ALL pertinent rules must be obeyed, e.g., in safety law context, International Union, UAW v General Dynamics Land Sys Div, 259 US App DC 369; 815 F2d 1570 (1987) cert den 484 US 976; 108 S Ct 485; 98 L Ed 2d 484 (1987); and People v General Dynamics Land Sys Div, 175 Mich App 701; 438 NW2d 359 (1989) lv app den 435 Mich 860 (1990). (These are cases rejecting the notion of, 'well, we obeyed one part of the rules!, isn't that enough?!')

    You'll find the law reference book series with the words “Am Jur” on their covers, indexing the law by subject matter. You'll find volume 26. In 26 Am Jur 2d Eminent Domain § 137 (1996), you'll learn that: “The constitutional requirement of just compensation may not be evaded or impaired by any form of legislation, and statutes which conflict with the right to just compensation will generally be declared invalid.”

    You'll say, I'm convinced, no pollution. I wonder if there is an index.

    Yes. You'll discover indexes on the subject, for example, an early one entitled “Annotation: Nuisance Resulting from Smoke Alone as Subject for Injunctive Relief,” 6 ALR 1574 (1920). It lists many more cases. You could continue on researching. But you've read enough for one day.

    Opponents of your rights cannot take concerted action, engage in conspiracy, to violate federal legal rights, as per laws such as 18 USC § 241.

    And now you have learned something about using the local public library, law section. You helped pay for it, surely you can use it!

    You'll be glad your school taught about using the library, not just one or two sections, but the entire library. And if your school did not teach you, you'll wish more schools would.

    Teaching the Bill of Rights, especially the practical aspects of your rights, how at least to find basic reference materials, surely that is a good project for civics and history classes?

    You'll wish that when opportunity comes along to teach, schools would be pro-active on this subject.

    Periodically issues may arise with some local unit of government, doing pollution. You may then feel called on to raise issues such as you would have then researched, on these constitutional rights. Be aware that local officials may try to side-track you by providing allegations or responses raising issues such as:
  • (1) they are part-time volunteers;
  • (2) they are following some ___ law;
  • (3) they are even exceeding the requirements of that ___ law;
  • (4) they are relying on “experts”;
  • (5) some other unit of government approves their action;
  • (6) they really do care;
  • (7) they are doing diligently, or
  • (8) they are doing the best for the greatest number,
  • (9) the pollution was there before the objector, etc.

    • You find that such 'responses' are not adequate, for the reason, as you may then obtain an attorney to tell you, that they must also obey the Constitution. Doing any less, may meet some minimum standard, but the ultimate duty is to meet ALL the standards, including those specified by the Constitution, and whatever may be pertinent 'common law,' as per the duty set forth by the Seventh Amendment, Bill of Rights. This means, NOBODY can be adversely impacted.

    Re-read the above precedents. You may find that the local 'response' you are receiving has already long ago been refuted!

    You will then realize that better education of our youth is needed on these lesser known constitutional rights. Often the only 'constitutional law' class the average youth will get in life, is what he receives in the local school Civics or History class. It is wise to follow up with your local school officials, make presentations both privately and publicly, to assure that such classes do indeed provide the detail of learning on this subject. That one class may be all they'll have to rely on in their background, for the rest of their life. If they don't learn it young, they may never learn it, then grow up to become officials themselves, and the next generation will wonder why they're violating constitutional rights!

    Nothing here is legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney.

    And feel free to learn to use your libraries, all of them. You paid for them! And then you'll feel more confident you can use the index and find out about other subjects of interest.

    This will help develop your confidence like that of our ancestors. Here is an example:

    In the 1850's Lincoln-Douglass Debates, people traveled, by horse, for miles, to listen to what were in essence, constitutional law lectures. Get up; do morning chores; pack lunches; feed, saddle and get on horse; go to site; hitch horse; listen to three hour speech (Douglas'); break for lunch; feed and water horse; listen to next three hour speech (Lincoln); break for dinner; feed and water horse; listen to one hour concluding remarks (Douglas); go get horse; go back home; do evening chores. You've had a long day!

    Now it's down to one-minute sound bites, no constitutional law lectures that last multiple hours! attended and listened to with fascination and understanding.

    Those ancestors often had barely an eight-grade education--yet were already quite aware on the subject matter of constitutional rights.

    These events occurred back in the era of “classical education,” a now long-lost concept, as shown by Hugh MacLennan, Ph.D. [1907-1990], Prof. of Engl. Lit., McGill Univ., Montreal, in his “The Rout of the Classical Tradition,” 3 Horizon (#2) 17-24 (Nov 1960).

    For information on education officials “during the past forty or fifty years [having] removed from the curriculum [classic teaching on] the Western culture which produced the modern democratic state,” and replaced that curriculum with an “egoist, careerist, specialist and asocial” curriculum, read the analysis by Walter Lippman, “Education vs. Western Civilization,” 10 The American Scholar (#2) (Spring 1941).

    For information on concern about the deterioration of educators and education, and even at doctoral degree (Ph.D. etc.) level, see William H. Allen, Ph.D., “Smashing the Looking-Glass” (1916), in The Survey, pp 602-605 (19 Feb 1916) (declining standards already evident then, including on foreign language proficiency).

    For more background, see Barbara W. Tuchman, The Proud Tower (1966), Chapter 7, “Transfer of Power,” citing James Bryce, “Hindrances to Good Citizenship” (Lectures at Yale, 1909); Leonard T. Hobhouse, Democracy and Reaction (1904), etc.

  • Bryce [1838-1922] noted that while adult literacy had improved 20-fold in the preceding 70 years, “the percentage of whose who reflect before they vote has not kept pace . . . .”

  • Hobhouse [1864-1929] noted a prevalence among the ill-educated, “not [having] the time to think and will not take the trouble to do so if he has the time,” result: popular views reflect NOT educated fact-based concepts, but rather “the popular sheet [media] and shouting newsboy [journalist commentator/newspaper editor] . . . To this new public . . . it is useless to appeal to reason.”

  • Tuckman summarized this as concern about “man's curious refusal to behave rationally in what seemed his own best interest. The low level on which the populace reacted politically, the appeal of the sensationalist press, and the new phenomeon of mass interest in spectator sports were disturbing.”
    And see Prof. James Mulhern, A History of Education (New York: Ronald Press Co, 1946) (647 pages), summarizing the “course [on past, present, and future of education, its having changed, and why, for] students at the University of Pennsylvania for the past twenty years [meaning, 1926-1946].”
    Law school has markedly deteriorated. It used to be, to become an attorney, a minimum of 16 years for civil practice; and to be an apprentice, 7 years. Reference: John Campbell and Richard Hildreth, Lives of Judges 1300's - 1600's (1849, 1856), pp 21-22. Now you can be a 'lawyer' (with a law “doctorate”) in a mere three years!

    • For information on high school requirements of that era, see
  • (1) National Education Association, Report of the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies (New York: American Book Co, 1894), pp 46-47;

  • (2) Edward A. Krug, of School of Education, University of Wisconsin, The Shaping of the American High School (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), pp 18-65; and

  • (3) Lee C. Deighton, Editor-in-Chief, The Encyclopedia of Education (Macmillan Co & The Free Press, 1971), Vol. 7, pp 307-314 (by Edward A. Krug).
    • Model High School
    Programmes: 1894    †
    I. ClassicalII. Latin-Scientific
    III. Modern LanguagesIV. English

    I. Classical
    Three foreign languages
    (one modern).    		II. Latin-Scientific
    Two foreign languages
    (one modern).
    Year I (Grade 9)Year I (Grade 9)
    Latin5 p.Latin5 p.
    English4 p.English4 p.
    Algebra4 p.Algebra4 p.
    History4 p.History4 p.
    Physical Geography3 p.Physical Geography3 p.
    Total20 p.Total20 p.

    Classical Year I (Gr 10)Latin-Scientific Year I (Gr 10)
    Latin5 p.Latin5 p.
    English2 p.English2 p.
    *German [or
    French] begun    		4 p.German [or
    French] begun    		4 p.
    Geometry3 p.Geometry3 p.
    Physics3 p.Physics3 p.
    History4 p.Botany or Zoology4 p.
    Total20 p.Total20 p.

    Classical Year III (Gr 11)Latin-Scientific Year III (Gr 11)
    Latin4 p.Latin4 p.
    *Greek5 p.English3 p.
    English3 p.German [or
    French]    		4 p.
    German [or
    French]    		4pMathematics
    [Algebra 2;
    Geometry 2]    		4 p.
    Mathematics
    [Algebra 2;
    Geometry 2]    		4 p.Astronomy ½ yr. &
    Meteorology ½ year    		3 p.
    History2 p.
    Total20 p.Total20 p.

    Classical Year IV (Gr 12)Latin-Scientific Year IV (Gr 12)
    Latin4 p.Latin4 p.
    Greek5 p.English [as in
    classical 2;
    additional 2]    		4 p.
    English2 p.German [or French]3 p.
    German [or French]3 p.German [or French]3 p.
    Chemistry3 p.Chemistry3 p.
    Trigonometry &
    Higher Algebra,
    or History    		3 p.Trigonometry &
    Higher Algebra
    or History    		3 p.
    Geology or
    Physiography ½ yr, and
    Anatomy, Physiology, &
    Hygiene, ½ yr    		3p
    Total20 p.Total20 p.
    *In any school in which Greek can be better taught than a modern language, or in which local public opinion or the history of the school makes it desirable to teach Greek in an ample way, Greek may be substituted for German or French in the second year of the Classical programme.

    Ed. Note: Information on Teaching Modern Languages in 2002

    III. Modern Languages
    Two foreign languages
    (both modern).    		IV. English
    One foreign language
    (ancient or modern).
    Year I (Grade 9)Year I (Grade 9)
    French [or
    German] begun    		5 p.Latin, or
    German, or
    French    		5 p.
    English4 p.English4 p.
    Algebra4 p.Algebra4 p.
    History4 p.History4 p.
    Physical Geography3 p.Physical Geography3 p.
    Total20 pTotal20 p.

    Modern Languages Year I (Gr 10)English Year I (Gr 10)
    French [or
    German]    		4 p.Latin, or
    German,
    or French    		5 or 4 p.
    English2 p.English3 or 4 p.
    German [or
    French]
    begun    		5 p.Geometry3 p.
    Geometry4 p.Physics3 p.
    Physics4 p.History3 p.
    Botany or
    Zoology    		3 p.Botany or
    Zoology    		3 p.
    Total20 pTotal20 p.

    Modern Languages Year III (Gr 11)English Year III (Gr 11)
    French [or
    German]    		4 p.Latin, or
    German,
    or French    		4 p.
    English3 p.English
    as in others 3;
    additional 2    		5 p.
    German [or
    French]    		4 p.
    Mathematics
    Algebra 2
    Geometry 2    		4 p. Mathematics
    Algebra 2
    Geometry 2    		4 p.
    Astronomy ½ yr. &
    Meterology ½ yr.    		3 p. Astronomy ½. &
    Meterology ½ yr.    		3 p.
    History2 p.History as in the
    Latin-Scientific 2
    additional 2    		4 p.
    Total20 pTotal20 p.

    Modern Languages Year IV (Gr 12)English Year IV (Gr 12)
    French [or
    German]    		3 p.Latin, or
    German,
    or French    		4 p.
    English, as in
    Classical 2,
    additional 2    		4 p.English
    as in Classical 2;
    additional 2    		4 p.
    German [or
    French]    		4 p.Chemistry2 p.
    Chemistry3 p.Trigonometry &
    Higher Algebra    		3 p.
    Trigonometry &
    Higher Algebra 3
    or History    		3 p. History3 p.
    Geology or
    Physiography ½ yr
    and Anatomy, Physiology
    & Hygiene ½ yr    		3 p.Geology or
    Physiography ½ yr.,
    and Anatomy,
    Physiology,
    & Hygiene ½ yr    		3 p.
    Total20 pTotal20 p.

    †National Education Association, Report of the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies (New York: American Book Co, 1894), pp 46-47. Reprinted in Edward A. Krug, The Shaping of the American High School, supra, pp. 61-62.

    We need to resume teaching so that our youth will once again have routinely available the full range of courses of that high and wide range and level of teaching, class availability, attainment, and understanding.

    Improving education in this way will help halt the further deterioration at college level. Note the National Association of Scholars Report on College Deterioration 1955 vs 2002. When grade-middle-high school education declines, college level education declines as well. Worse, parents must pay for costly college education, for education that should have occurred PRIOR thereto.

    There is a financial benefit to schools by restoring the higher quality “classic” education. Schools will have more funding. The current 2003 Michigan budget “crisis” (causing reductions in funding to various districts) is a result of the deteriorated education. Educated people of a century ago knew how to prevent this situation. We need to restore into the schools, this now untaught data. Both schools, and society as a whole, will benefit, from all aspects, including learning how to prevent avoidable budget difficulties.

    We could then avoid local bond issues that prevent pre-planned millage reductions.

    How Millages Increase Your Taxes
    You may periodically see allegations with words to the effect that you can 'approve this bond issue, your millage rate won't increase.'
    What is the real truth?
    Let's consider this. You have a home mortgage of $214,000. You want to borrow another $141,000. You tell the mortgage company, no increase in payments.
    The answer is, impossible. When your payments would otherwise end, become $0, they will increase, meaning they will continue, extend beyond, their otherwise scheduled ending date. Your payments that would otherwise have dropped to $0, must be extended, continued, lengthened, to cover the new larger debt amount, for the many additional years for the borrowed sum, PLUS the accuring interest.
    Now you understand how new "bond issues" increase millage amounts, increase voters' taxes for paying off bond issues. This means, new "bond issues" increase millage! well on past the time when they (the payments on the initially borrowed amount) would have otherwise become $0.
    With a new "bond issue," the bond-issue-related amount underlying your millage, must and does increase, meaning, it extends on beyond the time it would have become $0. And it extends on for multiple additional years.
    Now you know the real truth about periodic claims, 'approve this bond issue, your millage rate won't increase'!! Yes it does, for years! even decades!

    Other budget issues include:
  • (1) obtaining adequate funding from the State

  • (2) more aggressive lobbying for such resources, instead of 'pulling our punches,' by omitting relevant issues that could be raised

  • (3) reassuring the entire staff, including but not limited to teachers and support personnel, etc., of their morale issues including against lay-offs and privatization.

  • (4) assuring adequate funding to keep our employees, have full resources, and prevent unwarranted millage increases

  • (5) having a positive "can do" attitude on achieving these budget and human goals.

    • To contact the author by email, click here.