Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/18/1997 08:15 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL 158
"An Act relating to attendance at a public school on a
part-time basis."
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated that HB 158 would prohibit
public school districts from discriminating against part-
time Alaskan students. The Alaska State Constitution,
Article VII, states:
"The legislature shall by general law establish
and maintain a system of public schools open to
all children of the State....".
He added, the Alaska Administrative Code makes provisions
and establishes a funding mechanism for part-time students.
When the Attorney General's office prepared the current
state statutes for part-time students and the foundation
formula reimbursement for part-time students, it was
anticipated that every school would fulfill the
constitutional mandate and not discriminate against the
part-time student.
Representative Dyson pointed out that on April 14, 1997, the
State Board of Education unanimously endorsed HB 158. They
strongly encouraged public schools to provide educational
service to all local qualified students including the home
schooled, correspondence, and private school students.
Representative Dyson concluded that every school district in
the State accepts part-time students from the home,
correspondence and private school communities except the
Anchorage School District (ASD). ASD has reasoned that
providing an educational benefit to an individual child
might accrue as a benefit to some private school and thus
5
raise constitutional concerns. The Legislative legal staff
as well as the Attorney General's office maintain that there
is no constitutional issue at stake.
(Tape Change HFC 97-105, Side 2).
Representative J. Davies questioned how funding of the
students would affect the public school system.
Representative Dyson replied that the Administrative Code
has for over a decade allowed for reimbursement of the
foundation formula. If a student takes a one hour class,
the school district is reimbursed for a 25% credit toward
full time; it progresses to the point that a four hour class
is reimbursed for 100% credit.
SHARYLEE ZACHARY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF,
PETERSBURG, spoke in support of the proposed legislation as
a home-school parent. She supported the rights of a home-
schooled child being able to attend part-time classes
through the public school system.
LARRY WIGET, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE,
spoke in opposition to the legislation. He stated that the
Anchorage Public School questions the constitutionality of
the legislation. He advised that it would violate the
Alaska Constitution prohibition against providing direct
benefits for private schools and appropriating funds for
public purposes.
Mr. Wiget addressed the administrative burden the
legislation would create. He pointed out that the 2000
home-schooled and private schooled children in the ASD would
be "picking and choosing" from the courses in the public
school district, essentially down-grading the overall
quality of education for the full time students. He
believed that the part-time students would seek to enroll in
those courses that have higher costs associated to them.
In conclusion, those districts where admission of part-time
students has been identified as a benefit to both students
of the public schools, could be pursuing the risk of a
constitutional legal challenge. ASD believes that passage
of HB 158 would be bad public policy.
Representative Kelly argued that private school parents
should have access to the public school system facilities.
Representative Mulder agreed.
PETER PARTNOU, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY,
ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE, spoke to the
constitutional issue of the concern. He noted that the
6
Alaska Supreme Court would rule if it was constitutional or
not; the Montana Supreme Court was faced with a similar
issue in which they ruled that it could not be made
mandatory. He believed that the Alaska Supreme Court would
arrive at that same conclusion. The impact of the
legislation in the Anchorage School District would be a
major egress for the public school system; it would not be a
gain for public school students.
BARBARA NJAA, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF, KENAI,
spoke in favor of the proposed legislation as a parent of a
home-schooled child. She emphasized that home schooling is
hard work and expensive. She noted that she resented paying
into the public school system, while not being able to use
it's advantages such as the athletic and computer programs.
She urged members to favorably consider passage of the
legislation.
JOANNE HARDESTY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF,
KENAI,
commented that children should be entitled to use the school
system at whatever degree they desire as it is a "public"
system. It is the responsibility of the school district to
educate our children at whatever degree they need. She felt
that these students should be able to attend class without
discrimination.
LISA SITES, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF, FAIRBANKS,
spoke in support of the legislation from the perspective of
a mother who home-schools her children. She recommended
changing the language on Page 1, Line 5, from "allow" to
"not deny".
RUTH EWIG, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF, FAIRBANKS,
spoke in support of the proposed legislation. She commented
that she home-schools her children, while at the same time
pays $3 thousand dollars a year toward public education.
She suggested that the money should "follow the child". The
legislation would establish a standard where the State is
not left in the role of being the "big brother".
SHARON SMITH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF,
FAIRBANKS, spoke in support of the proposed legislation.
She echoed considerations of the previous testimony of home-
school parents. She emphasized that education should be a
choice and that every parent should have the authority to
decide where and how to educate their child. If a parent
decides to use the public school system, they should be able
to use it to the degree that they so deem.
GLENN PRAX, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF, FAIRBANKS,
spoke in support of the bill which establishes partnerships
7
between parents and schools. He pointed out some parents
that are home-schooling, lack the confidence or resources to
completely educate their child. Those parents would
appreciate the opportunity to have their child educated by
the public school system for some topics. He urged the
Legislature to support this concept as it will improve the
quality of education while at the same time improves the
bond between parents and their children and saves the State
money.
MICHAEL FORD, ATTORNEY, DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES, spoke to
the question of the constitutionality of the proposed
legislation. He commented that Legal Services concluded
that no constitutional problems exist with the legislation.
That position is supported by the Attorney General's office.
He agreed that an argument does exists regarding the
concern; the court will look at what constitutes a direct
benefit. The relationship between public school students
and the private school system in the State does not
constitute a direct-benefit. No money flows to the private
schools, while at the same time, the Constitution requires
that the public school system be open to all students.
Mr. Partnou advised, in initial discussions regarding the
legislation, Representative Dyson had questioned whether it
should address only home-schooled children or be open to
those children in private school system. Mr. Partnou agreed
that the constitutional issue would be more clear when
addressing private school students only. With regards to
correspondence students, no a clear constitutional
circumstance currently exists.
The other possible constitutional problem would be in
addressing the "entanglement" concern. The public school
district is responsible for the attendance of their
students.
Representative Kelly questioned whose job it was to enforce
free public education. Mr. Ford stated that we have rights
guaranteed in the Constitution. Generally, it is the Courts
responsibility to "flush out" those rights. There is a
provision that states:
"Public education will be available to all
children of the State".
It would be a Court decision to rule if that meant part-time
enrollment.
Mr. Partnou commented, the compulsory education laws require
that school age students be attending school. If the
8
student is enrolled, they are meeting the compulsory
education requirement in which the school system is
responsible.
Representative Mulder inquired ASD's response should the
legislation pass. Mr. Wiget responded that they would
follow the letter of the law, although, he anticipated
outside challenges to be filed. Currently, there are no
part-time students attending the Anchorage School District.
Representative J. Davies questioned the language change
recommended in previous testimony, deleting "allow",
inserting "not deny".
(Tape Change HFC 97-106, Side 1).
Mr. Ford explained that most legislation is written in the
affirmative. He felt that "allow" would be inclusive
enough.
Representative Martin MOVED to report HB 158 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 158 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Department of
Education dated 3/26/97.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|