Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
04/04/2011 05:00 PM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB145|| HJR16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 2011
5:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Dick, Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sharon Cissna
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Fred Dyson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 145
"An Act establishing the parental choice scholarship program to
be administered by school districts for the purpose of paying
the cost of attending grades kindergarten through 12 at public
and private schools; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to state aid for education.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 145
SHORT TITLE: K-12 SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
02/09/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/11 (H) EDC, FIN
03/25/11 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/25/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/25/11 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/04/11 (H) EDC AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 16
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: EDUCATION FUNDING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
02/09/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/11 (H) EDC, JUD, FIN
03/25/11 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/25/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/25/11 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/04/11 (H) EDC AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 145 and HJR 16 as the sponsor
of each bill.
RONALD PAINTER
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
MARIA PAINTER
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
JESSICA DEAN
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145 and HJR 16.
MICHELLE NILAND
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 145.
BARBARA HANEY
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
CHERYL PEYTON
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
JOHN TOBEY
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
ANDY CLARY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145 and HJR 16.
NEIL NICHOLS
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
ROBERT TIMMINS
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
KRISTINA JOHANNES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145 and HJR 16.
SHIRLEEN RANNALS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145 and HJR 16.
CYNTHIA GEIERMANN
Big Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145 and HJR 16.
KARIN OWENS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
CONNIE WINGREN, Principal
Holy Name Catholic School
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
DAVID BOYLE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 16.
TIM GEIERMANN
Big Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 145 and
HJR 16.
JULIE ZERKEL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
KATHRYN BOLAK
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
BETTY SMITH
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 145.
ACTION NARRATIVE
5:04:32 PM
CHAIR ALAN DICK called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. Representatives Dick, Kawasaki,
Wilson, Seaton, and Feige were present at the call to order.
Representative Pruitt arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 145-K-12 SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
HJR 16-CONST. AM: EDUCATION FUNDING
CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 145, "An Act establishing the parental choice
scholarship program to be administered by school districts for
the purpose of paying the cost of attending grades kindergarten
through 12 at public and private schools; and providing for an
effective date", and HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16, Proposing
amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating
to state aid for education.
5:05:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, stated that
the purpose of HB 145 was to provide public funding for the cost
of attending grades kindergarten through 12 at a public or
private school selected by the student's parent of legal
guardian. He clarified that, as the Alaska State Constitution
did not allow funding for private schools, HJR 16 offered an
amendment to the Alaska State Constitution for funding to
private schools.
5:07:32 PM
CHAIR DICK expressed his concern for what would happen to the
many students who remained in public schools, specifically
special education and discipline problem students who may not be
admitted into the private schools.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that parents of children with
special education needs would be able to select the school that
could best serve their child. He explained that any school
could be a participating school.
5:08:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether all schools would be
required to provide the same services as a public school if they
received public funding.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that it would be a matter of
parental choice for where their child would receive the best
service.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that a public school had
mandated services, which may not be available at a private
school, but that the private school would still receive the
funding.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that the proposed bill provided
funding to the district to be paid to the school of choice "for
a similarly situated student."
5:11:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked that if a school was based on a
model such as Sharia Law, or an economic theory based on
Communism, would that be an acceptable public expense.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that should enough parents want to
send their child to the school, it should be able to exist and
be supported with the funding allocated to their child's
attendance.
5:12:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked what options existed for students
in the rural areas. She opined that the proposed bill primarily
supported students in the RailBelt.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that the proposed bill did not
favor any areas. He stated that the coalition supporting HB 145
had many Alaskan Native and rural supporters. He offered his
belief that there were opportunities for rural communities to
create private schools to emphasize immersion into native
language.
5:14:32 PM
RONALD PAINTER asked that the committee support HB 145. He
stated:
This is without a doubt the best thing we could do to
improve education for our children in the shortest
time. Nationwide, we spend more money now than any
country except one, and we rank among the lowest of
all industrialized nations for education. More money
for public education is not the answer. HB 145 will
go a long ways to solve those problems. Please
support this.
MARIA PAINTER said that all four of her children had attended
parochial school and that she supported HB 145.
5:16:14 PM
JESSICA DEAN said that she had two children enrolled in private
school, while dually enrolled in a district correspondence
school. She opined that many private schools offered solutions
for student needs, and she stated her support for HB 145 as a
solution to the current school problems.
5:19:19 PM
MICHELLE NILAND reported that her child went to a charter school
and she stated opposition for HB 145. She declared that home
school was a viable alternative to provide a different type of
education. She expressed concern that the public schools would
be "left with the higher needs children, with now a greater
limit on the resources that are available for them." She
directed attention to Version I, lines [24] - 25, and expressed
concern that the school district would be required to provide
reasonable transportation to the school of choice. She
suggested greater involvement from the parents as a solution to
the school district needs. She declared that alternatives
already existed, and she urged opposition to HB 145.
5:23:53 PM
BARBARA HANEY stated her support for HB 145. She said that her
seven children had been home schooled and had attended public
school. She opined that special needs students would receive
the most benefits. She said that she put her career on hold to
educate her children at home, and as a result she did not have a
pension. She offered her belief that the rural areas would also
benefit. She opined that competition among schools would be
healthy, as this would make schools more responsive to the
requests of parents.
5:31:40 PM
CHERYL PEYTON stated support for HB 145, and she read from a
prepared statement: [Included in members' packets] "Parents
know their children better than anyone. Parents are the
rightful authority to choose how and where their children will
be educated." She described the process that she had undergone
with her Down's syndrome child, and reported that the
neighborhood school was the only choice offered. She relayed
that the consensus for a special needs child was most often
"bending to the will of the neighborhood school." She
concluded:
Studies show that educational quality improves when
parents have the fundamental right to choose where
their children are educated. I believe the
introduction of "market forces" improves all schools,
and I believe it is especially helpful for special
needs children and families.
5:35:42 PM
JOHN TOBEY stated support for HB 145, and said that his daughter
had been in public school, private school, and home school. He
offered his belief that this was an important opportunity to
allow parents to have a freedom of choice for their child's
education, and that the proposed bill would allow the public
school system to improve through competition.
5:39:50 PM
ANDY CLARY expressed support for the proposed CS for HB 145 and
HJR 16. He said that he attended a private school, Anchorage
Christian School. He stated that this was not an insurmountable
shift in education policy. He reflected on the recent Arizona
laws on school choice. He reported that the standard assessment
tests and accountability were already occurring in private
schools. He declared that empirical evidence showed that school
choice programs stimulated improvement in the participant and
public schools competing for students.
5:43:04 PM
NEIL NICHOLS stated his support for HB 145, and paraphrased from
a prepared statement. He offered his belief that the increasing
cost of public education in Anchorage had not delivered improved
test scores and graduation rates. He opined that the proposed
bill would bring fresh ideas, new resources, and new
opportunities for children.
5:44:29 PM
ROBERT TIMMINS stated his support for HB 145, and said that it
"was crucial for the interest of our children." He declared
that true competition among the schools, allowing for parental
and student choice, would have the "single most positive effect
on vaulting our state to new heights in productivity and
capability." He declared this to be a minimal cost way for
Alaska to incentivize students to do their best. He urged
support for HB 145. He relayed that his wife had home schooled
both their children.
5:47:41 PM
KRISTINA JOHANNES urged support for HB 145 and HJR 16. She
offered her belief that the section of the U.S. Constitution
which prohibited money for parochial schools was "an anti-
Catholic animus that was existing at the time in our country and
unfortunately it made it into our Constitution, and it's a
blight on our Constitution, and as a Catholic, whenever I read
that, I feel personally insulted, actually, to be honest." She
opined that the current system was an economic injustice to
parents.
5:50:18 PM
SHIRLEEN RANNALS stated her support for HB 145 and HJR 16. She
stated that she had four children, with the youngest in a
Catholic school, which she opined to offer a higher education
and a healthier atmosphere. She stated that she had many
complaints with the Anchorage School District during the years
her children attended its schools. She offered her belief that
the most important thing to remember was that parents had the
right to choose the best education for their children.
5:52:15 PM
CYNTHIA GEIERMANN, stating her support for HB 145, said the size
of the public school classes did not allow for individual
attention. She shared that her child now attended a private
school, which allowed for a moral component to her education,
but it came at a personal cost. She stressed the importance for
parents to have a choice and for the public money to follow the
child.
5:55:08 PM
KARIN OWENS shared that she had four children, had taught in the
Anchorage School District for ten years, and that she supported
HB 145. She relayed that her one child currently in school was
in a private school, as the public schools attempted to be a one
size fits all system. She opined that more choices empowered
the children and the parents. She directed attention to the
popularity of charter schools as an example of the support for
school choice programs. She offered her belief that the current
system was not working, and she could not put her children in
the public schools.
5:57:02 PM
CONNIE WINGREN, Principal, Holy Name Catholic School, stated her
support for HB 145 as this would allow parents to place their
children in the school of choice. She reported on the success
of the students that graduate from Holy Name Catholic School,
where standardized tests were administered.
5:59:01 PM
DAVID BOYLE stated support for HJR 16, and paraphrased from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I would like to testify today on HJR 16, the
constitutional amendment to the Alaska Constitution.
As background, Alaska has what is called a Blaine
amendment in its constitution which precludes state
funds going to private and secular schools. This
Blaine amendment has a very shady history, named after
U.S. Congressman James Blaine. These amendments were
passed as a direct result of the anti-immigrant, anti
-Catholic bigotry that was dominant in the 19th and
early 20th centuries. Many states were required to
include Blaine amendments in their constitutions
before they were allowed to join the union. This was
called the inclusion act of 1899. This is why many
western states have Blaine amendments in their state
constitutions today.
The U.S. Supreme Court laid the constitutionality of
the Blaine amendments to rest in its Zelman vs
Simmons-Harris of 2002 decision. This decision stated
that the federal establishment clause is not violated
by the participation of religious schools in school
choice programs. Students in Cleveland were given
state vouchers to attend the school of their choice,
sectarian or non-sectarian. Religious and non-
religious schools could participate in this voucher
program. Over 60 percent of the students who
participated in this program were at or below the
poverty line. The court held that this government aid
reaches religious institutions only by way of
deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients.
Chief justice Rehnquist stated that the court had
rejected similar challenges three times.
In August 2002, the Washington State Blaine amendment
was struck down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by
a vote of 2-1. The decision was based on: "A state
law may not offer a benefit to all but exclude some on
the basis of religion."
In addition, under the Individuals With Disabilities
Act (IDEA), the federal government gives funds to
provide special education to children with
disabilities; it requires districts spend some of
these funds for children whose parents choose private
(including religious) schools.
The question to ask now: is the Alaska Constitution
unconstitutional?
The overriding consideration should always be: what
is best for the kids?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 4th, 2011,
[today] in a 5-4 decision that the Arizona tuition tax
credit plan was constitutional. The majority wrote:
"Awarding some citizens a tax credit allows other
citizens to retain control over their own funds in
accordance with their own consciences." Per justice
Kennedy: the plaintiffs' position "assumes that income
should be treated as if it were government property
even if it has not come into the tax collector's
hands." (Arizona Christian school tuition organization
v. Winn, no. 09-987).
6:02:00 PM
TIM GEIERMANN, stating his support for HB 145 and HJR 16, said
that he "would send my children to the garbage dump before I
sent 'em to a government school, because at least they'd learn a
trade." He reported that he chose to home school and then
private education. He opined that "my property taxes, my state
money should follow the child to the school of the parent's
choice."
6:03:14 PM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), agreed that parents did have a right to choose
the school for their children, but that the state had a
responsibility, under the Constitution of the State of Alaska,
"to provide a free public education for all school age
children." He said that the schools were not failing, and that
he detected "an anti-government sentiment being attached to
schools." He stated his adamant disagreement with the statement
of the bill sponsor, Representative Keller, that "it was
intuitively obvious" that private schools out performed public
schools. He offered his belief that HB 145 would create a dual
system of education. He directed attention to the costs for
operation, construction of facilities, and transportation which
would need to be included in the fiscal note. He stated that
allowing the funds to follow a student would be far more costly
than what it was today. He emphasized that the public schools
were not failing and that challenges did exist. He stated his
agreement with the exercise of choice, but he questioned whether
the state should pay for that choice.
6:08:00 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
JULIE ZERKEL stated support for HB 145. She said that she was
the parent of a high functioning, autistic child, and that it
was difficult to find workable situations. She offered her
belief that it was difficult for children who did not fit the
public school model. She stated that parents needed a choice of
schools for their children.
[Chair Dick passed the gavel to Vice Chair Pruitt for the
duration of the meeting.]
6:14:46 PM
KATHRYN BOLAK said that she was an advocate of pro-choice in
education, and stated her support for HB 145. She said that
choice was important and necessary, as the public education
system did not fit every child. She opined that more choices
would raise the standards in every institution.
6:16:13 PM
BETTY SMITH stated her support for HB 145, and said that
competition would improve the public schools. She offered her
belief that government regulation should not be attached to the
money. She opined that parents should have a choice of schools,
regardless of their income.
[HB 145 and HJR 16 were held over.]
6:17:31 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:17 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 145 Version D.pdf |
HEDC 4/4/2011 5:00:00 PM |
HB 145 |