Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
04/11/2011 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB15 | |
| HJR16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 224 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 16 - CONST. AM: EDUCATION FUNDING
[Contains mention of HB 145, which would provide the necessary
statutory changes for the establishment of a "parental choice
scholarship program", but which first requires voter approval of
HJR 16's proposed changes to the Alaska State Constitution.]
2:29:59 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to state aid for
education.
2:30:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, speaking as the sponsor, explained that
if passed by the legislature, HJR 16 would place before the
voters proposed amendments to the Alaska State Constitution
[that would then allow for statutory changes to be made via
HB 145, which is proposing to establish a "parental choice
scholarship program", thereby enabling public funds to be spent
on private schools; without prior voter approval of HJR 16, the
changes proposed via HB 145 would be unconstitutional].
Specifically, Section 1 of HJR 16 is proposing to amend Article
VII, Section 1, of the Alaska State Constitution by deleting the
sentence, "No money shall be paid from public funds for the
direct benefit of any religious or other private educational
institution."; and Section 2 is proposing to amend Article IX,
Section 6, by adding the words, "; however, nothing in this
section shall prevent payment from public funds for the direct
educational benefit of students as provided by law". Although
the proposed "parental choice scholarship program" would be
limited to providing public funding for private K-12 schools,
the constitutional changes proposed by HJR 16 address the issue
of public funding as it relates to all private schools. In
conclusion, he asked the committee to pass HJR 16 so that
Alaskans will have an opportunity vote on its proposed changes
to the Alaska State Constitution.
2:35:37 PM
JOHN ALCANTRA, Director, Government Relations, NEA-Alaska
(National Education Association, Alaska Affiliate), relayed that
the members of the NEA-Alaska strongly oppose HJR 16. The
resolution doesn't ensure that religious or other private
schools will accept every child, or that the teachers in those
schools are certified, or that those schools will have the same
testing requirements as public schools. Public schools make a
commitment to all children - regardless of a child's religious
background or learning capabilities - whereas private schools
don't. He opined that because over 90 percent of Alaska's
children attend public school, education-reform efforts should
instead focus on the schools that benefit the majority of
Alaska's children - public schools. He then provided some
suggestions regarding what those efforts ought to entail. In
conclusion, he opined that the Alaska State Constitution should
be left as is, and reiterated that the members of the NEA-Alaska
oppose HJR 16.
MR. ALCANTRA, in response to questions, offered his belief that
passage of HJR 16 would result in significantly less funding
being available for public schools; relayed that the NEA-Alaska
would oppose any resolution that would funnel public funds
towards private or religious schools; and opined that because
HJR 16's proposed constitutional amendment references law that
doesn't yet exist, HJR 16 shouldn't move forward without being
accompanied by HB 145, which would establish that as-yet-
nonexistent law.
2:46:55 PM
TOM FINK said he endorses HJR 16, and hopes that the committee
will pass it out soon. Characterizing the existing prohibition
against public funding for private schools as discriminatory, he
relayed that he is in support of HB 145, which requires the
passage of HJR 16. He opined that the problem with the current
education system, which he characterized as an un-improvable
monopoly, is that it continues to receive funding. The proposed
legislation could provide an alternative, he ventured, in that
once the aforementioned "parental choice scholarship program" is
in place, parents could pick the private school of their choice
and public funding for that school would be forthcoming but
without any new governmental restrictions. Currently, only 10
percent of parents nationally can afford to send their children
to private school. This is wrong and ought to be changed, he
opined, because although all parents pay taxes, only those who
don't send their children to public school have to then pay
extra for their children's education.
2:50:13 PM
DAVID BOYLE expressed disfavor with the existing prohibition
against public funding for private schools, and provided his
understanding of how that prohibition came to be; of how
different courts over time have ruled in cases involving that
prohibition; and that in some states, parents can receive public
funds for the private schools of their choice, schools which
they could not otherwise afford. In conclusion, he asked the
committee to pass HJR 16 so that the public could vote on the
issue.
2:55:19 PM
BOB FLINT indicated that he views the legislation's proposal as
a help to parents and students, enabling them obtain the
education that best fits them, not as an attack on the public
school system - the normal and dominant way people are educated.
The constitutional duty is to educate students, not maintain a
particular educational institution. In conclusion, he indicated
a belief that HJR 16's proposed constitutional amendments were
worthy of going before the voters.
2:57:32 PM
KATHLEEN TODD said she opposes both HB 145 and HJR 16, offering
her belief that the legislation would create chaos in the school
system and be a detriment to a lot of children. Specifically,
HJR 16 would allow for a draw on public funds for private
purposes but without also providing any guidelines regarding
what is actually taught or requiring verification that the
teaching methods are successful. She predicted that people
would not be in favor of such legislation if they knew that it
would result in their public funds being provided to private
schools that teach their students [to engage in military] jihad,
or to private schools that teach their male students more than
their female students, or to private schools that refuse to
teach students with disabilities. Furthermore, even if such
private schools could be required to teach only "the main
subjects" with public funding being restricted to just those
subjects, there is no guarantee that students would be taught
together and be allowed to interact with each other, rather than
being segregated because of ideology, gender, or religion. On
the question of why not simply let the proposed constitutional
amendment go before the voters so that they can decide the
issue, she characterized that as an abdication of legislature's
responsibility to make decisions regarding appropriations after
having first analyzed all the ramifications. In conclusion, she
urged the committee to vote "No" on HJR 16.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HJR 16.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that although HJR 16 and HB 145
are supplemental to each other, they not the same; furthermore,
the policies, standards, and guidelines associated with HB 145 -
which he characterized as being about school choice - are still
to be decided upon. He shared his belief that if [both pieces
of legislation pass and] parents choose to send their child to
an Islamic school - for example - as long as that school meets
state and federal education standards, that would be completely
consistent with the values of the United States and with the
intent of the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES - expressing favor with the concept of
school choice - said her concern, however, is that passage of
HJR 16 would result in education funding being diverted away
from public schools, and thus she would be voting against it.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in response to questions and comments,
relayed that there is a significant fiscal note attached to
HB 145, and offered his understanding that there is information
available documenting that [passage of legislation pertaining to
school choice] does not harm the public school system and
instead improves it.
3:08:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report HJR 16 out of committee
with individual recommendations and [the accompanying fiscal
notes].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Pruitt, Thompson,
Lynn, Keller, and Gatto voted in favor of reporting HJR 16 from
committee. Representatives Gruenberg and Holmes voted against
it. Therefore, HJR 16 was reported out of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.