Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/23/2012 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR16 | |
| HB9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to state aid for education.
9:06:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, SPONSOR, discussed that HJR 16
put before the voters the choice to allow indirect
assistance for students attending private schools. The bill
was directed at the Blaine Amendment; he noted that
constitutional delegate Vic Fischer called the amendment a
standard feature of all western state constitutions, which
had been implemented after a vote failed to include it in
the U.S. Constitution. He explained that the bill did not
institute any programs, but allowed the state to develop
programs that would provide indirect aid to students in
Alaska.
Vice-chair Fairclough moved the bill before the committee.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Doogan asked for detail related to a similar
amendment that had been voted down 2 to 1 at the Alaska
Constitutional Convention.
Representative Keller provided an excerpt from a book by
Vic Fischer related to the issue. He informed the committee
that after Blaine Amendments had been included in western
state constitutions a proposed amendment had been offered
to include the words "and indirect" in the language; the
updated language would have included a prohibition against
providing direct and indirect assistance. He read from the
excerpt:
Proponents of the proposed amendment stressed the
importance of protecting the integrity of public
education while the opponents argued for the provision
of services to the individual students if otherwise in
keeping with the constitution.
Representative Keller furthered that the amendment had
failed 34 to 19. He discussed that support for the issue
had been 64 percent and 55 percent in two recent polls in
Alaska. He believed the polls were consistent with the
objective proposed in HJR 16.
9:10:32 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that while the polls provided
useful information, the legislature was also guided by the
values of its members and other views.
Representative Wilson pointed out that HJR 16 would take
the issue to voters for a decision. She had received
letters from parents of special needs children and
explained that some children in public schools needed more
than the schools could provide. The bill would allow the
system to address their needs in a private school setting.
She stressed that the bill was not taking a "shot" at
public schools; she felt it allowed parents to choose a
school based on their child's needs and not on what they
could afford. She believed that the "sad thing" was that
the details would be determined (the parameters the
department would apply and how schools would qualify for
vouchers) if voters passed the issue. She stressed that a
significant number of single parents could not afford an
option outside of the public school system. She spoke in
support of providing voters with the choice.
Representative Gara provided information about the
constitutional history. He relayed that the Alaska
constitutional delegates [Jack] Coghill and Rivers
[Representative Gara subsequently clarified that he had
meant delegate Metcalf instead of Rivers] had both
expressed their desire for a free public education system
in the state. He read a statement from former
Representative Coghill:
I believe the way our government was set up 175 years
ago that the founders felt that public education was
necessary to bring about a form of educating the whole
child for the civic benefit through the division of
point of the home taking a certain part of the child,
the church taking a certain part of his education, and
the government or state through public schools taking
the other part. I feel that the intent of public
education is primarily a state function and does not
belong to any private or any one particular group.
Representative Gara read a statement from delegate [Irwin]
Metcalf:
There are 16 states that have sections in their
constitution preventing public tax dollars from being
spent for private schools in any way, shape, or form.
Representative Gara read from the constitution that had
been drawn in 1945:
No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury
directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sector,
denomination, or religion; or in aid of any priest,
preacher, minister, or teacher thereof as such.
Representative Gara expounded that delegate Metcalf had
been a "firm believer in the complete separation of church
and state, especially with the use of state money and state
property." He communicated that the delegates had chosen
not to fund private schools for a reason. He elaborated
that once there was state funding of private schools,
factions would develop in the legislature; there would be a
group that believed private school funding was very
important and there would be a group in favor of public
education. He opined that support for public education
funding would be lost because there would be a rift in the
legislature. He did not fault people for having differing
views on education; however, a public education system kept
people "all in the same boat" with the goal of having the
best public schools possible. He believed that the result
would be a worse and underfunded education system. He had
no problem with people attending private school; many
private schools offered scholarships. He stressed that the
state had done a phenomenal job offering alternative
schools within the public education system. He pointed to
publicly funded boarding schools and charter schools in
larger Alaskan communities.
9:17:50 AM
Representative Gara pointed out that public education had
been improving. Graduation rates and proficiency scores
were increasing because there had been a significant amount
of funds invested in public schools in recent years; the
formula had been adjusted that he felt had previously
discriminated against rural Alaska. He stressed that
funding parity had helped rural areas, children needing
special education, and with Teachers' Retirement System
(TRS) debt. He believed the improvements would be reversed
if state funding was extended to private education; he did
not support the legislation.
Representative Joule had attended a Catholic boarding
school in high school and had paid his own way. He believed
he had gotten the best education that he could have
received. He expressed frustration related to the
separation between church and state; he opined that
freedoms had become so far reaching that people forget or
prevent the items that are important to individuals from
entering the classroom. He understood respecting people's
rights and responsibilities, but asked "what about
respecting everybody else's." He understood the
opportunities that could arise out of the bill, but he had
not seen all of the detailed information. He wondered how
many students would be counted in the Base Student
Allocation (BSA), how much additional funding would be
necessary, how much the transportation costs would
increase, etc. He understood that people wanted to spend
money on education, but there were questions in his mind
that had been unanswered. He believed a debate on the bill
on the House floor would be healthy, but he would have to
be convinced that it was the right thing to do.
9:23:07 AM
Representative Neuman had spent time at a private school,
but attended a public high school. He believed his time at
the private Catholic school was very beneficial. He
discussed that the school had provided basic academic
courses in addition to religious studies; he had learned
things in Catholic middle school that were taught in his
senior year in public school. He discussed the home
schooling of his own children. He had chaired the education
committee during his first two years in office. He believed
the education system in Alaska was not a one-size-fits-all
system; he pointed to rural schools with 10 students where
the cost could be $40,000 or $50,000 per student per year
and urban schools that had up to 1,400 or 1,500 students.
He opined that regional learning centers were "fantastic"
and would probably be part of Alaska's future. He asked
what the funding to private or Catholic school would be. He
discussed the BSA; correspondence programs were 80 percent
of the base. He wondered whether private schools would
receive the base allocation if they were funded by the
state. He stated that schools currently were trying to grow
their student population in order to obtain more funds;
however, increased student numbers led to overcrowding in
the classrooms. He believed the bill would provide parents
with more opportunities and would put the decision in their
hands. He stressed that Alaska had many various educational
opportunities and led the nation in correspondence
programs.
9:28:09 AM
Representative Neuman believed that it was important to
give parents a choice about their children's education; he
spoke in support of the resolution because he felt that it
gave parents the choice. He opined that the public school
system was currently facing a significant number of issues.
He emphasized that the issue was about what was best for
the kids.
Representative Guttenberg recalled a past conversation with
constitutional delegate Jim Doogan who had explained why
the issue was a "no." Mr. Doogan had been a very active
member of the church and had explained that once there was
public money in a private school the door was opened to
control issues; he had wanted no part of the control and
firmly believed in keeping his church separate from the
state for that reason. He stated that parents currently had
a choice where their children were educated; the question
was related to who paid for the choices. He had gone to
Hebrew school, which had been paid for by his parents. He
pointed out that it was problematic that "when money
follows, control follows, and budget issues follow." He was
honored to have received the information from a delegate
who had been a part of the decision making process. He
relayed his opposition to the bill.
9:33:53 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that he would vote to move the
bill from committee. He discussed that government had a way
of "mucking things up" in school systems. He hated to risk
ruining private schools that were offered as an alternative
to public education, but he supported the bill because
philosophically he supported school choice.
Representative Doogan stressed that the issue should not be
taken lightly; even passing the bill from committee with
"no recommendation" gave people information about what the
course of the debate would be. He stressed that he would
not vote for the bill for reasons beyond his father telling
him not to and not only because his father was strong in
his support for private schools. He discussed that he had
gone to private school for 16 out of 18 years. He was
opposed to dividing people up based on their religious
beliefs. His father did not believe that the civil
institutions should use religion to make decisions; he
believed there should be a clear line between the two. He
furthered that the wording of the constitutional statement
on education read that "no money shall be paid from public
schools for the direct benefit of any religious or other
private educational institution." He opined that the
statement could not be any clearer.
Representative Doogan believed the bill would inevitably
damage the system; he was against allocating money based on
people's religious beliefs, economic situations, or other.
He did not agree with a statement made by Co-Chair Stoltze;
he did not believe that the obvious failures of the
education system should be the reason for the legislature
to contemplate its complete dismantling. He opined that
people in the rich districts would get together to improve
their educational system and the people in the poor
districts would have to deal with social, economic, and
other handicaps. He voiced strong opposition to the bill.
9:39:37 AM
Representative Doogan referenced the quote "I'm a man of
principle and my first principle is flexibility."
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that the quote came from
former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of
Illinois.
Representative Doogan liked to think he was flexible, but
he was inflexible on the issue. He relayed that he would
vote against passing the bill from committee. He did not
see the sense in "inflaming the passions of people" on the
question. He believed that if the resolution passed the
outcome would be unknowable related to an election and what
would happen if the issue became law. He stressed that the
flaws of the current education system would be nothing
compared to the fight that would result if the issue went
to the voters; it was not possible to know what would
happen if state funds were stripped from the current
educational system and allocated out in "unequal ways."
Co-Chair Stoltze wanted the record to accurately reflect
his prior statement. He communicated that there was no
pressure to let the bill move forward. He understood that
it was a serious issue.
Representative Doogan clarified that he had not meant to
mischaracterize any prior statements made by Co-Chair
Stoltze. Co-Chair Stoltze was glad there was passion
related to the issue.
Co-Chair Thomas noted that 8 out of 55 constitutional
delegates had been born in Alaska; he wondered who could
have more passion than a person born and raised in the
state. He noted that the constitution had been amended in
the past and that the resolution was not the first attempt
to make an amendment. He stated that it was the state's
ordained right to change the constitution if it thought
something was wrong or flawed; the issue may fail, but he
believed people should have the option to vote on it. He
had spoken to family members about the past move from
Native schools to public schools; people had thought the
education system would fall apart. He had not been a big
proponent of the resolution at first, but he had reflected
on his own children's education. He wondered what was wrong
with letting parents choose where their children would be
educated. He opined that there was nothing wrong with
religious schools; he had been in church three or four days
a week during his youth.
9:45:48 AM
Co-Chair Thomas remembered that he had learned to pray in
Vietnam. He was in support of moving the bill out of
committee and would probably vote for it on the House
floor. He noted that the Alaska Federation of Natives
supported the concept because they wanted their children to
have the ability to receive a stellar education. He thought
the people should decide. He did not want to stifle the
voice of the people. He believed children should receive
the best education possible. He discussed his district and
the school options when he was a youth. He would vote for
what he thought was right for the children.
A roll call vote was taken to report the bill out of
committee.
IN FAVOR: Joule, Neuman, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon,
Fairclough, Stoltze, Thomas
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Doogan, Gara
The MOTION PASSED (8-3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
HJR 16 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the
Office of the Governor.
9:49:38 AM
AT EASE
9:50:05 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB009CS(RES)-NEW_DOR-AHFC-03-22-12 Attachment #2.pdf |
HFIN 3/23/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 9 |
| HB009CS(RES)-NEW FN DOR-AHFC-03-22-12.pdf |
HFIN 3/23/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 9 |
| HB009CS(RES)-DOR-AHFC-03-12-12 Attachment #1.pdf |
HFIN 3/23/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Amendment #13.pdf |
HFIN 3/23/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 9 |
| HJR16 Sponsor Handout.pdf |
HFIN 3/23/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 16 |