Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/13/2013 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Education Reform & School Choice | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 13, 2013
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Lynn Gattis, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Harriet Drummond
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Mike Dunleavy, Vice Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Berta Gardner
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Donald Olson
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Senator Bert Stedman
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tammy Wilson
Senator Pete Kelly
Senator Click Bishop
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: EDUCATION REFORM & SCHOOL CHOICE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
Richard "Dick" Komer, Senior Attorney
Institute for Justice (IJ)
Arlington, Virginia
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated as a guest speaker at the
presentation on education reform and school choice.
KEVIN CHAVOUS, Executive Counsel
American Federation for Children (AFC)
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated as the special guest speaker
at the presentation on education reform and school choice.
DR. PATRICK WOLF, PhD, Professor of Education
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Arkansas
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated as a guest speaker at the
presentation on education reform and school choice.
ROBERT ENLOW, President and Chief Executive Officer
Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice
Indianapolis, Indiana
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated as a guest speaker at the
presentation on education reform and school choice.
DR. BENJAMIN SCAFIDI, PhD, Associate Professor
Georgia College & State University
Milledgeville, Georgia
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated as a guest speaker at the
presentation on education reform and school choice.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:43 PM
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the joint meeting of the House and
Senate Education Standing Committees and the House and Senate
Judiciary Standing Committees to order at 1:32 p.m. Present at
the call to order from the House Education Standing Committee
were Representatives LeDoux, Reinbold, Drummond, and Gattis.
Present from the Senate Education Standing Committee were
Senators Gardner, and Dunleavy; Senator Huggins arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Present from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee were Representatives LeDoux, Lynn, and
Keller; Representative Foster arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Present from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
were Senators Coghill, Wielechowski, Olson, and Dyson; Senator
McGuire arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^Presentation: Education Reform & School Choice
Presentation: Education Reform & School Choice
1:33:33 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the only order of business would be
a presentation on education reform and school choice.
1:37:08 PM
RICHARD "DICK" KOMER, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
(IJ), said IJ is a non-profit public interest law firm and
considers itself to be "the lawyers to the school choice
movement," and that he has been working in this arena for 20
years assisting legislators interested in creating school choice
programs. Advice is based on state law precedents as
interpreted in each state's constitution. Assuming a state
program is passed, IJ will assist in the defense of any legal
challenges that arise; typically lodged by parents who want to
make use of scholarships provided by school choice programs. He
reported that IJ is currently defending five programs that have
been passed in Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, and New
Hampshire. Four of these states have a constitutional provision
similar to the Blaine Amendment that the legislature is seeking
to modify in the Alaska Constitution. Four of the named states
are citing a breach of the Blaine Amendment, and seeking to have
the action declared unconstitutional. Louisiana repealed the
Blaine Amendment that had been part of their constitution, and
he noted that the states of Arkansas and New Jersey did the
same. Repealing the Blaine Amendment is not an unprecedented
action, further, he said it was originally enacted to rebuff the
efforts of Catholics to obtain equal, direct, funding for
schools of the diocese. The key term is "direct" and will be
addressed further, he pointed out. At the time, the public
schools were non-denominational, Protestant facilities.
Hostility existed between these two factions in the 1840s and
the Blaine Amendment was created out of this strong anti-
Catholic atmosphere. It has been said that the judiciary branch
is the least dangerous branch of the government; however, it
does have the final word on interpreting the meaning of
constitutional and statutory language. When a constitutional
provision has been challenged and received a judicial ruling,
the only recourse that the people have is to amend the
constitution in order to change the language that the court has
interpreted. He opined that the language in the Alaskan
Constitution could be argued as being misinterpreted by the
Alaska Supreme Court, and suggested that it was never meant to
prohibit school choice programs. He said this occurred through
the arguments and decisions that occurred in two law suits:
Matthews v. Quinton, (Alaska 1961) (Matthews), finding a statute
authorizing transportation of non-public school pupils on public
school buses violated Alaska's Constitutional provision
prohibiting expenditure of public funds for the direct benefit
of any religious or other private educational institution; and
Sheldon Jackson College v. State, (Alaska 1979)(Sheldon Jackson
College) which concluded that a state's tuition grant program,
awarding students a difference between tuition charged by a
private college and a public college, violated the state
constitutional prohibition of using public funds for direct
benefit of religious or other private educational institutions.
MR. KOMER continued and said that the problem arises from the
Alaska Supreme Court's interpretation of one sentence in
particular, which reads: "No money shall be paid from public
funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private
educational institution." The term "direct benefit of" has been
interpreted by the Alaskan court to include assistance provided
to students and their families if that assistance can be used
for private educational institutions. He said it is necessary
to interpret "direct" and it is found in other state
constitutions, often in conjunction with "indirect." In the
course of considering this provision, the Alaska constitutional
convention considered and rejected inclusion of "and indirect;"
encompassing some other additional sorts of aid beyond direct
assistance. Direct aid is when the state makes grants available
to private institutions, at either the elementary or
postsecondary level. Indirect aid suggests that the benefit is
provided on behalf of the parents to the religious or private
institution. He suggested that comparing these two statements
clearly indicates the contrast of the two terms. However, the
Supreme Court has interpreted the constitutional language of
direct to also encompass indirect assistance and that is why "it
must go," he opined. If you want school choice in Alaska you
will need to change this language, as the legislature cannot
overrule the Supreme Court's interpretation.
MR. KOMER explained the history of federal jurisprudence in
conjunction with state constitutions. Reaching parallel
conclusions has proven difficult along with finding clarity for
whether the federal constitution allows school choice programs.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Zelman v. Simmons-
Harris, 536 US 639 (2002) (Zelman) clarified that scholarship
type programs are allowed under the Federal Establishment
Clause; a ruling which has essentially opened the state to not
be challenged in federal court. The federal constitution does
not allow direct, unrestricted grants to private, religious
schools or colleges. Because of the Zelman case it does allow
student scholarships to be provided to families where the
parents make a free and independent choice of school as long as
the program, in which they are making that choice, is
religiously neutral. The Zelman standard would be the effective
legal standard in Alaska, if the Blaine Amendment is eliminated;
direct aid is not allowed to religious schools but aid can be
provided for families. Finally, he described and emphasized how
a Federal Pell Grant is issued directly to an institution and
underscored that it is provided as satisfaction for the benefit
of a families' contractual obligation to the school, not as
direct aid to the college.
1:58:40 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if private schools accepting public
money are subject to state rules, such as the antidiscrimination
provisions; has there been a ruling.
MR. KOMER responded that there exists a civil rights law which
applies to all private colleges and institutions prohibiting
discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin. It
was passed after the civil war, and applies regardless of
whether state dollars are accepted, Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S.
160 (1976)(Runyon). Nondiscrimination requirements are not
based entirely on whether federal dollars are received, and
state law can attach civil rights provisions. He noted that
there are reasons why the public education requirements are not
imposed in most states, which is why Wellesley College is
allowed to continue as a single sex institution.
2:03:38 PM
KEVIN CHAVOUS, Executive Counsel, American Federation for
Children (AFC), spoke in support of repealing the Blaine
Amendment and said it stands in the way of reaching the
educational goals that the legislature finds important for
Alaska. Providing a brief background, he relayed that he was a
member of the District of Columbia (D.C.) council for 12 years,
1993-2005, and served for eight of those years as chairman of
the education committee. During 1996-97, he led the effort to
establish charter schools in D.C. The district has one of the
most prolific and substantial charter school laws in the nation,
and, as a result, nearly 45 percent of the public school
students are in attendance. In 2003, he reported working in
conjunction with the President, U.S. Secretary of Education, and
the mayor of D.C., to form a partnership, with a three sector
strategy. The federal government agreed to provide D.C. annual
funding of $50 million, to be divided equally and disbursed in
thirds to the cities traditional school system; charter schools,
particularly for facilities funding; and as support of the
voucher/scholarship program, providing approximately $7,500 in
tuition assistance to the city's acutely impoverished children.
As a result of the voucher program, today nearly 2,000 children
are benefiting, and, he opined, that demographically these are
children who may otherwise have dropped out and not succeeded in
completing school. Current statistics indicate a 94 percent
graduation rate, which is 40 points higher than the D.C. public
school system, and 89 percent are tracked as college attendees.
Through this experience, he said, came the understanding of the
value for educational choice, which is now a movement he
passionately pursues and has become totally immersed in. He
said children are being done a vast dis-service by not allowing
them to maximize their human potential. He suggested that it is
important to consider the context of the proposal before the
committee. Thirty years after the publication of "A Nation at
Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform," A Report to the
Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department
of Education, by The National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983, America's education system output has worsened.
Through this experience, he said, three truisms have been
proven. First: nearly half of the children of color drop out
of school; the national fourth and eighth grade scores are down;
fewer advance placement (AP) courses are being offered; and most
troubling is that the U.S. is becoming less competitive on a
global front with other industrialized nations. He reported
that nearly 7,000 high school students drop out each day in
America, or 1.2 million per year. Alaska spends more per capita
for education than any other state, yet achievement ratings are
among the worst in the nation. He opined that there should be an
immense sense of urgency for action that is radical, bold, and
meaningful and that this is not a time for incrementalism.
Second: A school bureaucracy will not reform itself from
within, he said, "they never have, and they never will." Reform
occurs only when external pressures are brought to bear, and the
best means to affect change is through choice. Third: In the
cities where educational reform has taken place, the public
schools have also improved; debunking the notion that
educational choice programs negatively impact traditional public
schools. He said that Milwaukie has the longest running
scholarship program. The public schools are still the primary
educational institutions, and from 2003-09, graduation rates
have improved from 49 percent to 70 percent. He opined that the
Milwaukie public schools scholarship program, now in its
twentieth year, provided a jump start for educational reform.
Florida implemented robust reform measures that allowed 50,000
children to attend quality schools. From 1998-2007, data
indicates a marked improvement in reading scores at the fourth
grade level, up from 53 to 71 percent. Louisiana started a New
Orleans scholarship program five years ago, and expanded
statewide one year ago. The results have brought monumental
change with 10,000 parents making application on behalf of their
children. Indiana has a statewide program and, he said
something occurred there that has not happened anywhere else.
Indianapolis has the worst performing schools in the nation, and
when Indiana passed the reform measures to allow charter
schools, the public schools paid for advertisements "to remind
parents that they could educate their children, too." Education
of choice provides the impetus for reforms that otherwise
wouldn't take place, he stressed. The sense of urgency means
that it is necessary to figure out a way to "fly the plane at
the same time as we fix it." Finally, he said, the biggest
barrier to change is not with the institutions, but with the
political partisanship that has crept into the arena. The yard
stick for measure, that he suggested using, is to ask the
question whether a proposal, democratic or republican, will help
children.
2:17:06 PM
SENATOR GARDNER pointed out that Alaska currently offers
educational alternatives in the form of magnate, specialty,
home, correspondence, and charter schools. She said charter
schools require a grassroots, community approach for leadership,
which may come from the public or teachers working with the
school district. The terminology may be what makes these
schools different from what the speaker is describing, and she
asked for clarification.
MR. CHAVOUS acknowledged that Alaska has a variety of schools,
but each is in conjunction with the public schools. He
suggested that opportunities for children should not be limited
to the scope offered by public schools, as private institutions
may be available that could meet an individuals' needs, which
otherwise may not have been possible. Children respond to
different learning modalities, he stressed, and institutions
should be laboratories to discover ways to meet learning needs
and should not be limited or trumped by adult interests.
2:19:12 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI inquired if it would be better to
completely privatize the school system, and whether AFC supports
providing parents a check to allow them to make an educational
choice for their child.
MR. CHAVOUS responded no, an organization should not dictate
parental choice. He emphasized the need for a variety of
choices with the focus on cultivating quality education
services. If the best possibility is with a public school, AFC
would support that option, he said.
2:20:35 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY queried who or what groups oppose putting
children first.
MR. CHAVOUS the opposition usually arrives through the
traditional education establishment, or through partisan
politics; he underscored the need to elevate the importance of a
child's education above the political floor.
2:22:38 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there are any public school
systems located in low income areas that are working; without
charter schools or a voucher system. If so, what can be gleaned
from their example, and if not are charter schools and vouchers
the only solution.
MR. CHAVOUS cautioned against using the term "only," and said a
host of solutions are necessary in order to provide choice;
however, there are no urban school districts that are working
for children; none can report success levels of 80-90 percent.
He suggested that the view of success has been dumbed down, and
superintendents now get contract renews based on their ability
to show a 5-7 percent increase. If 65 percent of the children
in a district are proficient, that does not represent success,
he opined. He defined proficient to mean reading at grade
level.
2:24:42 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE said the school movement has been referred to as
a modern civil rights movement. She said that children are
attending private school based on the ability of parents to pay
tuition. She expressed concern for providing the state
allocated funds for educational choice, and questioned whether
the public school system would be degraded by such action.
MR. CHAVOUS cited the history of the movement and said it has
been shown that not only do the children benefit, but the states
have saved money. The charter movement began 20 years ago and
has continued to expand. Experience does not indicate a mad
rush to alternative programs, but it does put pressure on the
established system to perform. Rather than the ruination of the
public schools, the movement appears to be the salvation.
2:30:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed that the public schools would not
experience a mass exodus, and asked if vouchers might become a
subsidy program for parents who are already affording an
education of choice.
MR. CHAVOUS answered that states handle it in different ways
when creating parameters for the voucher system. He suggested
that parent means be tested to ensure that the neediest students
are prioritized.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that what AFC advocates is not an
all-encompassing choice but one limited by means testing, or for
schools that are failing.
MR. CHAVOUS clarified that the failing school model doesn't
work, because measures can be taken to skew reality. However,
means testing is a preferable method.
2:34:29 PM
DR. PATRICK WOLF, PhD, Professor of Education, University of
Arkansas, paraphrased from a prepared document, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
In addition to my position as a professor at the
University of Arkansas, I also am a consultant to the
U.S. Department of Education regarding the design and
implementation of rigorous evaluations of education
programs. I want to make it clear that I am speaking
to you today in my capacity as a scholar. The
opinions that I share with you do not necessarily
represent any official positions of the Obama
Administration, the U.S. Department of Education, or
the University of Arkansas.
Today, 31 private school choice programs, funded by
direct government appropriations or tax-credits, serve
245,000 children nationally. I have spent the past 14
years studying such programs, especially the school
voucher programs in Milwaukee and the District of
Columbia.
Last year my research team released the final reports
from our longitudinal evaluation of the nation's first
school voucher program, the Milwaukee Parental Choice
Program. Established in 1990, the Choice program
enrolled 25,000 students in 113 private schools of
their parents' choosing in 2012.
Through careful scientific analysis, we were able to
determine that the students in the Milwaukee Parental
Choice Program outgained similar Milwaukee Public
School students in reading over a four-year period,
though achievement gains for the two groups were
similar in math.
Importantly, we also confirmed that Choice students
outperformed public school students in educational
attainment. Just as educational achievement is a
measure of how much you know in school, educational
attainment is a measure of how far you go in school.
It is commonly measured by important benchmarks such
as high school graduation, college enrollment, and
persistence in college.
The students in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program
attained all of these important benchmarks at rates
that were 4-7 percentage points higher than comparable
Milwaukee public school students. The public school
students in our Milwaukee study enrolled in college at
the rate of 25 percent, so the fact that the Choice
students attended college at the higher rate of 30
percent represents a 20 percent increase in college
enrollment rates for low-income Milwaukee students due
to the Choice program.
These higher educational attainment rates for Choice
students are important because young people who go
farther in school do better in life. Students who
graduate from high school live longer, earn more money
during their lifetime, and are less likely ever to be
divorced, unemployed or incarcerated than students who
do not graduate.
Through the course of our study we also determined
that the Choice program generated competitive pressure
on Milwaukee Public Schools that led to increases in
student achievement even for the public school
students who never participated in the program.
School choice in Milwaukee generated a rising tide
that lifted all boats.
What is perhaps most amazing about the Milwaukee
Parental Choice Program is that it produced all of
these positive outcomes -- higher reading scores and
graduation rates for Choice students and higher
achievement scores for public school students -- while
saving Wisconsin taxpayers money. The maximum amount
of the Milwaukee voucher has hovered around $6,500 for
the past five years, a period during which the average
amount spent on each Milwaukee public school student
surged from $12,000 to $15,000. Because the value of
the private school voucher in Milwaukee is so much
less than per-pupil spending in the public schools, my
research team was able to determine that the operation
of the Choice program saves Wisconsin taxpayers over
$52 million per year.
So our final verdict on the Milwaukee Parental Choice
Program is that it produced better outcomes for
students at lower cost to the state.
Such encouraging results are common when researchers
use scientific methods to evaluate school voucher
programs. The generally positive effects of private
school choice are similar for both government-financed
voucher programs and tax-credit financed scholarship
programs. As reported in Education Week last year, of
the 10 gold-standard experimental evaluations of
voucher and voucher-type programs, 9 have reported
achievement gains from the voucher program for all or
some subgroups of participating students. For
example, in an evaluation of the DC Opportunity
Scholarship Program that I led for the U.S. Department
of Education we found that, after three years,
students who used the federally-sponsored vouchers
gained an additional 4.5 months of learning compared
to students in the control group.
The DC choice students also graduated from high school
at much higher rates than control group students. The
impact of using a DC school voucher was to increase
the likelihood of a student graduating from high
school by 21 percentage points, from 70 percent to 91
percent. That represents a 30 percent gain in the
high school graduation rate for a highly disadvantaged
group of students.
David Figlio of Northwestern University is conducting
a rigorous longitudinal evaluation of the Florida
statewide Tax-Credit Scholarship Program which helps
over 50,000 low-income students enroll in private
schools. He has found that the school choice program
has produced a statistically significant increase in
the reading achievement of participating students.
Although math achievement also is higher among the
students exercising school choice in Florida, that
difference is not quite statistically significant at
normal confidence levels. In Milwaukee, DC, and
Florida, we see very similar findings that private
school choice increases student reading scores. No
rigorous study of private school choice programs has
ever found that they harmed students academically.
Moreover, study after study, of both voucher and tax-
credit scholarship programs, has shown that public
schools deliver better educational results for their
students when they face competition from private
school choice. Of 20 rigorous studies of the
competitive effects of private school choice on public
schools, 19 of them documented that competition led to
an increase in student performance.
Another finding that is absolutely undeniable is that
private school choice programs serve highly
disadvantaged students, because they are designed to
do so. Of the 31 voucher and tax-credit scholarship
programs in the U.S., 18 are means-tested so that they
serve lower-income families. A total of 6 programs
are limited to students in underperforming public
schools. Two programs, in New Orleans and the state
of Ohio, are doubly targeted specifically to low-
income students in poor-performing public schools.
Nine voucher programs are limited exclusively to
students with disabilities. Those special needs
voucher programs enroll over 14 percent of all school
voucher users.
Let's take a quick look at the students who
participated in the DC voucher program beginning in
2004. Over 99 percent of them were African American
or Hispanic American. Their average annual family
income was just over $17,000 -- in Arkansas we call
that "dirt poor." Only 6 percent of the mothers of
participating students had college degrees. Over 17
percent of the participating students had a diagnosed
disability. The students served by this federal
school choice program were highly disadvantaged.
At the start of our Milwaukee study, in 2006, we had
to match up the voucher students in our panel with a
lower-performing segment of public school students
because the voucher children were so much more
disadvantaged than their public school peers. As my
colleague John Witte likes to say, "The evidence is
overwhelming that voucher programs do not cream the
best and the brightest kids. In fact, it is the
opposite. They attract more disadvantaged students
out of the public schools."
Researchers also have examined the effect of school
vouchers or private schooling on civic values such as
racial integration, political tolerance, and
voluntarism. The voucher programs that have operated
in major cities have either improved the racial
integration of schools or have had no effect on
integration, positive or negative. Such programs
often improve racial integration because they allow
minority students to leave overwhelmingly minority
public schools for private schools with fewer
minorities.
Studies of the effect of private schooling on
political tolerance similarly tend to report either
positive effects or no net effect. Research has
confirmed that students and adults volunteer in their
communities at higher rates if they have exercised
private school choice.
One of the strongest positive impacts of school choice
programs is on parent satisfaction with schools.
Every study that has asked the question has found that
parents are much happier with their child's school if
they played a role in choosing it. In my DC study we
found that 80 percent of voucher parents graded their
child's school A or B compared to just 50 percent of
the parents of control group students.
In sum, private school choice programs
disproportionately serve disadvantaged students. They
deliver a variety of educational benefits to them
under most circumstances. They spur affected public
schools to improve. Parents love them! They tend to
enhance and not undermine the public purposes of
education and deliver education more efficiently.
Mister Chairman and members of the committee, I can
throw impressive school choice statistics at you all
afternoon, but to get a clear idea of what a voucher
program does for families, we also conducted focus
groups with parents and older students participating
in the school choice programs we evaluated. I will
conclude with a quote from a parent of a student in
the DC voucher program explaining why the program was
important to her:
"When my son dressed in that uniform with that green
blazer, the white shirt, tie, gray trousers and he
looked like a gentleman and a scholar and he had his
hair cut and his glasses and he was just grinning from
ear to ear that he was going to be a part of that
[private school culture] and he went to school that
day and he was excited about going to school."
2:45:34 PM
SENATOR GARDNER reported that for-profit charter schools do not
report a history of success, and asked whether these facilities
have been studied.
DR. WOLF indicated that all charter schools are organized as
not-for-profit, but not all private schools take a not-for-
profit stance. He pointed out that some public charter schools
have for-profit management organizations, but declined comment,
as his familiarity and expertise is with the private school
choice through voucher programs.
2:47:28 PM
ROBERT ENLOW, President and Chief Executive Officer, Friedman
Foundation for Educational Choice, Education choice referred to
the committee handout titled "Some Fiscal Issues and School
Choice," directed attention to page 3, and said the presentation
provides a financial roadmap and responds to whether school
choice harms state/local school district budgets. The first
graph, titled "Growth in Students and Public School Personnel
United States, FY 1950 to FY 2009," indicates that, during this
period, the number of students increased by 96 percent, while
the total school personnel grew by 386 percent. He said the
personnel number can be broken down further to understand the
increase of teachers, 252 percent, and administrators and other
staff, 702 percent. He pointed out that the second graph,
"Growth in Students and Public School Personnel United States,
FY 1992 to FY 2009, indicates a continuation of the trend with a
student increase of 17 percent, and a more than double increase
in school personnel of 39 percent. He stressed that since 1950
the increase in personnel, particularly administrative
personnel, has been dramatic. The students' achievements did
not rise between 1970 and 2009, primarily remaining flat, and in
some instances show as worsened. He pointed out that the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) did not require an increase in
administrative staff to this extent, and, as illustrated,
American public schools are more top-heavy than other wealthy
nations. He moved through the graphs to address how Alaska can
be compared, beginning with a graph titled, "Student-Teacher
Ratio," showing that Alaska has a teacher to student ratio of
1:16.5 versus the U.S. statistic of 1:15.3, and the ratio to
administrators and other non-teaching staff for Alaska is 1:14.2
compared to 1:15.9 for the remainder of the U.S. He directed
attention to the graph titled "Ratio of Students to Public
School Employees," which indicates a ratio of 1:7.6 for Alaska,
which is comparable to the U.S. ratio of 1:7.8. However,
turning to the graph titled "Growth in Students and Public
School Personnel Alaska, FY 1992 to FY 2009," the student
increase is 10 percent with a 23 percent increase in total
school personnel. In terms of teachers and administrators it is
11 and 34 percent, respectively. The increase in teachers is on
par with the increase in students, but the administrator and
other staff increase is 300 percent. He reported that between
FY 1992 and FY 2009, Alaska public schools hired administrators
and other non-teaching staff at almost 3.5 times the rate of
increases in students and teachers. He suggested the question:
"What if Alaska had increased non-teaching staff at the same
rate as its increase in students?" The answer, he offered would
be that Alaska public schools would have saved $66,600,000 per
year in annual recurring savings. The $66 million per year
savings could have provided more than $12,700 per classroom of
25 students, given every Alaska teacher an $8,400 raise, reduced
state or local taxes, and offered children scholarships to
private schools or other options. Alaska is among 21 top heavy
states. He said this is an important factor to consider when
pondering the effects of school choice on state and local
budgets. It's a straightforward measure to design a school
choice program that saves the state money. Currently, when
children transfer from one public school to another the money
follows the child, based on the school funding formula. A means
to ensure that money is saved, when introducing private schools,
is to make sure that the state funds which follow a transferring
child are less than the average state per student allocation.
By implementing this strategy, there is no way that the fiscal
effects of school choice can be anything but positive and
beneficial to the state, the taxpayers, and the students, he
opined. Addressing the question of what happens to the
remaining students, when some students leave traditional public
schools via a choice program, he said they are not harmed and
may benefit academically. A myth exists around this question,
he said, including a concern for loss of resources to those who
remain in the traditional school system. It is interesting that
the argument exists, as teachers still need to be hired, the
lights need to be turned on, and a janitor needs to be employed.
The concept is that every cost in the traditional schools is
fixed; however, the reality does not support this concern.
Costs are either fixed or variable, and the federal government
categorizes funding into specific areas, which are: capital
expenditures, interest, general administration, school
administration, operations and maintenance, transportation,
other support services, instruction, student support,
instructional staff support, enterprise operations, and food
service.
2:54:50 PM
DR. BENJAMIN SCAFIDI, PhD, Associate Professor, Georgia College
& State University, President, Education Choice continued the
presentation and said that fixed versus variable costs were
determined through studies based on data from four school
districts in Georgia. These schools lost students for a variety
of reasons, excluding school choice. Schools which lost six
percent of the student body, cut costs more than commensurately,
in the areas of: instruction, student support, instructional
staff support, enterprise operations, and food service. Student
achievement did not falter, hence, these costs can be considered
variable. Funding that follows the child that is less than
these variable costs, improves the finances of a school district
even in the short-run. He said he completed this study for
every state, including Alaska, and then directed attention to a
graph titled "Spending Per Student in Fall Enrollment," to point
out that Alaska provides nearly $18,000 per student. Applying
the same methodology, he estimated that 61.9 percent of the
$18,000 represents short-run variable costs, or $11,140. He
said the remaining $6,856 per student are short-run fixed costs,
which the state should consider allowing a school to retain when
a student exists for reasons of school choice. He pointed out
that, in the long-run, all costs are variable. Thus, any school
choice program in Alaska where $11,140 per student or less
follows a child to the school of choice improves the fiscal
situation of a public school district on average, and students
who remain in public schools would have more resources devoted
to their education.
2:58:30 PM
CHAIR COGHILL said a new perspective has been brought to the
committee and further discussion will ensue when the question of
a constitutional amendment has been put before the people of
Alaska.
2:59:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the Alaska Performance
Scholarship (APS) and student loan program, to ask how they
square with the constitutional prohibition.
MR. KOMER answered that the programs may operate without
challenge, but, he opined, both are definitely constitutionally
suspect when held up to the Sheldon Jackson College decision.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked the participants and the gallery.
3:00:29 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, the joint
meeting between the House and Senate Education Standing
Committees and the House and Senate Judiciary Standing
Committees was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|