Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/03/2014 06:00 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 3, 2014
6:03 p.m.
6:03:44 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 6:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Mary Graham, Self, Juneau; Robert Claus, President, Craig
City School District, Juneau; Bridget Smith, Self, Juneau;
Ann Gifford, Self, Juneau; Mary Hakala, Self, Juneau; Joan
Pardes, Self, Juneau; Geron Brown, Self, Juneau; Allison
Smith, Self, Juneau; Paul D. Beran, Self, Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jeff Harris, Self, Bethel; Barbara Haney, Self, Fairbanks;
Lance Roberts, Self, Fairbanks; Christopher Benshoof, Self,
Fairbanks; Fran March, Self, Kodiak; Kathy Simpler, Self,
Kodiak; Betty Mactavish, Self, Kodiak; Gayle Harbo, Self,
Fairbanks; Robin Feinman, Self, Fairbanks; Mike Brax, Self,
Fairbanks; Chris Villano, Self, Fairbanks; Mari Jorgenson,
Self, Fairbanks; Barbara Parker, Board Member, Delta/Greely
School District, Delta Junction; Valerie Brooks, Self,
Ketchikan; Jake Todd, Good Taste, Anchorage; William
Theuer, Self, Anchorage; Terrie Gottstein, Self, Anchorage;
Kevin McGee, National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, Anchorage; Ted Angstadt, Self, Anchorage;
Wanda Greene-Laws, President, National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People-Anchorage, Anchorage; Alison
Arians, Self, Anchorage; Valerie Waldrop, Self, Anchorage;
Deena Mitchell, Self, Anchorage; Joe Boyle, President, Mat-
Su Education Association, Mat-Su; Marsha Burns, Self,
Anchorage; Lynn Highland, Self, Anchorage; William McLeod,
Superintendent, Dillingham City School District,
Dillingham; Amy Bollenbach, Self, Homer; Katie Finn, Self,
Anchor Point; Arlene Ronda, Self, Homer; William Bruu,
Self, Fairview; Peter Scott, Self, Wasilla; Kristina
Tornquist, Self, Palmer; James Chesbrosr, Self, Wasilla;
Tracey Martin, Self, Wasilla; Ernie Kirby, Self, Palmer;
Emily Forstner, Self, Palmer; Gretchen Wehmhoff, Self,
Chugiak; Sean Reilly, Self, Palmer; Tim Walters, Self,
Wasilla; Cheryl Romatz, KPEA, Soldotna; LaDawn Druce, Vice
President, NEA Alaska, Soldotna; Henry Anderson, Self,
Kenai; Cathleen Rolph, KPEA, Soldotna; Hugh Hays, Self,
Soldotna; Marge Hays, Self, Soldotna; Brian Schilling,
Self, Eagle River; David Nees, Self, Anchorage; Joelle
Hall, Self, Eagle River; Michael Chambers, Chair, Alaska
Libertarian Party, Anchorage; Sarah Davies, Self,
Anchorage; Nora Herzog, Students With a Voice, Anchorage;
Andrea Lang, Self, Anchorage; Robert McClory, Self,
Ketchikan; Mark Roseberry, North Slope Borough Education
Association, Barrow; Bobby Lasalle, Self, Fairbanks;
Michelle Thomas, Self, Fairbanks; Wendy Demers, Self,
Fairbanks; Aaron Lojewski, Self, Fairbanks; Don Gray, Self,
Fairbanks; Rebecca Baxter, Self, Fairbanks; Tammy Smith,
Self, Fairbanks; Robert Taylor, Self, Anchorage; Neva
Reece, Self, Anchorage; Marilyn Pillifant, Self, Anchorage;
Patrick LeMay, Self, Anchorage; Tamara Krus-Roselius, Self,
Anchorage; Mark Mitchell, Aleutians East Education
Association, King Cove; Dixie Hood, Self, Juneau; Denise
Koch, Self, Anchorage; Jane Yokoyama, Self, Anchorage; Mike
Coons, Self, Palmer; Glenn Biegel, Self, Anchorage; Annette
Barnett, Self, Tuntutuliak; Tina Wegener, Self, Sterling;
Virginia Rusch, Self, Anchorage; Curtis Watkins, Self,
Fairbanks; Patti Higgins, Self, Anchorage; George Pierce,
Self, Kasilof; Richard Onorato, Self, Anchorage; Posie
Boggs, Self, Anchorage; Linda Hulen, Self, Anchorage;
Patrick Montague, Self, Anchorage; Matt Miller, Self,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SJR 9 CONST. AM: EDUCATION FUNDING
SJR 9 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to state aid for education.
Co-Chair Meyer discussed the meeting's agenda.
6:05:37 PM
MARY GRAHAM, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to SJR 9 and
believed that the drafters of the Alaska State Constitution
had gotten it right that the state was responsible for
public education. She referenced comments that passing SJR
9 would not mean that Alaska would have vouchers, but
opined that unless there was agenda to create the ability
for state and local public money to be provided for private
and religious school attendance, there would be no need for
the legislation. She related that recent research showed
that many factors were responsible for students not
succeeding and that choice of school did not overcome the
number 1 predicator of school failure, which was poverty.
She thought the state needed to be focusing its limited
energies towards making sure that its public schools could
meet the challenges of modern education, particularly
during a time of declining revenues.
ROBERT CLAUS, PRESIDENT, CRAIG CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
JUNEAU, expressed opposition to SJR 9 and thought that it
removed accountability for spent state dollars for a
"false" illusion of choice. He discussed the wide range of
options that Craig's schools offered and opined that the
voucher system would not do nothing for the majority of
school districts, particularly among Rural Alaskan
communities that did not have a large enough population
base to support private schools. He concluded that this was
not the time for a constitutional change.
BRIDGET SMITH, SELF, JUNEAU, testified strongly against SJR
9 and opined that public funds should not be used for
private and religious schools. She thought that changing
the state's constitution to accommodate SJR 9's idea would
allow the separation of church and state to disappear from
education and believed it could represent a slippery slope.
She thought that administering the resolution's program
would be complex and far more expensive than the current
public-school system. She thought that when public funding
was involved in private uses, every single private and
religious school should be subject to scrutiny and be
vetted and approved; furthermore, administrative oversight
would have to be created. She offered that the role of the
public education system in a democracy was crucial and that
part of the civic mission of public schools was to educate
all students as citizens. She offered that public schools
taught people how to be critical thinkers, civic
participants, and how to commit to and work towards the
common good. She concluded that public schools were created
in part to provide an equitable education to all children
and that having a well education populace was essential for
the common good; this could only be guaranteed through a
public school system.
6:11:32 PM
ANN GIFFORD, SELF, JUNEAU, expressed opposition to SJR 9
and hoped that the state would instead focus on
strengthening its public school system. She offered that
public schools were provided for in the state's
constitution because, as a society, everyone benefited when
all children received a basic education; whereas, everyone
was hurt when children did not get a basic education. She
opined that in Alaska, most children were only able to get
a good education through the public schools. She thought
that broadening the choice options so that some students
could use public money to attend private school only helped
the students that were able to access those options. She
pointed out that the students who needed the help the most
often lived in remote parts of Alaska where there were no
private schools or they lived in a situation where they
lacked the proper support to help take advantage of a
private choice option. She was concerned that vouchers or
other private school choices would not benefit the students
that utilized them and referenced failures of similar
programs. She pointed out that there was less
accountability about how the money was spent in a voucher
system. She thought that when public money was spent for
education, people were entitled to expect safe schools that
did not discriminate, provided due process, used certified
teachers, and taught a curriculum that met state standards.
MARY HAKALA, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to SJR 9 and
discussed her family's personal experience navigating
through the school system in Alaska. She believed in
options, but believed in them within the public school
framework where students' and parents' rights were
respected and safeguarded and where there were standards
that were met. She thought that ultimately, SJR 9 would
lead to vouchers and did not assume that it only involved
access to correspondence and course materials. She believed
that public education was the great melting pot of America
and that it taught children to remember common ground when
looking at differences in each other. She thought that
vouchers led to ideological enclaves and surrounded
students with resources, people, and perspectives that were
often very singular.
6:18:04 PM
JOAN PARDES, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in strong opposition
to SJR 9. She thought that the public education system was
not broke but was underfunded. She stated that nothing
could succeed without reliable resources and that if the
legislators used all of their resources to fix the current
public education system, there would be some good results.
She thought that the resolution would splinter the
resources that were available to educators. She opined that
it would wonderful be if the legislature could put
resources into the current system to fix it before other
options were discussed.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if Ms. Pardes worked for the
school system. Ms. Pardes replied in the negative.
GERON BROWN, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to SJR 9 and
related his previous experience teaching at a private
school. He recalled how the school system that he had
worked in had faced a similar proposal, but that there had
been opposition to the idea because of concerns of state
oversight; the private school was successful because the
people that supported it had a tremendous interest in the
school. He recalled that the private school did not have
transportation, special education services, or free
lunches. He did not feel that SJR 9 would improve the
overall education system. He felt that the legislation
would improve the education system for some people, while
diverted already depleted resources away from the current
public system. He opined that while the current system was
not perfect, it had equitable access. He thought the state
should focus on having the students, families, teachers,
legislators, community leaders, parents, and others provide
and show support for the school system.
Senator Dunleavy inquired if Mr. Brown was a member of the
National Education Association (NEA). Mr. Brown replied in
the affirmative.
ALLISON SMITH, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in opposition to SJR
9 and shared that equity in education was an issue for her.
She thought that the students who would benefit from the
legislation were the ones that already had homes and
parental support that helped them navigate the system. She
noted that the resolution would allow charter schools to
spend more than the amount of the vouchers and offered that
it could potentially create more of a class system. She
observed that private and religious schools could
discriminate based on gender, religion, income,
standardized test scores, special needs, and behavior and
opined that tax payer money should be going to a free and
appropriate education for all students.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if Ms. Smith was member of the NEA.
Ms. Smith replied in the affirmative.
6:24:02 PM
JEFF HARRIS, SELF, BETHEL (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to SJR 9 and thought that a constitutional
change should happen in response to or in the prevention of
a grave danger. He wondered what had changed that made the
amendment necessary. He thought that the real danger with
the resolution was regarding what happened in 5, 10, or 20
years. He discussed his own education in the public school
system and how he used the experienced gained there in his
life. He thought that it was important to have as many
options and opportunities as possible in the public-school
system. He pointed out that not everyone would be a CEO of
a company or the owner of their own place and that the
state needed people who knew how to work. He thought that
the state would miss out on a lot of students by diluting
money that the public-education system received.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if Mr. Harris was a member of the
NEA. Mr. Harris replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Meyer noted for the record that there were a
number of people testifying in opposition to and in support
of SJR 9 in members' packets. He relayed that the committee
read the written testimony that was submitted.
BARBARA HANEY, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to SJR 9. She related that the city of
Oklahoma had 35 bible colleges and wondered how many were
in Alaska. She opined that the Sheldon Jackson Decision had
cost the state enormously regarding higher education. She
supported how the resolution addressed higher education,
but expressed concerns with how it addressed K-12. She
stated that the state had previously had choice in the form
of "purchase orders" and offered that every home-school
mother in the state knew about them. She thought that
purchase orders and vouchers were the same things and noted
that the state had taken away the ability already with the
adoption of the common-core standards. She thought that the
common-core standards needed to be re-drafted and the state
should restore the choice in education that was previously
there.
6:29:36 PM
LANCE ROBERTS, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), urged
his support of SJR 9 and thought that competition was a
good thing. He recalled how de-regulation and competition
had greatly improved the price of long distance phone calls
in the past and thought that the legislation would help
bring equitable access to everyone. He noted that in other
states, similar legislation had enabled those of lower
income to be able to make a choice that they could not
afford previously; he predicted that the legislation would
help bring equitable access to education in Alaska. He
offered that the legislature should let the people of the
state decide on the issue and wanted to see more
competition regarding education. He reported that Fairbanks
was currently spending $16,000 per student, which was one
of the highest costs per student in the nation and opined
that the state was not getting the results from those high
costs.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if Mr. Roberts was a member of the
NEA. Mr. Roberts replied in the negative.
Senator Bishop discussed a recent News Miner article that
showed that the Fairbanks Northstar Borough School District
had the lowest scores of high school graduates who needed
remedial math and English when they entered the University
of Alaska's system; he clarified that the district was the
best performer in the state regarding not needing
remediation in those categories.
CHRISTOPHER BENSHOOF, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to SJR 9 and related that it would open
the door for a voucher system that would allow public money
to fund private schools. He opined that Alaska's current
charter-school law was the best in the nation and allowed
for charter schools to be created within the umbrella of
the public school system; this enabled new educational
opportunities to emerge that were still held accountable to
the same standards of accreditation, teacher
qualifications, and graduation requirements as their public
counterparts. He thought that considering how the changes
would benefit students was important and opined that
students in Alaska already had a lot of options. He offered
that redirecting funds away from public schools would
negatively affect already constrained budgets and created a
private and expensive market for schooling that would be
largely unaccountable. He thought that teachers around the
state were excited at prospects of improving student
achievement, but that the resolution would only hurt the
quality of student experience and teaching expertise in the
education system.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if Mr. Benshoof was a member of the
NEA. Mr. Benshoof replied in the affirmative.
6:34:30 PM
FRAN MARCH, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), testified in
opposition to SJR 9. She thought that the state should go
back and re-look at how public schools were funded. She
referenced two articles in the Anchorage Daily News that
discussed poverty levels and the inequities that existed
between different children and their home lives. She
expounded that some students did not have the advantages
that came with children who had a stay-at-home parent or
more finances supporting them. She hoped that the state
would redirect its thinking and take a deeper look at what
was going on in Alaska's schools and what type of action
was needed to make sure that every student succeeded. She
added that she was a member of NEA, but was not part of the
political action committee.
KATHY SIMPLER, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to SJR 9 and stated for the record that she
was a member of the NEA. She thought that opening the
constitution to allow school vouchers was not the intention
of the state's forefathers. She stated that public
education in the state was for all Alaskan children and was
the last equalizer. She believed that public money should
not go to religious or private schools and that doing so
prevented public institutions from reducing class sizes and
providing essential classroom resources. She offered that
voucher schools were not held to any standards and were
able to pick their students, which she thought would lead
to segregation. She urged the support of Alaska's public
education system.
BETTY MACTAVISH, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to SJR 9 and thought that the constitution
should remain as it was written. She quoted from the Alaska
State Constitution. She referenced a "neo-conservative"
movement across the nation to take public-tax dollars and
redirect them to fund public/private partnership under the
name of publicly funded school choice. She stated that
charter schools had no elected boards and opined that the
legislation would lead to Alaskans more readily accept un-
elected boards in all areas of the government. She
cautioned that the resolution amounted to taxation without
representation. She reported school that funding was based
on enrollment and that more charter schools would take
funding away from traditional K-12 schools. She thought
that it would be better to improve existing public schools
instead and observed that charter schools targeted the
students that they wanted to enroll and not all of Alaska's
children. She thought that the resolution would result in
less money getting into the classroom at a time when
Alaska's schools were struggling to adjust to the latest
unfunded mandate of the new Alaskan standards. She
concluded that charter school provided less transparency
and diversity. She wanted tax payer dollars to be put into
good use within the public-school system.
6:41:39 PM
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if Ms. Mactavish was a member of
the NEA. Ms. Mactavish replied in the negative, but stated
that she had taught in Oregon schools about 12 years prior.
GAYLE HARBO, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to SJR 9 and shared that she was
proud of the state's public school system. She hoped that
people would visit the public schools often to see the
variety of programs that were offered to every child. She
discussed the successes of her family in the public school
system. She opined that Alaska's public schools offered
every possible opportunity and believed that the state did
not need outside groups directing Alaska in how to run its
business.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if Ms. Harbo was a member of the
NEAA. Ms. Harbo replied in the affirmative.
ROBIN FEINMAN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
expressed opposition to SJR 9 and stated that she believed
in public education. She opined that a forward thinking
society recognized that an educated populace was in
everyone's interest. She thought that in a world of
dwindling resources, the state did not have the luxury to
foster the creativity of "only the economically well off,"
but rather it needed to look ahead to tap the intellectual
potential of all of its citizens. She believed that a
voucher system would be a step away from the state's goal
to offer educational opportunities to everyone. She thought
that siphoning public funds into private businesses would
negatively affect the successes of traditional public
schools and their students. She thought that given the
current discussion of more accountability for public
schools, it would was hardly justified to propose funneling
more money into private institutions that were held less
accountable. She opined that it was a fallacy that a
voucher system would put the power of choice with the
parents, but offered that the system would put the power of
choice in the hands of the private and religious schools
that could hand pick the best and the brightest students;
furthermore, it would result in requiring public schools to
do way more with way less resources. She thought that the
legislation was not equitable for all students and that
instead of taking away money from public schools, they
should be adequately funded and held to higher standards.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if Ms. Feinman was a member of the
NEA. Ms. Feinman replied in the affirmative.
6:46:00 PM
MIKE BRAX, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
support of SJR 9. He discussed a poll that had been
conducted for the legislature the prior month and stated
that it had indicated that 84 percent of Alaskans supported
amending the constitution to allow a school choice program
in Alaska. He thought that the resolution would give Alaska
the opportunity to debate the direction that it wanted to
go. He noted that there had been a lot of comments on the
resolution's effects on the public school system, but
offered that no one knew whether it take away or give more
money to the school districts. He stated that the only
question before the committee was whether it wanted to
allow Alaskans to vote on the issue. He opined that that a
vote against the resolution was not a vote defending public
education, but was in fact a vote to restrict the
opportunities for public education. He thought it had been
shown that allowing consumers to be part of the decision
making process brought those consumers into the game; he
offered that the computer and the telecommunications
industries were examples of this. He concluded that having
the ability to have more choice and have a decentralized
consumer-driven industry would only improve education.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if Mr. Brax was a member of the
NEA. Mr. Brax replied in the negative.
Co-Chair Kelly related to the committee that he would not
be asking further testifiers if they were members of the
NEA or not. He pointed out that no one's testimony was more
or less valid depending on whether they were members of the
NEA, but that he was trying to get a sense of where people
were coming from on the resolution.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed with the previous testifier that the
only issue before the committee was whether to give
Alaskans the opportunity to vote on the issue.
CHRIS VILLANO, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to SJR 9. She discussed her membership in
various organizations and related that she was very active
in her community. She reported that she was opposed to the
resolution because Alaska's constitution stated that public
funds needed to be used for public schools. She thought
that public funds should not be diverted to un-regulated,
unaccountable private, secular, and religious schools. She
was excited about the potential of education and reform
that the governor had suggested, but offered that reform
could not take place in over-crowded classrooms. She stated
that Alaska's school districts were experiencing severe
cuts to teacher positons that would result in class sizes
increasing by 3 students next year. She stated that she had
taught in Catholic schools, but was currently a public
school teacher. She currently had 29 students in a class at
a Title I school where children with special needs were
attending. She referenced a recent non-partisan legislative
research report that had indicated that vouchers could cost
upward $100 million, which concerned her. She thought that
Alaska needed to take care of its public schools because
they serviced all the children of the state, especially
those with the greatest need.
6:51:14 PM
MARI JORGENSON, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to SJR 9. She had taught for 34 years, 25 of
which had been in public schools; prior to that, she had
been teaching in Catholic schools. She offered the due to
funding cuts, she had 6 4th graders and 19 5th graders in
her classroom. She pointed out that even with the vouchers
that were in the resolution, her low-income students would
still be unable to afford private schooling. She reported
that the resolution was making her fear that the state was
recreating segregation. She offered a study of the current
voucher program as proof that the vouchers did not work.
She opined that Alaska's public schools were not broken,
but that they were sadly underfunded.
BARBARA PARKER, BOARD MEMBER, DELTA/GREELY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference), spoke in opposition
to SJR 9 and pointed out that it would remove wording in
the constitution that specified that no public funds would
go towards the direct benefit of any religious or other
private educational institution. She was a firm supporter
of school choice for parents who knew what type of
institution would be the best suited for educating their
child. She expressed concerns that public funds to an
educational entity currently required accountability and
pointed out that the state already had multiple statutes
that required strict accountability. She wondered if the
state would be dealing with private entities and attempt to
make them accountable because Alaskans wanted to know if
the state money was well spent. She further mused if the
state would require these private or religious schools to
hire only certificated teachers who were highly qualified
in the subject that they were teaching; furthermore, in the
future, would it require religious schools to hire teachers
without bias to their religious preference. She wondered if
the state would require that all employees of religious
schools submit to background checks or whether it would
require private and religious schools to adopt the state's
English, language, and math standards, be assessed by those
standards, meet some basic graduation requirements, and
report under the new Alaska State Performance index. She
urged the committee to consider her above questions because
changing the constitution was a serious step that should be
thoroughly and transparently examined in public before it
is placed on the ballot; this would ensure for fair and
equitable accountability, but also would benefit private or
religious schools that may not want interference from the
state in the future.
6:56:09 PM
VALERIE BROOKS, SELF, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference),
expressed opposition to SJR 9. She explained that she was
an Alaskan tax payer who supported public money for public
schools and that she did not support altering the
constitution. She discussed the prior testimony of Diane
Ravitch, who was a former Assistant-Secretary of Education
for Research nationally, on March 1, 2012 before the Senate
Education Committee hearing on SJR 9. She quoted Ms.
Ravitch's testimony as follows:
I understand the impulse behind vouchers. It is
fundamentally an anti-government, anti-public
education, pro-privatization sentiment.
I am opposed to vouchers.
I believe they will undermine and destroy public
education.
I believe, based on my many years of study, that
public education is one of the essential institutions
of a democratic society-certainly of this very diverse
democratic society. And we must not sacrifice
the...Public schools are the institutions that teach
us to live together.
Ms. Brooks continued her testimony. She asserted that
private schools did not address the needs of special-needs
students and were not publicly accountable. She opined that
vouchers did not mean school choice and urged the retention
and increases in funding for public schools. She asserted
that Alaska's constitution had been specifically written to
preserve the state's democracy and ensure that Alaskans
retain public access to public services. She did not
support changing the constitution or public money being
spent on private schools, but did support public money
going to public schools.
JAKE TODD, GOOD TASTE, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against the resolution and discussed his career,
personal politics, and Alaskan roots. He offered that
amending the constitution in the way the resolution
recommended was a mistake. He asserted that there was no
peer-reviewed research that showed that vouchers had
increased student learning. He admitted that there were
some "bought and paid for" articles that claimed that
vouchers did increase learning, but that their logic was
full of holes. He related that charter schools in Alaska
were now public and open to everyone thought that passing
the legislation would be mistake.
7:01:09 PM
WILLIAM THEUER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against SJR 9. He agreed with Alaska's constitution that no
money shall be paid from public funds for the direct
benefit of any religious or private educational institution
and that public resources should go to public service;
furthermore, any modification to that language was
unwarranted and could lead to unforeseen consequences. He
opined that it was concerning that the committee may have
suggested that it had not considered what the resolution's
changes might be.
TERRIE GOTTSTEIN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against the resolution and disclosed that she was
not a member of the NEA. She was a parent with children in
the Anchorage School District and spoke in strong support
of public education. She pointed to California as an
example of a state where parents had to spend a significant
amount of money to send their children to good schools. She
did not support public dollars going to private or
religious education. She pointed to private Islamic,
Jewish, and Christian schools as examples. She stressed
that the state was facing serious underfunding of the
education system at present and discussed the myriad
options provided to children with different learning
styles.
7:06:42 PM
KEVIN MCGEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
COLORED PEOPLE, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke on
behalf of the NAACP Anchorage branch and stated his
opposition to the resolution. He opined that the
legislation was an attempt to cut more money from the
public school system and that public schools already had
inadequate base student allocation (BSA) funding. He shared
that he had 3 children who were graduates of the Anchorage
School District and opined that school choice was code for
public funding of private schools. The association feared
that the change to the constitution would change education
to a private commodity rather than a public endeavor and
could reverse Alaska's longstanding development of learning
and civic virtue through public schools that were staffed
with professional teachers with children from all
backgrounds.
TED ANGSTADT, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), voiced
opposition to the resolution and spoke as a teacher,
parent, and NEA member. He discussed his family and relayed
that he was a retired military member. He stated that he
worked as a teacher in a high-needs Title I school. He
discussed the makeup of the schools related to Title I,
many students with disabilities, and low parent
involvement. He believed the resolution was a threat to
residents' liberty. He hoped that Alaskans could do better
than the resolution and help children that needed it.
7:11:16 PM
WANDA GREENE-LAWS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE-ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in opposition to the resolution. She
added that there were some people who supported the
argument that children should have the option of attending
schools that were not struggling. She opined that when most
of the options were no better or worse than what was
currently offered and scarce public-school funds were used
for funding the schools, it left the children in the
public-school sector with fewer resources. She opined that
the resolution would impede learning and school
improvements. She discussed Brown versus the Board of
Education and offered that future segregation would be
based on class rather than race.
ALISON ARIANS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), voiced
opposition to the resolution and spoke from the perspective
of a small business owner and parent. She offered that
there were already plenty of choices in Alaska and thought
that vouchers would take away from public schools that were
already struggling. She stated that public schools were
available to everyone and urged the committee to support
them rather than pulling resources away from them.
VALERIE WALDROP, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), She
voiced opposition to the resolution and spoke from the
perspective as a parent. She talked about Hawaii and
relayed that the schools were awful there. She did not want
furloughs to be the next step for Alaska's schools. She
believed the governor's resolution was a distraction from
critical work before the legislature. She opined that the
resolution would lead to an enormous waste of time and
money. She urged the importance of working together to help
public schools thrive.
7:16:09 PM
DEENA MITCHELL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in strong opposition to the resolution. She understood that
the state's schools had made great strides and that
graduation rates had been increasing. She took her hat off
to everyone in the school districts and discussed diversity
offered in the Anchorage School District. She shared
personal information about her children's experience. She
stressed that there was much choice currently available in
Alaska's schools. She related that the cost of potential
legislation was unknown and referenced a non-partisan study
that had indicated that it could cost approximately $100
million in public school funds if a voucher system was
instituted; she compared that to the effects of the $23
million cut to education in the current year. She supported
public schools and thought that the legislation was a
diversion that the state could not afford to focus on.
JOE BOYLE, PRESIDENT, MAT-SU EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, MAT-SU
(via teleconference), testified against the resolution and
spoke of the need to provide a quality education for every
child. He talked about advocates for universal education in
the 19th century. He spoke in support of diversity in
America and opined that public education was the reason for
it. He supported public schools and unity, but did not
support dividing and sorting America's students.
7:21:09 PM
MARSHA BURNS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in strong opposition to the resolution. She thought that
diverting public funds to private educational institutions
was wrong and did not support amending the constitution to
allow that. She stated that private school vouchers were
not the answer to educational system problems and offered
that studies had not shown that vouchers improved the
educational outcomes for students. She believed that
providing public funds to private schools would reduce
funding for public schools and would reduce services that
would be offered to students. She thought that the
resolution might result in fewer students graduating and
asked the committee to oppose it.
LYNN HIGHLAND, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), was
not affiliated with the NEA and voiced opposition to the
resolution. He supported public education and opposed
anything that diluted its funding. He referenced a recent
study that had indicated that every new high school student
that graduated would confer a net return to tax payers of
nearly $130,000 and that it was clear that support for
education was in society's best interest; however, he did
not believe that vouchers advanced education. He asserted
that research showed that public education was as good as
and sometimes better than students with vouchers attending
private school. He referenced 3 studies and claimed that
they demonstrated that there was no statistically
significant difference in achievement between students in
public schools and those with voucher assistance in private
schools. He admitted that rich children in private schools
did better than poor children in public schools. He agreed
that some private schools did a great job, but asserted
that public funding of private schools did not improve
student performance; furthermore, it would take money away
from those things repeatedly shown to improve student
performance in public schools. He opined that smaller class
sizes, good teachers, and high quality preschools were all
known to boost achievement. He concluded that intelligent
funding of public education was what worked.
7:26:09 PM
WILLIAM MCLEOD, SUPERINTENDENT, DILLINGHAM CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, DILLINGHAM (via teleconference), spoke against
the resolution. He shared a philosophical perspective on
education that a free public education system was a
fundamental part of sustaining a democratic republic. He
discussed an educated electorate being necessary and
thought that mixing some of the issues in SJR 9 could lead
to elitist kinds of systems. He discussed the separation of
church and state and noted the estimated cost of a voucher
system caused him quite a bit of concern. He wondered where
$100 million could be cut from. He pointed out that the
current public system offered much choice and discussed
various programs offered in his community. He shared a
personal story related to Dillingham and spoke to
improvements in third grade reading, writing, and math
proficiency in Dillingham. He related the challenges to
graduation rates in rural Alaska and related that
Dillingham had raised those rates and as well as decreased
its drop-out rates. He was concerned of the potential harm
that could result from the resolution's proposed changes.
He cautioned against creating an "Alaskan Enron" or
educational meltdown.
7:31:27 PM
AMY BOLLENBACH, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), spoke
against the resolution. She echoed the sentiments of
previous opposition testimony and believed the idea was
dangerous. She spoke about fundamentalist teachings of a
Wahhabi movement within the Islamic religion and offered
that they taught that it was ok to kill a non-Wahhabi; she
cautioned that the state could be helping support Wahhabi
schools with SJR 9. She claimed that the Wahhabi movement
had spent $87 billion to enhance Wahhabi schools in the
non-Muslim world, much of which was aimed at the United
States. She opined that passing the resolution could result
in Alaska funding Wahhabi schools.
KATIE FINN, SELF, ANCHOR POINT (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the resolution. She read from the Alaska
State Constitution on Article 9, section 6 related to
public purpose as follows:
No tax shall be levied, or appropriation of public
money made, or public property transferred, nor shall
the public credit be used, except for a public
purpose.
Ms. Finn continued to quote from the constitution and
related that it stated that nothing in the above section
shall prevent payment of public funds for the direct
educational benefit of students as provided by law. She
cited page 144 of the citizen's guide to the Alaska State
Constitution and related that the issue was not new to the
state; the issue had been addressed directly in 1962 and
1979. She discussed the 1979 proposition of the state-grant
program that paid Alaskan residents who were attending
private college the difference between their tuition and
that of the University of Alaska; opponents of the proposal
claimed that it benefited the private schools directly and
voters had rejected the proposal. The court declared that
the grants violated the direct benefit clause of Section 1
of the Alaska State Constitution because the student was
acting as a conduit for the transmission of state funds to
private colleges.
7:36:09 PM
ARLENE RONDA, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), voiced
opposition to the resolution. She remarked that the
separation of church and state was an important part of the
constitution; furthermore, along with that right came the
responsibility to support the right of others to be able to
do the same. She asserted that there were currently many
opportunities for parents to seek education in private and
or religious affiliated schools and that there were a vast
variety of public funding options. She related that public
schools had a clear purpose to provide basic education for
everyone regardless of income, ethnicity, religion, and
parental or political views. She urged the committee to
keep a clear separation between church and state and
support the state's public schools.
WILLIAM BRUU, SELF, FAIRVIEW (via teleconference), spoke
against the resolution. He shared that he had gone to
school in Long Island New York and related that it was
considered one of the top schools in the United States. He
stated that his education had taught him a lesson from the
1860s. He learned that economically advantaged individuals
in the southern states gained their economic advantage by
enslaving the efforts of others; the southerners had
created a situation whereby education for their labor force
was a punishable offense. He offered that the legislation
would take us back to the days of slavery. He recalled a
personal story about serving in the Air Force and pointed
out that there was a lot of discrimination. He offered that
the less you educate the population, the easier it is to
control. He reported that the idea of cutting funding to
public education is morally wrong.
PETER SCOTT, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), supported
the voucher system and was willing to entertain the concept
of introducing one. He was for public education and
believed that it had a place; however, it was the private
schools that had helped his children the most.
7:42:33 PM
KRISTINA TORNQUIST, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to the resolution. She had grown up in
Finland where the public education system was considered
one of the best in the world. She thought that SJR 9
represented an incredulous and dangerous proposition. She
stressed that public money should go to public schools
because public education was the most effective social
equalizer. She stated that children from broken homes, low
income families, or immigrant families faced more problems
than those from middle and upper class families; these
children might have to baby sit and have less support for
school at home. She offered that more choice of schools
would not help children from broken homes, low income
families, or immigrant families. She pointed out that
public schools accepted all children regardless of
background. She stressed that the change would do nothing
to help students and stated that religious and private
schools were not held to the same standards as public
schools. She did not believe a voucher system would in the
help the state's rural, remote communities.
JAMES CHESBROSR, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke
against SJR 9. He provided quotes from text books that were
used in publicly funded schools in Louisiana that
illustrated bigotries, racism, religious views, and
outdated science that was being taught. He opined that
public dollars should not be used to convey misinformation
and bigotry. He concluded that public schools promoted the
public good and that people were free to choose private
education.
7:48:11 PM
TRACEY MARTIN, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke
against SJR 9. She spoke from the perspective of a teacher
and a 4th generation Alaskan and stated that she was a
product of the state's public schools. She related that her
children had gone through the state's public schools and
that her grandchildren were attending public school. She
stressed that public schools offered choice currently and
were doing a good job; however, the public schools needed
more funding. She emphasized that public schools were
inclusive while private schools were exclusive and stated
that it was important to support the state's public
schools. She opined that it was a fallacy that vouchers
would give poor students access to private schools and
related that private schools sent their unwanted students
to public schools. She stressed that the legislature needed
to worry about the impacts of vouchers on public schools.
ERNIE KIRBY, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke in
strong opposition to the resolution. He was excited about
the choices his children had in the public schools in Mat-
Su. He was concerned that he had heard nothing in the
discussion of SJR 9 about inflation proofing public schools
in order to enable them to maintain their current
outstanding programs. He did not want his children's
choices in their K-12 system to erode.
EMILY FORSTNER, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke
against the resolution. She thought the legislature was
pretty set on moving the resolution forward despite the
objections that had been voiced the previous spring. She
opined there was a strong mistrust of public institutions
in our society and spoke in support of protecting the
public trust. She believed it was imperative to back and
support the state's public schools.
7:54:15 PM
GRETCHEN WEHMHOFF, SELF, CHUGIAK (via teleconference),
spoke against the resolution and related that the issue
needed further support and planning. She spoke from the
perspective of a retired school teacher. She referenced the
sponsor statement and pointed to a paragraph comparing
educational resources for adults to those of children; she
did not believe the comparison was a fair or realistic
argument. She stressed that the issue was huge for public
education and spoke to the successes of public education in
Anchorage. She believed the issue should be supported by
more information and study and wondered where the money for
a voucher system would come from.
SEAN REILLY, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke
against the resolution and believed the state should be
taking its time when attempting to amend the constitution.
He stated that public education was a great equalizer. The
legislature had flat funded the BSA in the past several
years, which would not improve outcomes in education.
Providing public funding for private or religious schools
would seriously detract from efforts towards public
education. He shared personal information about his
family's educational experience and did not believe there
would be many people in favor resolution.
8:00:24 PM
TIM WALTERS, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the resolution. He stated that the
legislation had many problems surrounding it like
management, funding, equity, and justice. He opined that
the resolution would open the door to dismantling one of
the basic constitutional protections of education in Alaska
without first working out the details. He stressed the
importance of working issues out prior to making changes to
the state's constitution.
CHERYL ROMATZ, KPEA, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), She
encouraged the committee to do more research on the
resolution. She spoke from the perspective of a teacher.
She discussed a class she taught that showed students how
to work within the rules of society, as well as the value
of fair competition. She related that she taught her
students that taxes paid for public services, while private
money paid for business. She believed the resolution would
be like giving money to Fedex or UPS because someone did
not like United States Postal Service.
LADAWN DRUCE, VICE PRESIDENT, NEA ALASKA, SOLDOTNA (via
teleconference), spoke on behalf of NEA Alaska's president
and in opposition to the resolution. She opined that
changes to the constitution should be handled very
carefully and that no evidence had been provided to warrant
opening the state's constitution. She wondered if the
public was aware of the numerous choices that were already
available within the public school system. She discussed
greater accountability to education and stated that no
evidence existed that the resolution would provide a better
education. She thought that Alaska should not gamble on an
expense as large as the resolution when districts were
facing budget cuts across the state.
8:06:17 PM
HENRY ANDERSON, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), spoke
against the resolution. He did not believe the state's
constitution should be changed to fund private or religious
schools. He stated that private schools could discriminate
against students. He urged the committee to hold the
resolution in committee.
CATHLEEN ROLPH, KPEA, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), voiced
opposition to the resolution and stated that a free public
education was the great equalizer. She stated that sending
funds to private schools diminished funds to the public
school system and that all children deserved the same
education. She pointed to websites showing that the state
may give $3,000 to $5,000 per student who used vouchers;
most families did not have that kind of money to spend. She
stated that some reports showed that school was a business
and expressed disagreement. She discussed the lowering of
test scores and the value of a child. She stated that if
the resolution passed, the legislature's goal would be
highly suspect.
HUGH HAYS, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), opposed the
resolution. He supported public education and believed the
resolution represented a direct attack on the public
education system. He had been an NEA member and former
teacher. He reiterated his support for students, teachers,
and the public education system. He believed that Finland
had the number one education system in the world and one of
the major factors in contributing was the strong teachers
union.
8:12:21 PM
MARGE HAYS, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), spoke
against the resolution. She wished that all the energy that
had been used to create the resolution had been used on
public schools instead. She stated that public schools
needed support and resources. She discussed that class
sizes made all the difference and communicated that choice
was complicated. She offered that some children lived in
poverty, which made a good education difficult and talked
about children with disabilities. She stated that it was a
democracy and the state should keep it that way. She
related that every student needed to have an opportunity to
have an educational experience that provided a means to
fulfil their potential.
BRIAN SCHILLING, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
testified against the resolution and discussed a personal
story related to his family and daughter. He pointed to
studies related to drugs and alcohol. He discussed special
services from the school district; they had spent over
$50,000 on two private schools in Anchorage that had
completely failed his daughter. He stated that in three
years in public education his daughter was almost caught
up; he believed the results were phenomenal. He stressed
that private schools did not work and did not want children
like his daughter. He did not want public funding going to
private schools.
8:18:38 PM
DAVID NEES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), supported
that resolution and wanted the issue to be put before the
voters to decide. He offered that education in the state
now was not what it had been in the 1970s. He thought that
the legislators should view the constitution as a living
document. He spoke about the changes to the state's
education system over time discussed that the state's
constitution had been amended on every article, except one.
He discussed amendments that had occurred to the state's
constitution since 1957 and related that 12 were voted down
while 38 had been approved. He stated that students needed
to be provided for and believed that Alaska had the lowest
constitutional amendment change rate in the U.S. He thought
that the issue should be before Alaskans to decide on and
offered that it was the legislature's duty to get an issue
this important on the ballot.
JOELLE HALL, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), spoke
in adamant opposition to SJR 9. She offered that there was
an agenda by the administration to get the issue before the
voters with little debate. She opined that Commissioner
Hanley was either unable or unwilling to answer some good
questions about the resolution such as the financial
implications and how it would affect Rural Alaska. She
pointed out that the Alaska State Constitution required a
2/3 majority in order to make a change with the idea that
it had been properly vetted first. She thought that there
should be more information offered before the issue was
brought before the voters.
8:24:20 PM
MICHAEL CHAMBERS, CHAIR, ALASKA LIBERTARIAN PARTY,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in great support
of SJR 9. He stated that he had fought in Vietnam for the
rights of liberty and personal choice. He relayed his
family's personal experience with the public and private
education systems. He discussed his history as a teacher in
Alaska and his issues with the public education system. He
thought that public education reinforced a short attention
span. He spoke to the history of the separation of church
and state in the U.S. and asserted that as a state, Alaska
had every right to enjoin any private institution it
wanted. He stated that the public funds in the state
constitution belonged to the citizens of Alaska.
SARAH DAVIES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), related
that she was neutral to SJR 9 and urged the committee to
provide transparency throughout the process. She wanted the
committee to put the issue before voters.
8:29:26 PM
NORA HERZOG, STUDENTS WITH A VOICE, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke against SJR 9 and thought that
giving vouchers to private and religious institutions would
violate the foundation of the U.S. She questioned why
legislators would spend money on private schools when there
was not enough money for the public school system. She
relayed that students had the freedom to take the classes
they chose and that public education had provided her with
the tools that she needed to receive. She wondered why the
state would cut funds to an already suffering public
education when it could provide vouchers to private and
religious schools.
ANDREA LANG, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against SJR 9. She thought that a vocal and
powerful minority in the legislature was attempting to
influence the public to allow for a voucher system. She
offered that students did have a choice in what school they
would attend and discussed different education options in
the Eagle River area. She opined that the fourth year of
flat funding to education was having a negative effect on
the system and related that it took money to provide enough
teachers to allow for sufficient student teacher contact.
She spoke of the importance of smaller class sizes, but
noted that students were piled into classes because of the
lack of funding. She thought that Alaska needed to identify
the problem in the public school system and believed that
the resolution would only worsen the public schools'
abilities to provide a good education. She stated that
teachers and schools were being made scapegoats for
problems in the education system, but that there were other
prominent variables that remain unaddressed. She discussed
problems with the current education system.
ROBERT MCCLORY, SELF, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to SJR 9. He thought that choice already
existed in the current education system in Alaska and
discussed his family's experience with the public education
system. He stated that the U.S. was based on freedom, but
that it did not want to subsidize private and religious
schools. He spoke about the separation of church and state.
8:37:50 PM
MARK ROSEBERRY, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
BARROW (via teleconference), testified in opposition to SJR
9 and wondered how it would help the students in Rural
Alaska. He wondered what would happen to local public
schools if the resolution passed. He thought that the state
needed to consider the impact of the resolution on Rural
Alaskans.
BOBBY LASALLE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to SJR 9 and related that she was
against changing the part of the state constitution that
dealt with public funds for education. She discussed the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. She pointed out
that public schools could not discriminate against
students, but that vouchers could crush rural communities
by closing schools. She stated that public schools were
held accountable to adequate yearly progress and wondered
if schools that received vouchers would be held to the same
standard.
MICHELLE THOMAS, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to SJR 9 and thought that taking
money away from public education and giving it to
private/religious schools was a mistake given the cuts and
budget deficits that Alaskan education was currently
facing. She stated that flat funding had already led to
bigger class sizes and had stretched the number of teachers
too thin. She offered that vouchers had not increased
student achievement in the Lower-48 and that they took away
vital resources from the public schools. She opined that
vouchers took public funds out of public schools, which
welcome all students and gave the money to private school
that could discriminate.
8:43:16 PM
WENDY DEMERS, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
expressed opposition to SJR 9. She thought that vouchers
would cost the state a lot of money and did not believe
that public dollars should be used for private education.
She stated that public charter schools accepted all
students through a lottery, but understood that private
schools could continue to choose and pick students. She did
not support taking money away from already struggling
public schools and believed in the separation of church and
state.
AARON LOJEWSKI, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in support of SJR 9. He thought that some of the opposition
arguments were misplaced and noted that his understanding
was that passing the resolution would simply get the issue
before the voters. He was undecided on the issue, but
thought that the voters should have a say.
DON GRAY, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to SJR 9. He objected to the idea to changing
the constitution to spread dollars for a non-public
education. He thought that the idea of the separation of
church and state was important to the founding fathers. He
stated that public schools provided equitable access to
education in our society. He strongly encouraged the
committee to defeat the resolution and continue funding for
public schools.
8:49:19 PM
REBECCA BAXTER, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified against the resolution. She spoke as a
Republican, conservative Christian, voter, tax payer, and
NEA member. She was a strong believer in public schools and
the separation of church and state. She did not understand
why the state would want to increase spending when
districts were looking at cutting teachers and increasing
class sizes. She pointed out that schools did great things,
but that every year the schools did more and more with less
funding. She stressed that teachers did their job because
they loved students not because of their paycheck.
TAMMY SMITH, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the resolution. She discussed
her upbringing as a Catholic. She believed in the
separation between church and state and did not believe
that vouchers would help students. She did not think that
vouchers would help most students, but that improving their
neighborhood school would. She stated that public schools
were the best thing and wanted to hear people say that
Alaska had great schools.
8:54:24 PM
ROBERT TAYLOR, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against the resolution and spoke from the
perspective of a teacher. He discussed his history of
teaching in Alaska. He stated that he had been a staffer in
congress and discussed the importance of preparation on an
issue. He did not believe the committee had enough
information about consequences of the legislation on both
sides of the issue and had not been properly prepared by
staffers. He stressed the importance of keeping private
things private and noted that the constitution protected
private schools from public intrusions. He strongly
requested that the barrier not be removed because it kept a
separation between the public and the private sectors.
NEVA REECE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
against the resolution. She was hoping to adopt a child in
high school and was concerned that options for a solid
educational foundation would be damaged by attacks on
public education. She spoke to the lack of funding to
public education. She hoped to maximize opportunities as an
adoptive parent and asked the committee to consider the
impact that vouchers would have on all children, parents,
and families. She spoke about disadvantaged students.
8:59:46 PM
MARILYN PILLIFANT, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against the resolution and spoke as a parent with
a child in the Anchorage school system. She opined that
Alaska did not need an ill-conceived notion that vouchers
would fix education, but believed that public support was a
great thing happening in public schools. She was against
spending the estimated $100 million and draining resources
from the state's educational system. She invited the
committee members to spend one day following a child's
educational life. She recognized Senator Berta Gardner for
requesting a report related to additional language in the
constitution. She offered that the resolution seemed
innocuous, but that it was a "Trojan horse." She implored
committee members to take more time studying the issue.
PATRICK LEMAY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the resolution and stated that it should be
on the ballot for Alaskans to vote on. He discussed his
personal employment and role as a parent of a child in high
school. He believed in competition and believed it would
benefit Alaska's educational system. He stated that all
parents should have a vote in the type of education their
children received.
9:04:42 PM
TAMARA KRUS-ROSELIUS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke against the resolution and stated that she was
testifying to represent her children. She was upset that
the committee was considering moving the resolution
forwards. She related that public education already had
funding issues and that there was an estimate that the
legislation would cost the upwards of $99.7 million; she
did not like the possible expense in the context of the
already struggling public schools. She stressed that her
children loved their school and asserted that taking money
away would dismantle public schools. She added that public
schools could not discriminate against students and were
held accountable.
MARK MITCHELL, ALEUTIANS EAST EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, KING
COVE (via teleconference), voiced opposition to the
legislation and noted that it would take $100 million away
from public schools. He discussed closures of facilities in
Rural Alaska and asserted that the legislation would
desperately hurt Rural Alaskan students.
9:08:27 PM
DIXIE HOOD, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the legislation. She discussed her history in
Alaska and spoke of value of public pre-k education for all
students. She thought that Alaska had not been properly
supporting its schools financially. She was against any
amendment to the constitution that would provide public
funding to private schools. She supported the United States
League of Women Voters. She strongly urged the committee to
not support the resolution and urged it to support SB 147.
She offered that SB 147 would increase the BSA to $6,084
and would adjust it for inflation annually. She offered
that the Senate Rules Committee had failed to refer SJR 9
to the Senate Education Committee.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked if Ms. Hood was a volunteer of
the United States League of Women Voters or if she was
expressing opinions. Ms. Hood replied that she was a
volunteer, but that the league had provided information
regarding the issue.
DENISE KOCH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
strongly against the resolution. She discussed going to
public schools and being the mother of two children in the
state. She was happy with her public education experience
and offered that flat funding along with the resolution
seemed like an engineered failure of public schools. She
thought that the resolution would contribute to further
segregation with our society and concluded that it was
important to preserve strong public schools.
9:13:56 PM
JANE YOKOYAMA, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against the resolution and echoed the comments of previous
opposition testimony. She did not think that Alaska did not
needed to change its constitution when there was no
conclusive evidence that vouchers would improve the quality
of learning. She spoke to the many options available in the
public schools and was proud to be a part of the public
education system.
MIKE COONS, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the resolution. He asserted that the SJR 9 was
not about vouchers and that the U.S. was a republic and was
not a democracy. He stated that all private, secular, and
religious school would have to meet current standards and
laws. He stated that all private schools would need to meet
requirements for public schools and gave examples of
numerous government aid programs over 70 years that had
succeeded. He wondered why religiously neutral and
competitive, level playing fields were good for college and
pre-school programs, but were not for K-12 education. He
thought that the legislature needed to choose the best
education options versus union interests.
9:19:11 PM
GLENN BIEGEL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
supported SJR 9 and wondered why parents were detaching,
why businesses weren't happy with employees that came out
of schools, why kids were disinterested in their education,
and why Alaska could not compete. He asserted that the only
questions was if everyone's problems in each of the above
questions had the same answer and that if there was only
one answer, the state only needed one system of education.
If, however, there was different answer for each child and
parent to the four questions, there was a duty to allow the
issue to come before voters. He thought that some of
previous testifiers who spoke about equitable opportunities
had kids that went to good schools; however, there were
many schools that were failing. He stated that parents were
desperate for choices and it was legislators' duties to let
the people vote on the issue.
ANNETTE BARNETT, SELF, (via teleconference), spoke against
the resolution and spoke from the perspective of a rural
teacher. She was worried that vouchers would take away
funds and opportunities from Rural Alaska. She related that
many rural areas that were not near urban centers did not
have choice available like Anchorage, Juneau, and
Fairbanks. She offered that education was funded from the
same pot of money and that vouchers would take away funding
from education from Rural Alaska. She thought that making
public schools compete with businesses would change the
playing field and related that public schools were a public
interest. She thought that taking the money away from
public school would create problems and urged the committee
to reconsider the resolution.
9:25:22 PM
TINA WEGENER, SELF, STERLING (via teleconference), spoke in
full support of SJR 9 and thought that the voucher
discussion was premature at this point. She spoke from the
standpoint of a single mom and offered that the debate
should be made public. She thought that the language in the
constitution was outdated and needed to be removed. She
wanted the opportunity for people to vote on the issue.
VIRGINIA RUSCH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
strongly against the resolution or any legislation that
could lead to using public funds to support private
schools. She recalled that there was a ballot measure the
previous year regarding making general changes to the
constitution via a constitutional convention and that it
had been voted down; she wondered why the issue deserved a
separate vote. She believed that public schools were
critical for society and served as the training grounds for
future workers and citizens. She thought that the state
should provide the best public schools that it could
afford. She discussed budget problems and shrinking funding
and was concerned about the money that the resolution could
cost because it would mean less money for public schools.
9:29:31 PM
CURTIS WATKINS, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
of the need for more information before a decision was made
on the resolution. He thought that justification for
diverting funds from public schools, measures of classroom
performance, and determining that all students received a
fair shake were important thinks to properly vet before a
decision was made on the legislation. He cautioned that
children with learning disabilities needed schools that
would take care of them.
PATTI HIGGINS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against the resolution. She wondered if a change to
Alaska's constitution would violate the First Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution, which stated that congress shall
make no law representing the establishment of religion. She
stated that vouchers were a form of government in support
of religion. She reported that children in private schools
were not held to the same academic standards or may not be
taught the same curriculum. She stated that parents did not
have the choice with private schools, but that the
admissions committee did. She discussed transportation to
private schools and communicated that public schools had
many choices available. She stressed that strong public
schools were important and urged the committee to support
the state's public schools.
9:34:17 PM
GEORGE PIERCE, SELF, KASILOF (via teleconference), spoke in
strong opposition to the resolution. He urged the
legislature to do its job by supporting the state's people.
He relayed that over 90 percent of the state's people were
opposed to the resolution. He believed the resolution was
ridiculous and stated that parents loved the Anchorage
School District the way it was. He stated that legislators
were hired to do what people wanted them to do and were
hired to fund the public schools. He believed the
resolution should be thrown in the trash
RICHARD ONORATO, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke against the resolution. He related that he received a
good education in a private school, but had witnessed
discrimnation against students. He discussed a change that
had occurred over time regarding education in Alaska and
spoke of an issue with overloaded classrooms. He spoke of
vocational training and charter schools in the public
system and thought that the Anchorage School District was
doing a fantastic job. He acknowledged difficulties with
education in Rural Alaska and stated that it seemed like
funding was continual being cut. He thought that the
discussion of vouchers and the resolution seemed like
political posturing. He thought that the populace was
against the resolution.
9:40:09 PM
POSIE BOGGS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the resolution because she believed the state
was focusing on the wrong things related to education;
strong public schools should be the priority. She discussed
Alaska's failure in producing literate citizens and
asserted that there had been no significant improvement in
reading among Alaskan students since 2003 in the national
assessment. She stated that there was no proof that private
school teachers would teach literacy any better than the
state's public teachers; reading created opportunities. She
thought if money was to be spent on education, teachers and
teacher candidates should be supported so they passed
rigorous licensure examinations in reading instruction;
current tests were not rigorous.
LINDA HULEN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), voiced
opposition to the resolution. She was amazed at the
eloquence of some of the testifiers and assumed many of
them were products of the public education system. She did
believed that if the resolution was passed, it would
destroy public education in Alaska. She did not think that
the resolution was for the good of all children in Alaska.
She pointed out that funding in the state already could not
keep up with inflation and that the funding was decreasing
over time. She stated that the public system did not turn
any students away but served everyone and offered that
there were already plenty of choices in Alaska's education
system.
9:46:13 PM
PATRICK MONTAGUE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of SJR 9 and related that he was for
anything that promoted a choice to parents. He believed
that private education would stimulate results and noted
that the nation's first schools were private.
MATT MILLER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against SJR 9. He thought that with the Anchorage
School District facing a $23 million budget deficit, it was
not the time discuss diverting public money to private,
for-profit institutions. He stated that Alaskans did pay
taxes via property taxes and state revenues so that the
government could provide some services; educating children
was one of those services and benefitted the community. He
offered that there were a lot of choices in Alaska and that
the resolution was not about choice, but about who paid for
that choice. He reported that he was not opposed to private
schools, but was opposed to public money being taken away
from public schools and given to private institutions that
were not required to operate by the same standards. He
opined that it was not about competition when private
schools were not required to hire certified teachers, have
district-approved curriculum, and were able to control
their classroom size. He observed that private schools were
not required to accept all students and recalled that the
private school he had attended did not accept African
Americans or students of any color. He asserted that the
larger issue was that private schools did not have to
accept low-achieving students, students with special needs,
or students with behavioral problems; this would lead to
increasing the proportion of high-cost students in public
schools, while at the same time reducing the funding to
those schools.
9:51:05 PM
PAUL D. BERAN, SELF, JUNEAU, testified against SJR 9 and
opined that a necessary pre-requisite for democracy was an
educated population. He spoke from the perspective of a
minister and parent. He pointed out that public schools
educated everyone and did not discriminate against students
regardless of color, creed, race, or affluence. He thought
the resolution would neglect the less fortunate. He opined
that Alaska State Constitution was recognized as one of the
premier state constitutions in all 50 states and cautioned
against changing it. He reported that the needs of special
students were greater and urged the committee not to pass
legislation that harmed those in the most need. He strongly
opposed funding private or religious schools with public
funds.
SJR 9 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Meyer discussed the following meeting's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
9:53:58 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR 9 - opposition - Hymes.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Anderson.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Arians.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Benning.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Brawley.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Brooks.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Cook.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - de Lucia.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Desjarlais.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Freeman.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Hadaway.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Heinle.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Homme.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Iden.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Illingworth.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Klaameyer.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Lantz.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Manning.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - McCorquodale.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Myers.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - O'Donnell.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Parmelee.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - public education offerings.docx |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Roberts.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Sholton.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Slyker.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Stark.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Vondersaar.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Waisanen.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Wiggin 2.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Wiggin.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Willis.doc |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Wiltse.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Zafren.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Zimmer.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9- opposition - Goldsmith.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR9 - opposition - Adasiak - Andrew.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR9 - opposition - Gary.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR9 - opposition - Zuspan.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR9 - opposition Spalding.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR9 opposition - Miller.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Binkley.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Carr.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Coons.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Davidson.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Ellert.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Kreig 2.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Kreig.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Kruckenberg.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - LeMay 2.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - LeMay.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - McAnally.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Pankion.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Rensel.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Roof.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Steele.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Wood.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Zerkel.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 support - Knox.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR9 - support Goodwin.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Gossett.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Fulton.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Hensel.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Barber.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Smerjac.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Roach.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Forbes.msg |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Ministries of the Living Stones, Inc..pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Plant.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 9 |