Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/07/1996 09:07 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SHESS - 2/7/96
SB 225 STUDENT ACCESS TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Number 001
CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee work session to order at 9:07 a.m.
Chairman Green informed everyone that testimony would be taken on
SB 225 until a quorum arrived at which time the meeting would be
called to order.
MIKE TIBBLES, Staff to Senator Green, read the following sponsor
statement into the record.
This bill was introduced by request to guarantee the right of
access to extracurricular activities by students being educated
according to AS 14.30.010(b). Under this measure, these activities
would include, drama, debate, music, band, and athletics.
Under Alaska law, city and borough school districts are required to
contribute a local match to the education foundation formula. This
local match is generally levied through a 4 mill property tax
assessment and is paid by families with children being educated in
public schools, private schools, correspondence curriculum, and
home schools.
Participation in extracurricular activities is an important
component of the education of our children. It encourages the
development of leadership skills, a healthy spirit of competition,
confidence, goal orientation, and the ability to become a team
player.
Currently, access to extracurricular activities is impeded in some
districts of the state.
These programs that exist to benefit children should be made to
available to all children. This includes students whose parents
choose to educate their children in other than a public school.
Denying access to these programs is discriminatory and contrary to
providing equal educational opportunities to all students.
Number 040
SENATOR LEMAN asked if this bill was common in other states. MIKE
TIBBLES stated that SB 207 was modeled after statutes in Oregon,
Washington, and Colorado.
RICK CROSS, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Education
(DOE), said that Commissioner Holloway supports all opportunities
for parents, families, and children to have their choices
increased. He informed everyone that Commissioner Holloway was the
Superintendent in the State of Washington where there is similar
legislation. DOE views SB 225 as an extension of the regulations
increasing part-time participation in curricular activities which
were recently enacted. Commissioner Holloway strongly supports any
concept which provides greater opportunity and choice for parents
and families.
Mr. Cross expressed concern with the zero fiscal note of SB 225.
SB 225 would not have any affect on DOE nor on the school
districts. The bill would not have any affect technically on the
school districts because currently, the foundation formula does not
provide any means for school districts to receive credit for
students participating in extracurricular activities, but who are
not a part of the curricular program. SB 225 would not increase
the foundation formula, however there could be costs for school
districts implementing this bill. Mr. Cross pointed out that
school districts receive revenue in proportion to the number of
students they serve. There is no mechanism to pay the district for
providing the extracurricular activities for students who are not
a part of the regular school program.
Number 118
CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to the minimum participation required of
a student in order for the school to receive the minimum funding
for that student. RICK CROSS explained that the formula allows
districts to pro-rate for part-time students. The records in DOE
do not show the numbers of part-time students. Mr. Cross noted
that districts use different mechanisms to determine the number of
students for the formula. Mr. Cross believed that a student
enrolled in one class could be counted for the formula.
Number 134
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that a quorum was present and she called the
Senate Health, Education & Social Services meeting to order.
In response to Chairman Green, RICK CROSS explained that the
student count utilized are of those attending the regular
curricular program. Mr. Cross agreed with Chairman Green's
assessment that this method is also used by the local funding
authority. Mr. Cross said that the trend is towards a greater
amount of user fees, but there would be variance across districts.
Mr. Cross did not believe there would be a way in which to charge
a differential fee. SB 225 does not prohibit charging fees to
private and home schooled students as long as the regularly
enrolled students are also charged.
Number 180
SENATOR LEMAN asked if any analyses had been done regarding the
cost of extracurricular activities in order to determine what
portion is picked up by the foundation formula versus the money
received from user fees, fund raising, etc. How much of this would
be a drain on the funding? RICK CROSS stated that DOE had not done
any such studies; this is a complex issue. Mr. Cross mentioned
that with regards to travel, that is not budgeted and often the
students and booster clubs do fund raising. Mr. Cross approximated
that a quarter of the funding for an activity is covered by booster
clubs.
SENATOR LEMAN indicated that perhaps, the major portion of the cost
of extracurricular activities could be attributed to the travel,
uniforms, and officials. He suggested that gate fees and
concessions could offset some of these costs. He asked if the
part-time curriculum had been in place long enough to determine how
many students are utilizing the program.
RICK CROSS reiterated that the information collected by DOE shows
totals, so there is no breakdown of information. Mr. Cross
informed the committee of his experience with part-time enrollment
in Fairbanks in which there was significant part-time enrollment.
He considered 50 students utilizing the part-time program out of a
student body of 1,600 a lot.
Number 242
SENATOR LEMAN asked if that part-time option would increase the use
of private schools and home schooling which could be an overall
cost savings. RICK CROSS replied that it is unclear at this point.
SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to who in the Knowles' Administration had
made the decision that Mr. Cross would support SB 225. RICK CROSS
said that Commissioner Holloway had asked him to be present and
made the decision to support the bill.
Number 262
VERNON MARSHALL, NEA-AK, said that NEA-AK is deeply committed to
the cause of public education. NEA-AK supports opportunities for
families to make choices in educational models. He recognized the
importance of extracurricular activities in the public schools;
many teachers organize and lead extracurricular activities with
nominal financial compensation. Alaska's teachers support
extracurricular activities for many reasons such as the benefits
received by the student as well as the benefit realized by the
school. Mr. Marshall pointed out that SB 225 by implementation
proclaims that extracurricular activities are so successful,
popular, useful, and important that students attending private or
secular schools should be allowed to participate in public school
extracurricular programs. Mr. Marshall asserted that SB 225 would
practically provide private and sectarian schools with a public
subsidy. Those schools could then utilize their resources solely
for the purpose of academic programs.
Mr. Marshall stated that NEA-AK does not believe that SB 225 is
constitutional. The bill is not constitutional under the Alaska
Supreme Court decision in the Sheldon Jackson case. In that case
the courts struck down tuition equalization to Alaska students at
private colleges who wanted to offset the higher cost of private
education in comparison with the cost of studies at the University
of Alaska. He explained that the Alaska Supreme Court said that an
unconstitutional subsidy to sectarian education does not
necessarily have to be a direct transfer of money from the
government to the schools. SB 225 would provide a subsidy to non-
public schools by the public sector. He posed the following
question: should public funds be used to hire the debate teacher,
buy uniforms and band instruments, pay for school maintenance and
operation required for students already enrolled in religious or
private schools? Mr. Marshall said that NEA-AK did not think that
should happen. Mr. Marshall emphasized that Alaska's Constitution
explicitly bands the expenditure of public funds for the direct
benefit of any religious or other private educational institution
or for sectarian purposes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN interrupted Mr. Marshall and asked him to highlight
his testimony. She suggested that Mr. Marshall could submit his
written testimony to be placed in the committee packet.
Number 343
VERNON MARSHALL agreed. He continued by predicting that SB 225
would undermine school moral. For instance, a student that does
not attend the public school is selected to participate in a sport
or in a play - that would require that a public school student
would be denied that opportunity. The opportunities for non public
students to participate in extracurricular activities would be
greater than those opportunities for enrolled public school
students. The private school student would enter the public school
only to participate in extracurricular activities. The public
school student is receiving an academic education and competing
with others for the extracurricular activities.
SENATOR LEMAN asked how the non public school student would have
more opportunity. VERNON MARSHALL pointed out that the language of
SB 225, subsection (a), establishes the increased opportunity by
the non public school student.
CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to how that language could be altered.
She stated that it was intended only to give the same opportunity
to compete already given to the public school students.
SENATOR SALO said that it would be likely that a non public school
student petitioning to access an extracurricular activity may only
do so because of their particular expertise in that activity.
Section 1 seems to guarantee that a non public school student could
not be cut.
CHAIRMAN GREEN emphasized that was not the intent and reiterated
that the language in Section 1 could be changed.
SENATOR SALO clarified that a non public student utilizing an
extracurricular activity because of their particular expertise in
that area is a good thing for that student, but not for the public
school student who loses their opportunity in that extracurricular
activity. Moreover, there is usually a limit on the number of
students allowed to participate in activities due to budget
constraints.
Number 397
VERNON MARSHALL cited another inequity in the bill. The
requirement that a non public student must meet all the public
school and district's applicable eligibility requirements in order
to participate in the extracurricular activity is not workable.
For example, public schools have grading standards which may vary
from those grading practices in private schools. A student's
ability to participate in an extracurricular activity may be
comprised when the grade requirement is applied to a student from
a private school, where grades may be inflated relative to public
school grades. Mr. Marshall also noted that private and religious
schools are not required to maintain student records reflecting
immunizations, physical examinations, standardized testing,
academic achievement, and courses taken at school. How will a
public school determine that a non public school student meets all
the applicable requirements to participate in an extracurricular
activity? This would impose significant administrative costs on
school districts. Mr. Marshall proposed that school administrators
could be faced with conflicts or even expensive litigation from
honor roll students and their families and with private schools.
Furthermore, an ineligible public school student could merely leave
the public school in order to demand eligibility by obtaining an
academic education in another environment. This could be supported
by subsection (a), Section 1 of the bill.
Number 441
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that anyone has the right to return to the
public school system at any point. VERNON MARSHALL interjected
that some people are denied that by statute.
SENATOR SALO commented that there is a difference between the right
to re-enroll in the public school and the right to be eligible for
athletic activity. For example, a student with two Fs could leave
the public school, attend another program and re-enroll to maintain
his spot on the football team. This may sound extreme, but parents
sometimes go to drastic lengths to help their child remain
eligible, especially if their child is the star of the team.
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated that lines 12-14 may address that issue.
VERNON MARSHALL clarified that the requirements of the public
school are being placed on a student who does not attend that
public school. There are no required records or data for that non
public student that could be applied to a decision that someone
would have to make in the public setting. In essence, the person
making the decision would be comparing oranges and bananas. This
is a possible weakness in the bill.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that at the time when public schools are
being asked to do more with less, SB 225 requires that
extracurricular activities be expanded to a new group. This group
consists of children who opted out of the public school system. He
reiterated that this would diminish extracurricular activities for
students enrolled in the public schools and increase the current
trend of public school districts eliminating their extracurricular
activities due to budgetary constraints. Mr. Marshall noted that
the supporters of the bill do not offer increased state assistance
to public school districts in order to alleviate the extra costs
of serving more students in extracurricular programs. He surmised
that the bill's supporters must not want to serve more children in
extracurricular activities, but rather serve different children
than those presently being served. Or perhaps, the supporters
expect school districts to find more money for extracurricular
activities.
Number 495
Mr. Marshall asserted that SB 225 as written is confusing. The
bill refers to AS 14.30.010(b) which upon review of this portion of
Title 14 refers to a large group of young people: private school
students, tutored students, religious students, and many more. Is
it the intent of the sponsors that a school district that has
expelled a student who then enrolls in a private school or a
correspondence program must allow that student to participate in an
extracurricular program? He discussed another such scenario with
the extracurricular activity being a sport. Could a teenager in
the Department of Corrections assert the right to participate in
extracurricular activities of a public school? He also pondered if
the public school district should bear the transportation costs to
transport a non public student to an extracurricular activity. All
this confusion is caused by the language of the bill.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that there is the possibility for
incorrect practices under this bill. For example, a star athlete
could be recruited by a public school under the vague eligibility
requirements and an equally worthy young person would not be
allowed to participate. Mr. Marshall anticipated that people will
argue that NEA-AK is indifferent to the needs of young people not
attending public schools and that these youngsters and their
families make smaller financial demands on the public sector than
do public school enrollees and their families. Perhaps, opponents
of SB 225 will be charged with wanting to punish those who chose to
receive their education apart from Alaska's public school system.
This is not so, non public students are welcome to attend the
public schools as regular attendees. Mr. Marshall believed that it
is unfair to expect that those who choose not to undertake the
opportunities or the challenges of the public school should be
allowed to participate in the public school's extracurricular
activities. The important purposes of extracurricular activities
would be diluted if SB 225 becomes law.
In conclusion, Mr. Marshall reiterated that SB 225 provokes many
concerns. NEA-AK opposed SB 225 as currently written. Mr.
Marshall offered to submit his entire testimony in writing.
Number 547
SENATOR LEMAN agreed that there have been great successes in the
public school's extracurricular activities. In all his time as an
Alaskan student and volunteer, he said that he had not seen any of
the concerns that Mr. Marshall had discussed. Senator Leman asked
Mr. Marshall if he had examples of non public schools that were
less rigorous than the public schools because he had not seen that
problem. VERNON MARSHALL explained that there is not data to
illustrate this problem. Mr. Marshall believed that there are
private schools that do great jobs while there are others that
could do better. Can data be collected over time in order to
compare the standards of different schools so as to provide some
comparative analysis? Mr. Marshall reiterated the language
problems and the question of the constitutionality of SB 225.
SENATOR LEMAN offered to discuss this further with Mr. Marshall.
He emphasized that he did not have the same concerns as Mr.
Marshall. With regards to the recruitment issues, Senator Leman
said that he had seen those problems for years.
TAPE 96-5, SIDE B
Number 586
VERNON MARSHALL pointed out that lines 4-9 of the bill seem to set
up a free agency system for a coach, but the source of players
under SB 225 would be from any non public entity that educates
children in that district.
SENATOR LEMAN emphasized that the danger of this currently exists
at a far greater extent than if the extracurricular activities were
expanded to include the alternatively educated students.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that she intended for the language to be
tightened in order to limit the participation in the
extracurricular activity to the public school in which the student
would normally be assigned.
SENATOR SALO was glad to hear Chairman Green's explanation, but
noted that it did not solve the larger constitutionality issue.
She pointed out that extracurricular activities allow students and
coaches to interact with one another in a different manner.
Senator Salo opposed having coaches that were from different
schools or from the public because those coaches did not get to
know the students in the academic realm. Therefore, in that
situation half of the advantages are lost. She did not view a non
public student participating in a public school for extracurricular
activities as a good situation.
Number 534
SHARYLEE ZACHARY, testifying from Petersburg, expressed the need to
include the public school library as an extracurricular activity.
She discussed her situation in which she was denied the ability to
utilize the public school library in her area because she did not
have a student attending the public school. She emphasized the
importance of merely allowing a child to learn to play an
instrument in the public school because that cannot otherwise be
assessed in some communities. In some states in the lower 48,
private lessons are given in the school which can be done in the
public school sector as well as the home school sector.
DANA THYNESS, testifying form Petersburg, could not believe that
public school teachers of whom the Mr. Marshall represents, only
care about public school children. The term public means that
everyone should have access, all Alaskans. She indicated that
opponents of this bill must only be worried about protecting their
job. She stated that home school students are an asset to public
schools because when they are present it is because they want to
be. A home schooled child can serve as an inspiration for other
students due to their interest and willingness to learn. She
pointed out that those in alternative schools are most interested
in the facilities that public schools have which are paid for by
the government of which we all are a part.
Number 458
JIM SIMEROTH, Kenai Peninsula Education Association, informed the
committee that he had been a public school teacher for 30 years.
He opposed SB 225. He stated that public schools are about
equality and fairness which this bill does not seem to provide.
The cost to the public schools would be increased. A layer of
bureaucracy would be produced in order to determine the
qualifications and eligibility of non public school students; other
than grade requirements for eligibility to participate, there are
also attendance, conduct and behavior rules, and standing in the
school program schools. How can the public school be expected to
monitor this for non public school students? SB 225 opens up the
possibility of abuse as in the recruitment for sports.
Furthermore, funding restrictions have limited the number of spaces
available in many extracurricular activities. Mr. Simeroth foresaw
problems with fairness if a non public school student bumped a
public school student off of a team on which there were limited
spaces. With regard to fairness, would it also be fair for a
public school student to be allowed to participate in
extracurricular activities at a private school? Mr. Simeroth noted
that in order to monitor the eligibility requirements and such of
the non public school student, private and confidential files would
be opened. In conclusion, Mr. Simeroth saw only considerable harm
being accomplished from this bill.
Number 417
MARY HUTCHINSON, speaking from Soldotna, wanted to make sure that
the committee had copies of the fax of Maggie Riley's letter.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that the committee had received that fax and
the letter had been distributed to each committee member.
MARY HUTCHINSON, Home schooler, discussed her children's education.
She pointed out that her son, Doug, utilizes a public school
correspondence program in order to meet the requirements to
participate in the public school's wrestling team. She informed
the committee that in the public school a student who maintains an
A is not required to take the final exam whereas the correspondence
student's final exam accounts for one-third of their grade.
Moreover, a public school student is only required to maintain a D-
to participate in a sport; how many of you as parents would let
your child have the privilege of playing a sport with a D-? She
discussed the challenges of home schooling and pondered how public
school students' questions could be answered when there are 30
children in the same room. She admitted difficulty with her eight
children. Ms. Hutchinson noted that her son, Doug's public school
correspondence has separated him from family functions such as
preparing meals, changing diapers, and shoveling the driveway. Ms.
Hutchinson asserted that public education should be for those that
do not want to home school. She stressed the need to reinforce the
family; and her following analogy illustrates this: the child
represents the family, the school represents the community. If
money could be given to the school district for home schooled
children, then other public school students would not suffer.
Number 351
SANDRA BLOMFIELD, mother of three, informed the committee of her
eldest son who indicated to his mother that he had learned more at
the private school than at the public school he was currently
attending. Therefore, they requested a waiver from the Anchorage
School District in order to allow her son to attend a private
school, but continue to participate in the extracurricular
activities of the public school system. Ms. Blomfield was not
answered by the Anchorage School District School Board nor by the
Superintendent at that time. Two months later she wrote to the new
Superintendent and she received correspondence from his office
advising her to seek legal council about this situation. Her son
remained in the public school in order to maintain his
extracurricular activities along side of his academic endeavors.
Ms. Blomfield did seek legal council and after over one year of
correspondence, Ms. Blomfield filed a lawsuit based on
discriminatory practices of the Anchorage School District and the
Alaska Student Activities Association (ASAA) and the State of
Alaska - Department of Education. The lawsuit requested a
standardized policy of participation for these alternative
students. The judgement was in favor of the Department of
Education, the Anchorage School District, and ASAA. However, the
judge's summary contained a handwritten note which stated that this
case offered convincing argument.
Ms. Blomfield noted that last year the House HESS committee
introduced HB 156, but it did not move from committee. SB 225
offers a fair and equitable education basis for all children. No
matter how a parent decides to educate their child, everyone is a
taxpayer and should be afforded the benefits of the public school.
She informed the committee that the Anchorage School District's
administration is concerned about the following areas:
(1) accountability of students regarding grades and
discipline,
(2) fiscal responsibility and the associated cost which could
result in a revision of the foundation funding formula in
order to include these non public school students,
(3) administrative burdens which could be placed on the
incoming student,
(4) school spirit which could be enhanced with a broadened
base of support and diversity.
In conclusion, she urged the Senate to adopt SB 225 which would
bring Alaska in line with the other 19 states having pending or
current legislation on this issue.
Number 297
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if anyone else wished to testify or if there
were any questions. Hearing none, she announced that there would
be a Joint HESS meeting tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. and a Senate HESS
meeting on Friday, February 9th regarding SB 188. She invited any
comments or suggestions to improve this bill. There being no
further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at
10:24 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|