Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/03/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Amendments to Contract Between Hay Group, Inc. and the Senate Finance Committee | |
| SJR9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to state aid for education.
9:07:28 AM
Senator Dunleavy explained SJR 9. He stated that the
resolution was for a constitutional amendment regarding
education funding in Alaska. He stated that SJR 9 was
introduced the prior year, and had five hearings in the
Judiciary Committee. He stated that SJR 9 would change
language in two sections of the constitution. Under Section
1, article 7, "no money shall be paid from public funds for
the direct benefit of any religious or other private
educational institution"; and Section 6, "however nothing
in this section shall prevent payment from public funds for
the direct educational benefit of students as provided by
law" shall be removed.
9:08:36 AM
AT EASE
9:09:55 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Dunleavy noted that the fiscal note attached to the
bill was $1,500, and the second page of the fiscal note
showed that the fiscal note could be raised to $22,000.
9:10:20 AM
AT EASE
9:10:35 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Dunleavy said that the fiscal note would be $15,000
for one sheet, and $22,000 for two sheets. He stated that
the purpose of the resolution was to help people who were
examining alternative forms of education. He shared that
there were many public/private partnerships from the pre-K
level to the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED). He remarked that there were some private, for-
profit, and/or religious vendors that were associated with
the growing homeschool population. He referred to a
homeschooling law that became effective in the mid-nineties
that allowed Alaskans to detach themselves from the public
school system. He stated that shortly after that law was
enacted, some school districts formed homeschool programs
to meet the needs of those that had left the system. As a
result, the homeschool, correspondence, and charter schools
were some of the fastest growing segments of education in
Alaska. In order to grow the programs further, and involve
more public/private partnerships, the language of the
constitution must be changed. He used Brigham Young
University (BYU) as an example of a religious institution
that taught academic courses, and was not used to deliver
religious instruction. He explained that the courts in
Alaska had ruled consistently that the funds could be
distributed in a direct and indirect manner. He shared that
the drafters of the original constitution had intentionally
left out the concept of "indirect" on purpose, because they
believed that there would be occasions which the state
would need to partner with private and/or religious
entities to help children. He felt that it was time to
amend the constitution in order to meet the very diverse
needs of Alaska's student populations, and to outline
details of the post-secondary offerings. He felt that
amending the constitution would eliminate further question
regarding the use of public funds for education. He alleged
that lawsuits would be filed in the future in order to stop
some practices that would benefit Alaskans. He urged the
committee to move the bill from committee, so Alaskans
could have an opportunity to weigh in on the education
system and constitution.
9:15:08 AM
Senator Olson wondered why "indirect" was not included in
the constitution. Senator Dunleavy responded that there had
been discussion during the constitutional convention
regarding the inclusion of "direct", "indirect", or neither
word included. He felt that there had been a compromise to
keep the word "direct" in the language. He understood that
many of the original drafters felt that there should not be
a direct link between the state and/or religious
educational entities. He stated that the original drafters
did not include "indirect", because they wanted to provide
an opportunity for future legislatures to create programs
that help children that may be in orphanages, foster care,
or long-term hospital residential facilities to possibly
receive an education that may stem from a partnership with
a religious organization.
Senator Hoffman looked at the second sentence of the bill
which states, "public funds for the direct educational
benefit of students, as provided by law." He wondered if
there was anticipation for defining how the provision would
be implemented. Senator Dunleavy responded in the
affirmative, and furthered that SB 100 addressed a
provision. He explained that SB 100 would be program that
would take place as a result of the language change in the
constitution. SB 100 was an expanded public home-school
correspondence law. He explained that SB 100 would allow
individuals to become part of the homeschool process could
enroll in funding. SB 100 would also allow for private
and/or religious educational vendors to be recognized as
legitimate educational vendors.
Senator Olson queried the current version of the
resolution.
9:19:29 AM
AT EASE
9:20:06 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Meyer declared that the version of the resolution
being discussed was SJR 9, version U.
Senator Dunleavy stated that the recognized vendors under
SB 100 could be any of the various private or public
educational product distributors. He remarked that the
individual vendors were not held to state standards. The
Individual Learning Plan (ILP), which governs the child's
education, would be held against the state standard. He
explained that when a private educational service was
purchased, and that coursework helped support the ILP for
each student in Alaska. He remarked that the ILPs were
geared to ensure proficiency in the standards.
Co-Chair Kelly asked for a restatement of the explanation.
Senator Dunleavy responded that the public school system
currently purchased various learning tools from private
companies, like pencils and computer systems. He stated
that those items were resources to support a child's
education. He remarked that the resources did not need to
be aligned to state standards, rather they are tools that
were used to support the child's educational plan. He
remarked that homeschooled children were still required to
align with the state standards, and the parents were
responsible to ensure that the purchased materials
supported that goal.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered how many states had some sort of
version of the proposed program. Senator Dunleavy looked at
the website, http://www.edchoice.org/School-Choice/School-
Choice-Programs, and stated that there were approximately
26 states with 42 programs. He explained that the programs
were self-contained, and did not spread beyond the border
of the program. He stated that the website outlined the
specific boundaries of each program.
9:25:35 AM
AT EASE
9:29:20 AM
RECONVENED
9:29:46 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked for further information regarding
other states that had implemented similar programs. Senator
Dunleavy responded that approximately 26 states had about
42 programs. He explained that some of the programs in
other states had tax credits, scholarships, or a
combination of the two. All of the programs were self-
contained, and pointed out that every state had a
constitution that outlined some form of school choice. He
stated that there were many programs that were over 100
years old. Each program was very different, and had
different targets and missions. He stressed that without
legislative ruling, the constitutional language had no
effect. He felt that there was a program in SB 100 which he
believed would be effective, but the constitution must be
amended first. He felt that SB 100 would extend public
education to meet the needs of more Alaskans. He stated
that he found no case wherein the program "spun out of
control."
9:33:15 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked for a restatement of comments
related to the first amendment and the establishment
clause. Senator Dunleavy replied that the US constitution
did not prevent public moneys from being spent on private
and/or religious education. He stated that the first
amendment's establishment clause prevented a state from
favoring one religion over another. He stated that Senator
Rubio from Florida had recently proposed a national
educational voucher program, because it was constitutional
under the US constitution.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that there were various programs for
children for a wide range of types of children within
Alaska. Senator Dunleavy stressed that SJR 9 did not create
any program. He restated that the language could pass, but
it required legislative action in order to create a
program.
Co-Chair Meyer stressed that the only decision before the
legislature was to decide whether or not the constitutional
amendment should go to the vote of the people.
Senator Olson wondered how many states enacted programs,
and then withdrew from the programs. Senator Dunleavy
agreed to provide that information.
9:38:52 AM
AT EASE
9:44:30 AM
RECONVENED
MICHAEL HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, understood that this conversation had
been held in the legislature for many years. He stated that
the governor supported the resolution, with the
understanding that parents could make better decisions for
their children than the government.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked for comment regarding the
concern over whether or not the allocation for the public
school system would be disrupted while the constitutional
amendment was voted on. Commissioner Hanley stated that SJR
9 would not adjust the funding; it would only speak to
removing part of the constitutional language and allowing
the constituent of Alaska to vote on that amendment. He
furthered that he could not speak on any fiscal component
of SJR 9.
9:46:36 AM
Senator Olson queried the perspective of SJR 9 from the
various school districts across the state. He specifically
wondered if the rural areas were more in favor of the
resolution than urban areas, and vice versa. Commissioner
Hanley responded that the issue was not the main concern in
rural Alaska, because opportunities for choice were
potentially limited. He remarked that it was difficult for
many communities to determine how this issue would make an
impact, because they did not have access to a private
entity to use the potential voucher.
In response to a question from Senator Olson, Commissioner
Hanley replied that he did not see the concern being
related to the impact on children. He stated that the
concern was mostly focused on the funding.
9:51:01 AM
RICHARD KOMER, SENIOR ATTORNEY, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE,
ARLINGTON, VA (via teleconference), announced that the
Institute for Justice had helped to pass and defend most of
the legislation that Senator Dunleavy addressed. He
explained that most of the time, the legislation was only
challenged by teachers unions, school boards associations,
and sometimes by various public interest law firms that
believe in a restrictive form the separation of church and
state. He addressed the legal aspects of modifying the
constitution. He stated that the resolution would make
possible the school programs that were already available in
other states. He stated that the language in Alaska's
constitution was more restrictive than the federal
constitution. He explained that the programs complied with
federal constitutional guarantees, but did not comport with
Alaska's education article, because of the way it was
interpreted by the Alaska Supreme Court. When a Supreme
Court provides a definitive interpretation of
constitutional language, there are only two ways that
interpretation could be changed: 1) the state Supreme Court
must reverse itself. This was highly unlikely, because it
was unlikely that the legislature pass a law which raises
the issue of constitutionality. The justices would most
likely follow their previous precedent, which in this case
was the Sheldon Jackson case from 1979; and 2) a
constitutional amendment that changes the underlying
language that the Supreme Court had interpreted in order to
overrule the decision. He felt that the original language
of the Alaska constitution, which was interpreted in the
Sheldon Jackson case, permits school program. He explained
that the language spoke to direct aid to private or
religious institutions. He felt that the word "direct" was
considered institutional aid or a "grant." He stated that
the Alaska Supreme Court interpreted that language to
extend to aid to students, which was a very different
action. He explained that the Sheldon Jackson ruling
prohibited a program that would have assisted college
students in Alaska. He felt that the Supreme Court decision
that went too far, and had an inhibiting effect on the
legislature's ability to do work that other states had
routinely followed. He offered that virtually every other
state had a higher education scholarship program using
state money to help students attend both public and private
colleges within the state.
9:58:29 AM
Senator Dunleavy wondered if SB 100 would pass a
constitutional muster. Mr. Komer replied that the Sheldon
Jackson ruling was extremely broad. He stressed that the
beneficiary should be considered the student, and then the
student can use that money to purchase individual
educational services.
Senator Dunleavy stated that Colorado's constitution's
language could be considered much more restrictive than
Alaska's constitution, but Colorado had recently instituted
a school choice program. He asked for information regarding
that summation. Mr. Komer explained that Colorado
interpreted its constitution the opposite to the Sheldon
Jackson case. He stated that, in 1980, the Colorado Supreme
Court interpreted a more restrictive constitutional
provision to permit aid to students to attend private
institutions.
Senator Olson asked Mr. Komer if he thought the Supreme
Court would come to a different conclusion, if the Sheldon
Jackson case would occur in 2014. Mr. Komer responded that
he did not believe that the Supreme Court would come to a
different conclusion. He furthered that the court would
most likely come to the same conclusion, because the
lawyers and judges followed the principle of "it's been
decided." Generally speaking, the courts would continue and
follow the decisions of their predecessors.
10:04:37 AM
Senator Olson restated his question. He specifically
wondered if the Supreme Court would reach the same decision
in the present day, if that precedent had not already been
set. Mr. Komer replied that it was highly unlikely that a
state supreme court would interpret the word "direct" to
preclude students. He felt that the court would allow
children to use state funds for a private educational
service. He felt that the Sheldon Jackson case ruling was
wrong.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if school choice decisions
had been overturned in other states. Mr. Komer responded
that there were two programs that had been discontinued
because of adverse court decisions.
10:09:48 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough queried the negative effects of the
funding available for parents. Mr. Komer replied that a
scholarship program was substantially less provided to the
student than it costs the state and local governments.
Therefore, there was very little shrinkage in the public
education budget. He furthered that, because only a
fraction of the state aid followed the child to fund the
scholarship, the per capita expenditures for public school
students were often increased.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if Mr. Komer had any
experience in looking at the migration for areas that have
small populations. Mr. Komer responded that he did not know
about that issue, but he stated that for extremely isolated
areas distance learning were originally pioneered for
remote rural areas.
10:15:07 AM
DR. DEENA PARAMO, SUPERINTENDENT, MAT-SU BOROUGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT (via teleconference), stated that the Mat-Su
School District served over 17,800 students in 45 schools
that had unique and diverse programs to serve the youth of
the Mat-Su Valley community. She shared that the Mat-Su was
a successful school district that met the needs of its
community through innovation, a sense of renewal, public
school choice, and customer service. She stressed that the
Mat-Su community was supportive of its public school
system. She explained that the Mat-Su had various school
sites with small, one-room school houses that serve
children K-12 in one community; and five large
comprehensive high schools that serve as neighborhood
schools in other borough communities. The Mat-Su had
special mission schools that focused on science and
engineering; six charter schools; a renowned career and
technical high school; and sixteen large elementary schools
that serve over 400 students each. In addition, the Mat-Su
had a central school serving over 1500 homeschool students
throughout the borough. Most recently, Mat-Su School
District opened the first middle college in the state
located on a UAA campus that offered an onsite college
experience for high school juniors and seniors.
10:21:47 AM
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the school district feared a
constitutional amendment on the ballot. Dr. Paramo
responded that the school board had not weighed in on the
issue, but the administration and leadership in the schools
looked forward to being the best in the state.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if private vendors were used to
support the ILPs. Dr. Paramo replied that most of the
companies were private vendors.
Senator Bishop felt that Dr. Paramo's remarks indicated
that there was no problem regarding school choice for
children in the Mat-Su. Dr. Paramo replied that the
district looked to find what people were seeking. She
stated that the Mat-Su School District did not pass
judgment; she just wanted good education for children.
Senator Bishop wondered if the Mat-Su School District had
experienced any layoffs of teachers, or if she was
anticipating any future layoffs of teachers. Dr. Paramo
responded that every year the district faces layoffs.
Senator Bishop commented that he was glad to hear that the
flux chord welding program was still ongoing, because those
welders may be needed in the near future.
10:25:35 AM
Co-Chair Meyer felt that the environment of competition
created new programs, and was one of the advantages of
school choice. He wondered if the inclusion of a private
school system would have a negative effect in the Mat-Su
region. Dr. Paramo replied that it would not have a
negative effect. She remarked that people were making
choices for many different reasons regarding education.
BETHANY MARCUM, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SJR 9. She hoped that the committee
would allow Alaskans to vote on the constitutional
amendment. There were many polls that showed that Alaskans
wanted the opportunity to vote on the issue. She felt that
the worst thing that would happen with the passage of the
amendment would be that Alaskans get more opportunities.
She stressed that there were many issues facing education
in Alaska, and felt that it was time to discuss the many
possibilities for children. If SJR 9 would pass, the
possibilities for the legislature would be available to
address the education issues.
SJR 9 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 020314 contract amendment 1 february 3.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 9:00:00 AM |
Public School Employee Insurance |
| 020314 executed contract hay group.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 9:00:00 AM |
Public School Employee Insurance |
| SJR 9 Alaskan Public Opinion Survey.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 Bio of Dick Komer.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 Colorado State Constitution.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 Quick Reference.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 School Choice Programs.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 Sponsosr Statement.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 Version U.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR009-OOG-DOE-1-21-14.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Carey.pdf |
SFIN 2/3/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |