Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
01/23/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB145 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 145-K-12 SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
8:09:26 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 145, "An Act establishing the parental choice
scholarship program to be administered by school districts for
the purpose of paying the cost of attending grades kindergarten
through 12 at public and private schools; and providing for an
effective date."
8:09:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt committee substitute (CS)
for HB 145, labeled 27-LS0223\Y, Mischel, 1/21/12.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
8:10:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, updated the
committee on action, during the legislative interim, that has
occurred regarding HB 145. A statewide survey was conducted, by
the [Milton] Friedman [For Educational Choice], to discover the
level of interest in school choice. He summarized a particular
question from the survey, which queried whether residents would
agree to have a voucher program payable for tuition at
private/religious schools, utilizing state funds budgeted for
the base student allocation (BSA). The survey reported a 64
percent approval rate for the concept. However, he emphasized
that the bill, more accurately, proposes to establish a separate
appropriation for the school choice program, and does not draw
upon the BSA funding. Responding to committee member requests,
Representative Keller finished his recap of the original bill,
underscoring that the intent of this legislation is to support
school choice, inclusive of private schools, and that public
money should be utilized for the best benefit of the children.
Addressing the CS, he said it does not alter the primary,
original, intent of the bill, but three significant changes have
been introduced. First, Version Y language repositions program
administration, placing it under the purview of the Department
of Education and Early Development (EED), rather than the
individual school districts. Secondly, the program it clarifies
that the program is to be exclusive for private/religious
schools. Finally, a requirement is made to have the actual cost
reflected, and to include a funding cap based on what a
similarly situated public school student would be eligible to
receive.
8:17:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed that the original bill applied
more broadly, to a variety of schools, and Version Y adheres
strictly to private religious schools.
CHUCK KOPP, Staff, Senator Fred Dyson, Alaska State Legislature,
responded yes, and indicated that Senator Dyson has introduced a
companion bill in the other body.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reminded the committee that not all
private schools are religious.
8:18:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the bill is directed to
private religious or private/religious schools.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that the bill would allow state
funds to be directed to any private school, without restriction.
Further, he said that the passage of CSHB145 is contingent upon
the passage of HJR 16, which amends the Alaska Constitution and
the Blaine amendments therein.
MR. KOPP added that the Alaska Constitution prohibits state
funding from being distributed, as a direct benefit, to a
private or religious institution, and this legislation proposes
to alter that language. He explained that Version Y is
restricted to private/religious schools, because, state funding
options already exist for public, charter, and home school
opportunities.
8:20:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the CS eliminates any
schools, such as correspondence programs, that were previously
included in HB 145.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that it does not qualify "any
more than it did before; it just takes out the fact that a
participating school could be a public school." Further, he
said that the term private school is well defined in statute.
8:21:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT referred to cost formulas, and asked what
would prevent a private school from increasing costs with the
influx of state funding. Will a mechanism be incorporated to
ensure that EED could monitor reasonable growth, in the private
sector, and guard against tuition increases based on bias due to
the funding source, he asked.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that the private schools are
required to certify the actual cost of educating a student. He
opined that full tuition funding will not be immediately
available and he would expect private schools to respond
appropriately. He said the state will retain the ability to
control the throttle, regarding the number and amounts of each
scholarship, through the appropriation process.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked how the appropriation pool would be
distributed to each school, and, additionally, will an
individual school be directed on how the state funds are to be
distributed within the institution.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered that, dependent on the amount
appropriated, it is stipulated that the funds will be prorated
between participating schools. To a follow up question, he
confirmed that EED would make fund distributions based on
departmental generated regulations.
8:26:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that the
department would not be directed to regulate the participating
schools, and that the intent was to provide funding based on
student attendance. He opined that if the department decides on
the level of scholarships to be awarded it would boarder on
writing regulations for the private institutions.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that EED will have complete
power to regulate the program in the context of the law; such as
prorated scholarship amount distributions based on standards set
by the department.
8:27:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE stated that the funding should be made
available without constraints; let the market decide. He opined
that no more or less will be spent on education, and the state
should not attempt to over manage where appropriated money is
directed.
8:28:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA cited the law suits that have been brought
against the state regarding the level, and quality, of education
public school students receive, and asked how this would work to
improve the situation.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that the bill would assist in
providing a competitive education to all urban and rural
students, which encourages a level of competency that otherwise
may be lacking; as indicated through similar state supported
voucher/scholarship models adopted in the Lower 48 states.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA requested that expert witnesses be called
to testify regarding how existing schools would be affected by
this bill, as well as appropriate EED personnel regarding how
this would fit into the school budget.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE opined that allowing competition, within
the educational system, will result in better schools.
8:33:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER returned to the bill, page 3, line 4, to
indicate the addition of language, requested by this committee,
to address school size based on average daily membership (ADM).
The bill allows a two year response period to any school which,
as a result of this program, falls below the ADM minimum of 10.
Lastly, he pointed out that contingency language, related to the
constitutional amendment, has been added on page 4, line 17.
8:35:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked a series of questions: how many
private schools exist in Alaska; of those how many are
religious; the location of the private schools; and for an
opinion from the attorney general's office regarding this bill.
She opined that the state generally exerts control over
appropriated funds and there appears to be a lack of oversight
in this legislation. Further, she stressed that Alaska should
not be compared with other states in this instance as no other
state faces the same issues given the distances involved, as
well as other situations, unique to Alaska's rural settings.
The school policy requiring closure when attendance drops below
ten, is also a major concern. She pointed out that a
contradiction would exist if a school is given two years to
respond to a low ADM, but is also expected to be ramping down
for closure.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that, as reported in the
Friedman study, 2.5 percent of Alaskan students are in private
schools. Further he said that there is definite control for how
the money is spent and directed attention to page 2, line 17, to
point out the section titled "Accountability and enrollment
standards for a participating school." Continuing to line 32,
subparagraph (B), he explained that private schools operate in
compliance under the named statute [AS 14.45.030]; requirements
such as monthly attendance reports, annual reports, the
administration of nationally recognized proficiency tests, and
student record retention.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stressed concern for the possible
closure of a public school, should attendance fall below 10, due
to some students choosing to attend a private school. In a
small community that scenario could force the children, no
longer having a public school available, to enroll in the
private school; without choice.
CHAIR DICK offered that the committee packet contains an
amendment specific to Representative Wilson's concern.
8:41:45 AM
MR. KOPP began with Sec. 14.31.010, paraphrasing from the bill,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
The parental choice scholarship program is established
for the purpose of providing public funding of the
cost of attending grades kindergarten through 12 at a
private school selected by the student's parent or
legal guardian. The department shall administer the
program under the provisions of this chapter.
Participation of a school in the program does not
confer authority over a school to the department that
is not expressly provided for in this title.
MR. KOPP continued on page 2, line 2, paraphrasing the language
which read [original punctuation provided]:
(a) A private school in the state that is accepted for
participation in the program may receive a scholarship
under the program on behalf of a student who attends
the school, regardless of the attendance area in the
school district in which the student resides.
8:43:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how the bill addresses a situation
where a student resides in a rural community but attends a
boarding school.
MR. KOPP opined that for the purposes of the bill, residence
would be where the child's home is physically located.
8:44:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the state education
funding formula takes into account geographic cost differential
based on residence. He said:
As I read the bill, this would require the state to
pay the high expense to the private school if it has
high expenses, couldn't be over its tuition, even
though it's going into an area that would not have
that same high expense.
MR. KOPP answered that each year the legislature would decide on
the appropriation level for the program; not a standard per
district BSA. The program specifically allows EED to
appropriate funds to participating schools, based on the number
of applicants to the program. He offered a scenario of the
department distributing a hypothetical legislative allocation
with an end result of applicants receiving $200 per year;
following proration for equal division amongst the applicants.
The geographical costs are not a factor, as the funds are coming
directly from the department, not through the school district.
8:46:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON read from page 2, line 9, which states,
"for a similarly situated student to attend a public school in
the district in which the student resides." Thus, the level of
funding is based on where the student resides, he pointed out.
Further, because the cost of education is significantly more
expensive in rural Alaska than in an urban setting, a
proportional funding disparity would exist in this scenario. He
reminded the sponsor that geographic cost differential has been
the subject of legal challenges, which the state has lost in
court; being found negligent when the legislature took the
approach of funding the education of every student at the same
level without regard to residence location.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said it is safe to assume that a school
choice program would not initially receive full funding.
Whatever amount is appropriated, the intent is to prorate the
funds to the participating schools, not the individual students.
Proration will be based on either the private school tuition, or
the maximum amount available; the lesser amount of the two,
which then becomes a cap.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the proration, based on the
tuition of the school, would direct more money to a school with
higher tuition than to one with a lower tuition.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said it is not desirable to put into
statute the level of detail being questioned, as the department
will regulate how the money is distributed following
negotiations with the schools.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed that the legislature is not a
regulatory body; however, he maintained, it is important for
policy to be written in statute for how the proration of an
appropriation will be handled.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER argued that the legislature is notified
when regulations are initiated, and has an opportunity to be
involved in the process.
8:52:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked:
When you're talking about whether the legislature will
fund this program or not ... it's not so much that it
gets funded every year it's that ... you're taking the
total aid package, and determining how it gets
dispersed. So that the origination of the money is in
what the total aid package is overall. So ... I don't
know that this program would necessarily be
financially threatened every year so much as that what
we'll be deciding is what the overall level of funding
is for all the schools in the state. Is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded yes.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE directed attention to page 2, line 4, and
read: "regardless of the attendance area in the school district
in which the student resides." He suggested that, the first
"in" should read "or".
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER agreed that the clarification would be
important, and deferred to legal counsel.
8:54:58 AM
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, stated
agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE offered to propose a motion to amend this
language.
8:56:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON turned to page 4, lines 3-8 and read
[original punctuation provided]:
The legislature may appropriate parental choice
scholarship program funds to the department for
distribution to the participating schools. If the
appropriation for the program is insufficient in a
given fiscal year, the department shall distribute the
available funds to the participating schools prorated
by the total number of students participating in the
program.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that the department will make
regulations based on this language. She opined that the "shall"
requires the department to prorate by the number of students.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER maintained that a participating school
will have a large number of applicants but each applicant will
be representative of a different amount of cap money. The
proration is to the schools, based on the number of students who
apply. However, it does not specify what type of student it may
be, and not all applicants will be high cost students. He
reiterated that the intent of the law is not to specify how the
department will regulate the funding. He said:
Keep in mind that, if you have a student who is quote
'expensive' because of where he or she resides,
ultimately we're talking about less money going for
the education of that child. ... That is a fair
statement, because it's based on the cost of educating
the student by the participating school, it's not
based on the cap, it's not based on what this child is
quote 'worth,' crassly, to the school.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked where a cap is mentioned in the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER turned to page 2, line 7, and paraphrased
from the language which read [original punctuation provided]:
"... equal to the lesser of the cost of tuition
at the participating school or the amount the
district would receive as state and local aid
under AS 14.17 for a similarly situated student
to attend a public school in the district in
which the student resides.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said the "or" creates a cap, as the
funding is based on the lesser of the two, unless the program is
fully funded; an unlikely scenario.
9:01:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA cited the serious difficulty that Alaska
has experienced in maintaining compliance with the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) [of 2001]. She said that HB 145 provides an
opportunity to have the "cost of the school lowered not the
product. The product isn't a part of this, that's something you
might think about."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated appreciation for the insight and
said the bill is about the education of children, not about
protection of administrators. He reiterated that it is about
choice, and should parents have the choice or not, to send their
child to a private school.
9:02:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE cautioned that in a competitive market,
given the influx of state funding, private school tuition levels
may be increased.
9:03:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stressed the importance of specifying a
cap, of say 40 or 50 percent of the BSA, versus making an
assumption of what funding level the legislature may
appropriate. Also, he read again from page 2, line 7, he
stressed the language, which states, "... scholarship that is
equal to the lesser of the cost of tuition at the participating
school or the amount the district would receive as state and
local aid ...". Communities contribute local aid at a tax rate
of 4 mils and the state contributes for the education formula,
thus, he opined more will be paid to a private school, if it is
funded without a cap embedded in the language.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER acknowledged that the bill allows
government money to be distributed into an area that has never
before been eligible. He suggested that the finance committee
could best address how the local contribution fits into the
picture.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON added that the 4 mil rate increases
every year, in most areas of the state, except the rural areas
which are not assessed a mil rate.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER agreed that the educational funding system
is complex. However, he requested that any change, to the CS,
be forestalled to allow further consideration and testimony on
the topic. He requested that it be left as is to act as a place
holder for the time being.
9:10:01 AM
MR. KOPP continued with the sectional, paraphrasing from page 2,
line 11, which read [original punctuation provided]:
(c) The parent or legal guardian shall be responsible
for costs and fees assessed by a participating school
that exceed the amount paid under (b) of this section.
(d) The department shall provide transportation to a
participating school to the extent required under AS
14.09.020.
(e) A scholarship received for the benefit of a
student under this section must be used for
educational purposes. A scholarship is transferable
among participating schools.
9:10:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further information regarding
funding transferability.
MR. KOPP responded that the scholarship is not based on the cost
of education at a particular school, but rather on the number of
applicants for scholarships received from a school. If a
student receives a scholarship, in a participating school, and
changes schools during the year, it will be allowed if they
attend another participating school.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the scholarship is based on
the number of applicants, not on attendance.
MR. KOPP pointed out the requirement for each participating
school to report student attendance to EED.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his understanding that the
funding is allocated based on the number of applications.
MR. KOPP responded that the applicant would need to be accepted
by the school and the attendance records will reflect a
student's standing, to be reported to the department.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern that the schools would
be forward funded based on an application, and pointed out that
a student might then transfer between schools, which may receive
different levels of funding.
9:14:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested that using the term applicant may
cause some confusion. He offered that a student would need to
be an accepted applicant. A student might apply to six schools,
and the current language indicates that each of those schools
could receive benefit. However, at some point the student will
be enrolled and that is when, and where, the money would be
directed. Further, regarding transferability, he said that
under the current system student counts are established on
October 1, in order for a school to receive funding for the
year. The bill requires funds to be allocated once a year, and
the prorated share is for a particular individual; to be
transferred with the student to another school should the
situation arise.
9:16:25 AM
MR. KOPP said there is also a stop gap to allow for adjustments,
based on the department receiving reports and making quarterly
payments to a school. He directed attention to page 3, line 14,
to paraphrase from the section titled Department duties, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
(2) make scholarship payments directly to the school
quarterly after receiving proof satisfactory to the
department that the student claimed under a
scholarship attends the school on a full-time basis;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that, should a
student transfer to a public school, after October 1, the state
count date, program funding would not follow. Thus, the public
school could receive a student to educate without financial
support.
MR. KOPP agreed that the money would not transfer to a public
school. However, he explained, public schools have a mechanism
to account for student transfers during the school year. The
state BSA assumes that students will come and go with frequency
outside of the count period and does not inhibit principals from
accepting new students. Regarding the private sector, he
reiterated, the bill allows funds to follow student transfers
between participating schools.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER further clarified by directing attention
to page 3, line 17, which specifies that the department shall
make available to students and parents, a list of participating
schools.
CHAIR DICK concurred that the count date is a crucial point,
which will be further discussed.
9:19:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated her understanding that the
public schools assume the educational costs for students
arriving after the October 1 count date. She then expressed
concern for how the private/religious school acceptance process
might occur, and the basis for the criteria; might there be
restrictions on the enrollment of disadvantaged students.
9:22:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he anticipates that the private
sector will step up to provide specific support for intensive
needs students.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA queried whether the bill allows districts
or boroughs to opt out of this legislation. Perhaps a test case
could be opened prior to making it uniform across the state, or
include language for the possibility to opt in/out.
9:24:25 AM
MR. KOPP continued the sectional report, paraphrasing from page
2, line 20, which read [original punctuation provided]:
(a) The department shall accept a school for
participation in the parental choice scholarship
program if the school
(1) submits to the department, on a form approved by
the department, notice that the school intends to
participate in the program;
(2) meets the following financial accountability
standards:
(A) demonstrates the school's financial ability to
repay to the department any overpaid scholarship
funds; and
(B) certifies the actual annual costs to the school of
educating a student, including a prorated amount for
facility and operating costs; and
(3) is a school that is a
(A) private correspondence study program located and
operated entirely in the state; or
(B) private school operated in compliance with AS
14.45.030 or AS 14.45.100 - 14.45.130.
(b) Nothing in this chapter authorizes the department
to regulate a participating school except as necessary
to carry out the program.
MR. KOPP added that some of the state requirements for private
schools include: mandatory testing, immunization record
retention, and enrollment reporting to the district
superintendent. He then continued paraphrasing from page 3,
line 4, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Notwithstanding the lower limit for a student count of
10 under AS 14.17.450(a) and (b), a school that, as a
result of the program, has an ADM of less than 10
shall be treated as if the school had 10 students for
a two-year period following the date on which the ADM
is reported to be less than 10 for the purposes of
calculating the school size factor under AS 14.17.450.
In this subsection, "ADM" has the meaning given in AS
14.17.990.
Sec. 14.31.035. Departmental duties. (a) In
implementing the parental choice scholarship program,
the department shall
(1) obtain from the participating school a count of
the number of participating students in the program;
(2) make scholarship payments directly to the school
quarterly after receiving proof satisfactory to the
department that the student claimed under a
scholarship attends the school on a full-time basis;
(3) make available to students and students' parents
or guardians a list of schools that have been accepted
to participate in the program; and
(4) provide a standard application for use by a
participating school to enroll a student under the
program; a school may, however, supplement the
application.
(b) If the department determines that a school is
ineligible under this chapter to participate in the
program, the department shall, after administrative
and judicial appeal periods have lapsed, immediately
notify the affected students and the students' parents
or guardians.
Sec. 14.13.040. Regulations. The department shall
adopt regulations necessary to carry out the program
in a manner that ensures the highest number of student
and school participation, including
(1) procedures for calculating and distributing
scholarships;
(2) timelines and procedures for application, renewal,
and appeal for participating schools and students; and
(3) standards for acceptance, revocation, and denial
for participating school.
Sec. 14.31.045. Appropriations for scholarships. The
legislature may appropriate parental choice
scholarship program funds to the department for
distribution to the participating schools. If the
appropriation for the program is insufficient in a
given fiscal year, the department shall distribute the
available funds to the participating schools prorated
by the total number of students participating in the
program.
MR. KOPP summarized Sec. 14.31.090, which provides the
definitions for district, private school, program, and student,
with statute references provided.
9:29:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE returned to page 3, line [14], and asked
about the quarterly payment requirement. He suggested the
inclusion of language to specify a quarterly count which would
coincide with the payment schedule.
MR. KOPP agreed that it would be an important inclusion.
9:30:38 AM
CHAIR DICK asked if the language refers specifically to a school
calendar year.
MR. KOPP responded yes.
9:30:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE directed attention to page 4, lines 3-8,
and opined that, because the appropriation may fluctuate for
every student, and given that the bill language establishes a
formula to distribute the funding, this section may not be
necessary. He opined that the section may cause confusion, and
suggested its removal.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER recommended striking the sentence, not the
entire section.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE pointed out that the money will already
have been appropriated for educational use as a whole. He
stated his understanding that a separate appropriation specific
to a parental choice program is not being requested, as the
scholarship program would be embedded in the educational
appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON interjected his understanding that the
bill does not propose to embed the scholarship program in the
current educational budget, but rather requires a unique
appropriation. The bill does use the cost established by EED,
the amount per student, as a basis for the allocation request.
9:35:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that whatever amount of money
the legislation appropriates, to the program, will represent the
base funding. The actual tuition costs cannot be known, but
whatever is budgeted will be dispersed, and he predicted the
allocation would increase, as the program grows. He stressed
that not every detail can be considered at the legislative
committee level, and will be more appropriately addressed
through departmental regulation.
9:36:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked for clarity regarding his
understanding that once the October count is complete in the
public school, and, should a student opt to attend a private
facility, the amount originally appropriated for the education
of that student would be debited from the public school and
credited to the private school of choice.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER deferred.
MR. KOPP said that the program would be open to any student,
thus funds, in effect would exist. He offered a scenario where,
during whatever application period is established, EED would
know that there were a certain number of applicants, say 319 of
the returning public school students, planning to exit the
system and attend private schools. In that case, he explained,
no new money would be necessary; the department would transfer
funds from the public school appropriation to the scholarship
program, thus following the student to the school of choice.
However, there will be students who are not in the public
system, making application to the program, and these would
represent money not previously allocated.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE surmised:
So for the first year, you're going to see a bump in
the overall level of funding, but then once you get
all the students in the State of Alaska into the pool,
are we going to be then appropriating money for all
the students in the state ... or are we going to be
appropriating two separate pots. ... If I'm the
entrepreneur, that's going to set up a private school,
there is a huge risk that I'll make an investment that
the legislature will ... delete ... and not fund the
program. That's a huge risk that will be a major
impediment to having this whole program go forward.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE stressed the need to have one educational
appropriation, and allow the department to figure out the
allocation. Otherwise, he said, it's a hindrance to anyone
making investment decisions that would improve our school
system.
9:39:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT clarified that the bill language creates a
separate, unique, funding appropriation, which is why page 4,
lines 5-8 are required; however, the point is well taken, that
it creates a volatile investment situation. He underscored the
need for the legislature to commit to a level of continued
appropriation, to create a stable investment environment.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he prefers the appropriation scenario
presented by Representative Feige. The reason for creating a
separate appropriation is to create something more tangible and
define a need. It is important for the public to believe that
appropriation protections exist, which is why, he predicted,
tuitions will not be substantially increased.
9:42:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON outlined how public school support
staff is hired on a contractual basis. If a special education
student, who requires an aide, transfers from a public to a
private school, the state would be required to fulfill the
financial contract for the aide. A private school may not be
under similar obligations. She asked how this type of situation
might be handled.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER agreed that a number of what ifs exist in
the proposed legislation. He offered that the state does not
have private intensive needs facilities, and all students are
currently being served in the public school setting.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that the legislation may
discriminate against intensive needs students, who would not
have an option beyond public school.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER disagreed, and pointed out that this is
only because a private school does not currently exist to fill
the niche.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE interjected that this legislation would
open-up the possibility for special education schools to be
established. It allows money to support this type of venture.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said every public school must deal with
whatever special needs child enrolls, and asked why private
schools should not be under the same requirement.
9:45:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that the bill is specifically
designed to allow the schools to choose who will attend, whether
it's on religious grounds and students are enrolled on basis of
faith, or rejected for specific criteria, such as special need
requirements; private schools can establish standards for who
attends. The bill will only pass, he reminded, following the
passage of a constitutional amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT clarified that, to accept a student, a
school would need to have appropriate programs to meet the
individual's needs, and the bill does not stipulate that policy.
Not every private school would be able to serve special needs
students.
9:47:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE, referring to Representative Wilson's
observation, said that a private school may or may not be able
to meet the needs of special needs students, but programs have
already been mandated and exist in public schools. The contract
funding for a special needs aide would continue, even if the
student transferred. He conjectured that the special needs
students will be served.
9:50:08 AM
CHAIR DICK opened public testimony
9:50:20 AM
TOM FINK, Member, Educational Task Force, testified in support
of HB 145, and said that the concept of the legislation is to
allow state educational funding to be attached to a student's
attendance regardless of whether his/her scholastic
participation is at a public or a private school. He agreed
with Representative Feige's opinion that the appropriation for
these scholarships should be an aspect of the overall education
appropriation. He urged that the bill be finalized and moved
out of committee.
9:51:48 AM
JEFFREY MITMAN, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), testified with concern for HB 145, and opined
that, should HB 145 and the related HJR 16, pass, constitutional
based legal issues would ensue. He referred to a seven page
document, included in the committee packet, addressed to the
Honorable Alan Dick, Chair, and the House Education Committee,
dated 1/22/12, titled "Re: HB 145: Public Funding of Religious
Schools ACLU Review of Constitutional Issues. He said the bill
raises questions regarding the First Amendment Establishment
Clause of the Alaska Constitution. As drafted, even should the
Blaine Amendment be deleted, he stressed that there are further
problems with the bill, with respect to the Establishment
Clause. Research indicates that approximately three quarters of
the private schools in Alaska are religiously oriented, and he
opined that HB 145 will entangle the state in religious
questions. Issues arise when public funding is involved. He
said the ACLU urges the committee to take out any language that
would involve the State of Alaska funding a private religious
school in violation of the Federal and Alaska Constitutions.
9:54:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE agreed with the need to maintain a
separation of church and state, and conjectured that religious
proselytizing would equally impinge on a student's right in a
public school, should it occur, and may infringe on a student's
rights to religious freedom. However, he said, if a student
makes a conscious choice to attend a religious school, it
represents an independent decision, and alters the situation, as
the student could choose to return to the public school.
MR. MITMAN provided an example of a district where a student
chooses a private school, which perhaps requires students to
follow a specific religious tenant. As long as state funding is
not involved there is no problem. However, for the state to
open up public funding then the question arises: does it only
support those students who agree to abide by the religious
tenants. In that case the state is essentially funding
proselytizing or those discriminatory policies. He stressed
that by providing funds to a private school, the state is then
in a position, in some respects, of converting the private
school into a public school.
9:56:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked to have the locations of private
schools, serving special need students, identified.
MR. MITMAN referred to page 2 of the submitted testimony, and
said the geographic locations have not been a focus; however,
data could be analyzed and reported. He said questions need to
be asked regarding protections for services that would be
afforded students with disabilities. Current federal
regulations have recently ruled that private religious schools
are exempt from the Americans With Disabilities Act. It could
be that HB 145 would allow state funding for a school that is
legally entitled to discriminate on the basis of disabilities.
9:59:54 AM
STEVE EVENSON, Vice President, Northwest Religious Liberty
Association, testified with neutrality on HB 145, referring to
a prepared statement which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
While our concern is more a warning to religious and
parochial schools that receive the money, it is good
to remind everyone that increasing dependence on such
monies can and often does result in the increasing
vulnerability of the religious mission of these
schools through state programming regulations, such
as, determining what can and cannot be taught, and
during a major financial crunch cause the crippling
and shut down of said schools due to the sweeping
withdrawal of such voucher based financial support.
That being said we are neither for [nor] against this
proposal. We are simply offering principles for
church institutions to consider when evaluating the
acceptability of State Financial aid.
In dealing with the practical question of when is it
appropriate for church schools or institutions in the
faith community to accept support or funding from the
government, the following principles should be
considered:
1. Would accepting the aid establish a precedent that
would undercut the religious freedom protections
guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the broad
principle it embraces - separation of church and
state?
2. Does the aid come attached with conditions or
requirements that would inhibit or interfere with the
religious mission or goals of the institution, such as
the restriction of its religious activities or
standards?
3. Is there a reasonable likelihood that the aid
would create a dependency by the religious institution
on the government benefit program - so much so that it
would inhibit its future ability to act independently?
In conclusion, the Northwest Religious Liberty
Association, and its board of directors offer these
principles in the form of questions so that meaningful
dialogue can occur at all levels of the faith
community. In the spirit of helpfulness, we believe
that these three questions can substantially safeguard
the faith community and its institutions from undue
compromise and hardship in the future, and thus
protect the vitality of its prophetic mission in
America.
10:03:01 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the bill would be held for further
discussion.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AS 14.09.010 Transportation of Pupils.pdf |
HEDC 1/23/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 145 |
| AS 14.17.300 Public Education Fund.pdf |
HEDC 1/23/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 145 |
| AS 14.45.030 Non-Exempt Schools.pdf |
HEDC 1/23/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 145 |
| Comparison between HB 145 {I} and HB 145 {Y}.docx |
HEDC 1/23/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 145 |