Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/16/1999 03:03 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL
SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 16, 1999
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Co-Chair
Representative John Coghill, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Joe Green
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Allen Kemplen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 5
"An Act relating to vouchers for education; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 5
SHORT TITLE: VOUCHER SYSTEM FOR EDUCATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOHRING, Coghill
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 19 (H) HES, FINANCE
2/05/99 147 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COGHILL
2/10/99 184 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
2/10/99 184 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/10/99 184 (H) HES, FINANCE
2/16/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2186
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SSHB 5.
RANDY LORENZ, Researcher
for Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2186
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and provided information on SSHB 5.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 5.
KATHLEEN WIGHT-MURPHY
P.O. Box 876166
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 373-5204
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 5.
ANNE KILKENNY
P.O. Box 870163
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-6225
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SSHB 5.
JOHN CYR, President
National Education Association Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SSHB 5.
KENT BARKER
5531 Arctic Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 561-8772
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 5.
LEY SCHLEICH
P.O. Box 874216
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 373-0623
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 5.
TOM DAHL, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SSHB 5.
BETH LAPE, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-2803
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SSHB 5.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-8, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Dyson, Coghill,
Whitaker, Morgan, Brice and Kemplen. Representative Green joined
the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
SSHB 5-VOUCHER SYSTEM FOR EDUCATION
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the first order of business as Sponsor
Substitute for House Bill No. 5 "An Act relating to vouchers for
education; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chairman Dyson
asked the presenters and testifiers to declare whether they were
testifying simply as citizens presenting their perspective or if
they indeed have a professional or vested interest in the issue.
Number 0250
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
SSHB 5, introduced his aide, Randy Lorenz, who has done substantial
research on SSHB 5. He said the sponsor statement was actually
written by Lauro Cavazos, former U.S. Secretary of Education in the
Bush Administration, and Representative Kohring noted a few of the
points in the sponsor statement: standardized test scores have
declined over the years; choice in education is the cornerstone for
restructuring America's education system; and when choice programs
have been implemented throughout the country, there have been
dramatic educational improvements. The bottom line is that when
parents have choice for alternative means in education, it gives
youngsters a chance for a better education, which will give them a
better chance for college opportunities, employment and success in
life.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING continued, saying that the basic intent of
this legislation is to instill competition in education to provide
better quality service, and to provide choice. He feels it is a
good idea for parents to have the opportunity to choose among
public, private or home education. He is not against the public
school system, but SSHB 5 provides the financial means for parents
to afford either private or home school education if they so
choose. The primary point of SSHB 5 is that vouchers are provided
to the parents, not directly to any educational institution. He
noted that the vouchers are paid out on a quarterly basis
Number 498
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said this is a pilot program to see how the
concept actually works, and there is a provision that effectively
sunsets this after five years, in 2004. It is geared toward
low-income families. The amount of money administered would be the
lowest cost to educate a child, determined by comparing the dollars
that a particular school district would get through the foundation
formula to the cost of educating that child in a private school.
For example, if the tuition at a private school were $3,000 per
year and the amount going to that school district were $4,600, the
lower amount would be the amount of the voucher. The effort is to
provide choice for parents, not simply to help private schools.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how it will be ensured that parents who
receive these vouchers will spend those monies on their children's
education, and that these children's educations are worth the money
that will be spent on them.
Number 680
RANDY LORENZ, Researcher for Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska
State Legislature, referred to page 2 of SSHB 5, line 13,
subsection (d), which says, "The department may adopt regulations
necessary to administer the education voucher program under this
section." He explained that the reason for that is to give the
Department of Education (DOE) the opportunity to develop
regulations to ensure that the vouchers were used properly by the
individuals; it also allows them to establish proof of the child's
enrollment and the actual tuition cost. Mr. Lorenz believes there
are enough safeguards in SSHB 5 to ensure the public's confidence
that the money is used appropriately for the child's education.
MR. LORENZ answered Representative Brice's question regarding
whether the children's educations are worth the money spent, saying
he thought it would take a little time to find out how it actually
works. That is why this is a pilot program. He read an excerpt
from "Privatization '98, 12th Annual Report on Privatization," page
31:
Academic results, as measured by tests scores at the beginning
of the year and the end of the year, showed that voucher
students gained 15 percentile points in math and 5 percentile
points in reading, relative to national norms.
MR. LORENZ pointed out there were two groups of children going
through this study: one was a control group in the public
education system and the other group adopted the voucher system.
The article said during the first two years of the program, there
wasn't much seen in the way of results, but during the third year
there were dramatic improvements in the group that was under the
voucher system, as compared to the control group. He said he
believes the program needs to be given three or four years before
benefits will be seen, and he thinks the results will be
substantial.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he wanted to be sure that a parent would
not be able to take the voucher and spend it as they want.
Number 889
MR. LORENZ responded that parents would have to prove that the
child was enrolled in an educational system and show receipts.
This would be set up through the DOE, which will develop the
necessary regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wondered if it would be an option to start
testing home-schooled children so the increase in the standardized
test scores statewide could be recognized.
MR. LORENZ answered that the private schools he is familiar with
already are required to take the national exams yearly. He is not
familiar with home schools, but he believes that is already
available.
Number 977
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said he believes a significant incentive is
being created for people of low income to pull their children out
of public school in order to get the money. He said the
legislation doesn't address the issue of accountability. He is
concerned that in subsection (d) the department may adopt
regulations; giving the permissive "may" rather than a mandatory
"shall" also raises a red flag. He said if the department doesn't
have the money because of budget shortfalls and is unable to adopt
or implement the regulations, a situation is created where low-
income Alaskans do have an economic incentive to pull children out
of public school in order to get that money. He wanted to know how
this concern is addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING responded that he didn't mean any disrespect
but he has more faith and trust in low-income parents to do what is
right, to spend those monies appropriately and not seek dollars
through this program for the wrong reasons. The department's
authority would have to be invoked for those situations where the
money is used for the wrong reasons.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said he'd like to share Representative
Kohring's opinion that parents would be more responsible for their
children; however, some parents have taken their children's PFDs
and spent the money on themselves. He would like to see stronger
evidence before this committee that the money actually goes where
it should. He wants to know how accountability will be achieved
specifically and how results and performance of Alaskan children
will be guaranteed with this legislation.
Number 1240
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING responded that the DOE will have to make
that determination. The DOE is involved in administering the
Alyeska Central School and the Interior Distance Education of
Alaska, (IDEA) in Galena which are programs much akin to home
schooling. Those seem to be working just fine. Standardized tests
can be used to gauge whether the results expected are being
achieved.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced his concern that perhaps a
constitutional change should be made before this legislation goes
into effect.
Number 1334
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING answered that it comes down to the
interpretation of the constitution. He doesn't believe it would
preclude monies from being legally issued to parents. He believes
the constitution would preclude dollars going directly to a private
institution. His staff has done some research on recent court
decisions rendered on this issue that do suggest that similar
programs to SSHB 5, which were administered in other states, are in
fact constitutional. He said there are some court cases referenced
in the packets.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the research was inside or
outside of Alaska.
Number 1388
MR. LORENZ answered that these particular decisions were rendered
through the U.S. Supreme Court. The two major law firms involved
in the majority of these are The Institute for Justice in
Washington, D.C., and The Pacific Legal Foundation in California.
He has contacted both organizations and has tailored SSHB 5 along
the same lines as what is defendable in the U.S. Supreme Court. If
SSHB 5 is taken as it is now, and if they are careful with the so-
called Lemon Test, the bill will meet U.S. Supreme Court
guidelines. Sheldon Jackson will be overturned; Mr. Lorenz
suggested it needs the opportunity to be heard in the U.S. Supreme
Court.
MR. LORENZ feels that our present constitution does allow for the
payment to private and religious institutions for education. He
referred to information in the "School Law Reporter," which is in
the packet. He said any changes made in SSHB 5 will need to be
looked at in light of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Mr. Lorenz
referred to a paper put out by The Institute for Justice, "School
Choices, Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Legal Questions," by
Clint Bolick and Richard Komer. Mr. Lorenz stated:
The recent court decision by the U.S. Supreme Court made it
clear, unlike direct subsidies to a religious school,
educational benefits that include religious schools among the
range of options do not violate the first amendment. The U.S.
Supreme Court applies a three-part test to determine whether
a state's actions violate the First Amendment prohibition
against the establishment of religion. It is called The
Establishment Clause. It is also known as the Lemon Law.
There are three different cites under that: whether the
action has a secular purpose; whether the primary effect is to
advance a religion, and whether it creates excessive
entanglement. So far all the cases that have gone to the
Supreme Court include the very last one, whether the school
choice causes excessive entanglement between the state and the
private sector.
MR. LORENZ said as long as those items are kept in mind, there
won't be a problem. Presently, the U.S. Constitution looks at the
state constitution as paralleling that of the federal constitution;
therefore, there would be no violation.
Number 1505
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the state of Alaska has restrictions that
other states don't have. His concern is that SSHB 5 violates the
state constitution, and he thinks if the U.S. Supreme Court touched
that, they would rule against it.
MR. LORENZ responded that he understands from discussions with
various groups that the state's constitution only prohibits direct
support to a private institution or a religious group, and SSHB 5
would not provide direct aid to either of those. It provides an
educational benefit to a child, like the present student loan
program which is state aid available now. Students can go to any
private or religious school with it, and it is not in violation of
the state statutes. He believes if SSHB 5 were challenged in
court, it would be found constitutional under Alaska's
constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if the cost of administration and
regulation of this pilot program had been taken into consideration.
Number 1625
MR. LORENZ answered that just prior to this meeting they received
a zero fiscal note from the DOE. He thought the cost savings can
be substantial. The way the bill is written, the state is only
paying for the direct tuition costs. For instance, if the
Matanuska-Susitna School District has a per-child cost of $4,600,
and the student is attending a private school where tuition is
$2,000, the parent does not get the extra money. They only get the
$2,000 that it costs their child to attend that school, at a
savings of $2,600 to that particular borough.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said he is concerned that this may cause
private schools to raise their tuition.
Number 1705
MR. LORENZ said that would not be the case because the individuals
targeted are only a small group at this time. The rest of the
students making up the private sector in that particular private
school would still have to pay their expenses. If indeed the
private school increased its costs, it would be cutting its own
throat because the paying people wouldn't be able to keep their
kids in a private school. He believes it would be self-regulating.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said, speaking in broad categories, that
often there is a corollary between income and difficulty in school;
if SSHB 5 provided an opportunity for low-income parents to put
their children in private schools, he wondered if the burden of
difficult students would be shifted from the public to the private
sector.
Number 1791
MR. LORENZ answered that he didn't believe that would be a major
problem. He has known many low-income individuals in the
Matanuska-Susitna valley who attempt to provide their children with
the necessary education. He cited a situation where a child in
public school was claimed to be a special education child who
couldn't be helped. She was able to get aid through a Christian
school that funded her education because of the severe need.
Within one year the child went from just doing adequately to
straight As; she graduated last year from the naval academy and is
now serving on board an aircraft carrier. That is the same child
that the public school system said was a special ed child.
Presently the public schools do not adequately address the
individual needs of each child.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the private school tuition exceeded the
state share of the per student allocation, would the voucher to the
parents include the local share.
MR. LORENZ responded that this bill only addresses the state's
share.
Number 1876
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if there is any intention of private
schools' reimbursing public schools for use of their facilities for
the private school students.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING answered that it is not an issue addressed
here.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that quite often there are agreements
between school districts and private institutions that allow for
cooperative use of the public school facilities. He assumes if
those children in the private school receive a voucher, it is to be
expected that the public schools are going to ask for reimbursement
for those facilities. If money is going to be pulled away from
public schools, then private schools are going to need to pay for
use of public schools.
Number 1957
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING respectfully disagreed, saying most parents
are paying substantial dollars through property taxes, at least in
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and a lot of monies already paid
through taxes go into that system; so he feels that there should
not be any provision in this legislation to preclude the use of
public facilities by home-schooled or privately educated children.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if that should be written into the
legislation so that the regulations written by DOE won't stipulate
that.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said no, because parents already pay into
the school systems through their taxes.
Number 1997
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN pointed out that although Mr. Lorenz had
called the fiscal note a zero fiscal note, he believes that it is
an indeterminate fiscal note. He also disagreed with Mr. Lorenz's
statement that public schools do not provide individualized
attention. One of Representative Kemplen's children required
individualized attention, and an Individual Educational Plan was
prepared for the child, which provided him great deal of extra
attention. He said the main point is the constitutionality of this
proposed piece of legislation. He asked Mr. Lorenz whether he is
a lawyer.
MR. LORENZ replied that he is not, which is why he didn't say
whether it is constitutional. However, he feels it is, based on
talking to the legal staff here as well as in other states. The
only way to find that out is through a court challenge.
Number 2078
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN presented a memorandum from Michael F. Ford,
Legislative Counsel, dated January 22, 1999, on vouchers for
education:
Sheldon Jackson is directly relevant to the proposed voucher
system. In that case, the Court established a three-part test
for determining the validity of public programs that provide
economic benefit to private schools. First, the Court looks
at the breadth of the class to which the economic benefits are
directed. Second, the Court looks at how the public money is
to be used; i.e., whether the benefit to the private school is
incidental to education (as with fire and police protection)
or whether it amounts to direct aid to education (as with
tuition and books). Third, the Court looks at the magnitude
of the benefit to private education. Significantly, the Court
noted that channeling funds to a private school through an
intermediary (such as the student or parent) will not save an
otherwise unconstitutional program providing aid to private
schools.
The fact that the vouchers will be given to students or
parents of students would not save the voucher system. As
with the tuition grant program, the vouchers may be redeemed
only through the private schools. Therefore, they confer a
direct benefit on the private schools, in contravention of the
constitutional prohibition.
Number 2149
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN mentioned Article I of the state's
constitution and the system in Wisconsin that survived a
constitutional challenge under the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. He continued reading from Mr. Ford's memorandum:
The court in Sheldon Jackson noted that first amendment cases
upholding forms of assistance to religious schools have no
relevance to the preceding analysis of Article VII, section 1
of the state constitution. The prohibition against state aid
to any private schools in the Alaska Constitution is much
broader than the prohibition under the First Amendment which
relates only to religious schools. Thus, the United States
Supreme Court case upholding a Minnesota program of tax
credits for public and private school expenses against a First
Amendment challenge as well as the voucher system approved in
Wisconsin, are not relevant to the analysis of the proposed
voucher system in Alaska. These cases did not consider the
kind of prohibition against direct aid to private schools
found in the Alaska Constitution. In other words, even if the
voucher system could survive scrutiny under the First
Amendment, it would still violate Article VII, section 1 of
the state constitution.
In order the survive constitutional scrutiny under the state
constitution, a voucher system would have to satisfy all three
parts of the Sheldon Jackson test. It is difficult to imagine
a voucher system, as I understand the voucher system to work,
which would not violate the constitution. The system would
have to benefit students in public as well as private schools
without giving any substantial direct benefit to education in
the private schools. By its nature, the voucher system seems
to militate against this.
In conclusion, the proposed voucher system suffers serious
constitutional problems to which I see no simple solution.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said there are some serious legal issues
that need to be addressed on the proposed voucher system. He asked
for Mr. Lorenz's response after hearing that legal opinion.
Number 2260
MR. LORENZ agreed that there are some serious questions on the
constitutionality but said he has also been working with Mike Ford
on this issue. He feels the bottom line is that it is going to
have to be challenged to see how the courts rule. He said the
Sheldon Jackson case was done in 1979. Since then, the atmosphere
throughout the nation has changed, and Alaska's Supreme Court could
take a different view on it if they were presented with this case
again. He believes SSHB 5 is a strong statute, with strong
support, that will withstand the constitutional challenge.
Number 2294
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said if the goal is to implement a voucher
system that would be achieved through a constitutional change, this
legislation can be modified or a brand new piece of legislation
could be drafted.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Lorenz if he is familiar with the
Hickel commission on school choice 1991.
MR. LORENZ said he has seen excerpts from it.
Number 2340
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN brought out that there was a concern about
choice in grades K-12, so this commission was established. Their
view was that while there may be a reluctance to contract, such
things as transportation, food and janitorial services are
contracted. The Hickel commission reasoned that contracting for
classroom services would not be subject to the same constitutional
restrictions that would apply to vouchers. He wondered if
contracting could be looked at as a means of offering some
educational choice. He said he champions the concept but is afraid
this is headed for a train wreck.
TAPE 99-8, SIDE B
Number 2357
MR. LORENZ commented that state money is being given to private
institutions already. Approximately three years ago the
Matanuska-Susitna School District hired a California firm called
Linda, Mood, Bell to teach reading in their public school system.
Presently the Anchorage School District hires "ARC" to teach
students that are disruptive and hard to handle, and they get state
money through Hope Cottages. He felt that if the school districts
are able to do this and develop these programs, parents should have
the same right to get the education needed for their children, and
they could probably do it at a much lower cost.
Number 2329
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he didn't dispute that, but his concern
is not with what it desirable but what is doable. He suggested it
might be wise to get some other legal opinions as to whether it is
constitutional before more time is spent on this.
Number 2270
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,
(AASB) said he has a vested interest. He is an advocate for public
education and represents the 53 school districts in the state.
Public education is the mission at AASB, to assist local school
districts in providing a quality education and preserving local
control. The three issues he talked about were choice, competition
and reform. On the issue of choice, he thought that the public in
general is not clear on how many choices they have in public
schools today. There are a number of alternatives provided:
alternative schools, charter schools, cyber schools, state
correspondence and district correspondence; there are private and
parochial schools that are available. He also mentioned boarding
schools, home schools, district school choice, part-time students
and access to public schools. On the issue of competition, he
doesn't think the schools are adverse to competition if they all
have the same requirements and standards. Often private schools
don't have to comply with all the requirements of the public
schools. On the issue of reform, he summarized by saying he
associates himself with the reform issues adopted last year, and it
will take time and assistance to ensure success in those areas.
Number 2140
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if Mr. Rose felt that an adequate
amount of time has been given to the education reforms passed last
year to assess that legislation's ability to produce positive
improvement in the performance of Alaska's kids.
Number 2124
MR. ROSE answered that no, there hasn't been enough time. He said
some work has been done in the area of standards for employees, for
teachers and principals on HB 465 and requirements for reading,
writing and mathematics have been established and mandated. The
curriculum has to be designed in some school districts, assessments
have to be put in place and there is now an exit exam in the state.
Legally these provisions are necessary in case a diploma is denied
to someone; there needs to be grounds upon which the denial is
based. Steps are being made in the right direction toward
performance through standards. He thinks time and patience and
some support is needed to ensure that the system gets what it is
designed to provide. He expressed concern that since the
foundation is the bulk of the funding, continuing to heap on more
mandates without addressing the adequacy of funding is a real
problem.
MR. ROSE continued, saying that if our kids do not satisfactorily
pass some of these tests, the question is not whether the kids fail
but whether the tests fail. He wants to know what will be done to
get Alaskan students to that level of performance, and that is
where he wants to associate himself.
Number 2041
KATHLEEN WIGHT-MURPHY testified via teleconference from the
Matanuska-Susitna Legislative Information Office [Mat-Su LIO]. She
is president of the Mat-Su Education Association and has taught
since 1985. She said she was speaking as herself and as a parent.
She is deeply concerned about the constitutional issue. What
disturbs her is even though our state and federal constitutions
prohibit public money going to private or religious schools, she
can't believe the goal is to have it challenged in court. That is
an enormous amount of time and money that this state doesn't have,
given the budget crunch, that could be going toward improving
public education and the schools currently within our state. She
thinks vouchers would take tax payers' monies but not give them any
say in how those monies are spent and there would be no
accountability for monitoring the quality of education. She is
concerned also about: the fact that the bill has a zero fiscal
note; how the DOE will administer this pilot program; and who will
be hired to monitor the eligibility of people applying for this.
She urged the committee to support public education as the
cornerstone of our democracy; to look at ways to improve and
continually support public education; and to not siphon off
taxpayers' money.
Number 1891
ANNE KILKENNY testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO.
She said our democracy was built on the strength of an educated
populace and this has come about through public education. This
country believes that education should not be the exclusive
privilege of the rich and the elite. She urged the committee to
say no to this bill because it is designed to dismantle public
education.
Number 1816
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Rose if the standards mentioned are
applicable to private schools or home school programs.
MR. ROSE answered that he doesn't believe they are applicable
uniformly.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Rose if there are not private schools
or non-public schools in AASB.
MR. ROSE answered that he thinks that is correct. There are a
couple of charter schools that are associate members and some
professionals who are associate members, who receive their
information and documents. He said he could check on that, but for
the most part it is public education.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked whether AASB precludes private school
boards and administrators from participating.
MR. ROSE answered that he thinks the bylaws provide for membership
of a school board or a school board association and affiliated
people, as well as municipalities. Municipalities are also
associate members of AASB. Through that link there are some people
in municipalities, as well as some school boards who do have an
interest in privatization, but he wouldn't characterize that as
privatization.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON responded that he thought the answer was yes.
Number 1708
JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association Alaska,
declared that as such he represents 11,000 education employees and
130,000 children in Alaska, so he definitely has a vested interest.
He said vouchers are really taxation without representation.
Looking at the number of children in non-public schools today, the
price tag for the state on this bill could be anywhere from $46.8
million to $50 million. Any parent who qualifies for this would be
foolish not to step up and take the state's money, so that is an
enormous hit on the budget. If no new money is put into the budget
for those children, then that money will come directly out of those
public schools, and that is before one public school child moves to
a private school. That will be a major hit on Fairbanks,
Anchorage, and the Mat-Su area because that is where the biggest
proportion of those students reside.
MR. CYR said when standards are talked about, private schools are
exempt. He referred to AS 14.45.120, Standardized testing
requirements, which says "religious or other private school that
elects to comply." He said they don't have to comply. They can
give whatever tests they want, whenever they want, as they want.
They don't have the same burden placed on them as public schools
have.
MR. CYR said that vouchers give schools, but not parents, the right
to choose. A private school looks to see if the child fits into
the curriculum. The courts have agreed that those schools can
exclude on the basis of gender, religion, conduct, ability or
special needs. He said SSHB 5 sets up an interesting problem of
giving state money to schools that can exclude some of the children
of our citizens. He thinks the biggest problem with SSHB 5 is that
vouchers "really foster narrow self-interest and a real escapist
mentality." He said vouchers are to schools what gated
subdivisions with private security guards are to communities.
People who want those types of communities certainly are welcome to
them, but they shouldn't ask the taxpayers to pay for them. He
referred to Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers' belief that
education is a public responsibility whether one has children in
school or not. He concluded, "I have the responsibility to your
children and to grandchildren, to the entire state, and that is
what this bill doesn't do."
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said he certainly accepts that Mr. Cyr represents
11,000 teachers, but asked how he got the mantle of representing
130,000 students.
Number 1525
MR. CYR answered, "The kids who are in our public schools are in
those teachers' classrooms, and we are responsible for every one of
them. What happens in those teachers' classrooms, what happens
with those school aides, custodians, is our responsibility. Those
kids are our responsibility through the classroom day. I believe
that gives me the perfect right to use that figure."
Number 1489
KENT BARKER testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said
this voucher system is a wake-up call to the legislature and
schools districts. He has talked to many people over the past
three years who are unhappy with the school districts, and 200-300
of them would definitely sign a petition to put the issue on the
ballot.
Number 1381
LEY SCHLEICH testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO. She
is a parent of two school-age children. She said many of her
questions have been covered but she'd like to go on record as an
individual who has the same concerns and questions as all but the
very last speaker. She will send additional written comments.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Tom Dahl if the Office of the Attorney
General has a position or will take a position on the
constitutionality of this bill.
Number 1326
TOM DAHL, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section, Civil
Division (Juneau), Department of Law, , answered that his office
has not taken a position on this bill yet but has been in some
discussion with the DOE on it. He offered to have his office
prepare an opinion, to which Co-Chairman Dyson agreed.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON called a brief at-ease at 4:17 p.m. He
reconvened the meeting at 4:26 p.m.
Number 1250
BETH LAPE, Special Assistant, Legislative Liaison, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Education, referred to the DOE's
written testimony, which contains the wording of the state Board of
Education's motion in opposition to vouchers. She noted that they
do take care to mention that they are very supportive of choice
within the public school system. She announced that the state
board will be discussing choice and vouchers next Wednesday at
their meeting in town and has invited the current committee's
members or their staff. She referred to the fiscal note and
pointed out that the last column is for the year 2005. She said,
"Although that looks like a zero fiscal note, it is only a five-
year pilot program, so it would be indeterminate for five years and
then the sixth year it wouldn't exist, so that is why it would be
zero. There is been some confusion on that."
Number 1167
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Ms. Lape what regulations the DOE
foresees would be necessary to implement this piece of legislation
if it were passed, and what guidance the DOE would need from the
legislature to implement this Act.
MS. LAPE answered that she thinks the DOE would be interested in
having as much guidance as possible from the legislature before
implementing any regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he is assuming that subsection (d) is
wholly inadequate to implement a voucher system in this state.
MS. LAPE said she probably can't answer that.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Ms. Lape to provide him with an answer
at some point in time in the future.
MS. LAPE agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Ms. Lape if there would be any
contributions made beyond those of the state.
MS. LAPE said the sponsor earlier mentioned that the bill says the
state portion.
Number 1051
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if it is correct that the cost is to
the state, and at that point the per-student funding from the
federal government would not be forthcoming.
MS. LAPE offered to get that answered.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said he suspects that if the student isn't in the
public school then federal funding to the school would probably not
be there.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER answered that he just wanted to be sure
they understand the ramifications.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Ms. Lape what type of impact would it
have on the DOE if the legislature is unable or unwilling to
appropriate enough money to provide a quality education to the
individuals who are taking advantage of the education voucher
program.
MS. LAPE said she can get that answered.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON announced his intention to hold this bill and
consider it next week when the Office of the Attorney General can
have an opinion. He said it will also give the committee a chance
to hear what the state Board of Education says next Wednesday.
[SSHB 5 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 850
There being no further business before the committee, the Health,
Education and Social Services Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|