Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
03/01/2023 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB69 | |
| Presentation(s): Uncovering the Myths of School Choice by Bob Griffin | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 2023
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jamie Allard, Co-Chair
Representative Justin Ruffridge, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Prax
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Andi Story
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative CJ McCormick
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Andrew Gray
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Jennifer Armstrong
Representative Genevieve Mina
Representative Maxine Dibert
Representative Cliff Groh
Senator Loki Tobin
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 69
"An Act relating to the reclassification of first class cities
as second class cities; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION(S): UNCOVERING THE MYTHS OF SCHOOL CHOICE BY BOB
GRIFFIN
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 69
SHORT TITLE: RECLASSIFICATION OF FIRST CLASS CITIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRONK
02/10/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/10/23 (H) EDC, CRA
03/01/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 69.
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff
Representative Mike Cronk
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the prime sponsor,
Representative Cronk, gave the sectional analysis of HB 69.
BOB GRIFFIN, Senior Education Research Fellow
Alaska Policy Forum
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Myths and Merits of School Choice."
BEN DEGROW, Policy Director
Education Choice
Foundation for Excellence in Education
Midland, Michigan
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Education Choice: Overview and Trends."
LESLIE HINER, Vice President
Legal Affairs
EdChoice
Indianapolis, Indiana
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Educational Choice: The Future of Education and Its
Constitutional Foundation."
MATTHEW LADNER, PhD, Director
Arizona Center for Student Opportunity
Arizona Charter Schools Association
Phoenix, Arizona
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation, titled "The
Future of Public Education is...Excellent."
JODI TAYLOR, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As a parent, gave invited testimony on
school choice.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:08 AM
CO-CHAIR JAMIE ALLARD called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Prax,
McKay, Himschoot, Allard, and Ruffridge were present at the call
to order. Representative Story arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 69-RECLASSIFICATION OF FIRST CLASS CITIES
8:02:02 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 69, "An Act relating to the reclassification
of first class cities as second class cities; and providing for
an effective date."
8:02:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 69. He pointed out that the first-class
city of Tanana has been unable to transfer its school to the
Yukon-Koyukuk rural education attendance area. He stated that
this is because a first-class city would need to be reclassified
to legally transfer. From the annual report from the local
boundary commission, he pointed out that a minimum population of
400 residents is required to form a first-class city; however,
there is not a mechanism for automatic reclassification if a
city's population drops. He stated that the proposed
legislation would be the first step in allowing the Tanana
school to be transferred to the Yukon-Koyukuk School District.
He referenced past legislation which had been required to allow
the transfer of a different small school into another school
district. He concluded that without this legislation the Tanana
school cannot be transferred.
8:03:57 AM
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Representative Mike Cronk, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, Representative
Cronk, presented the sectional analysis [copy included in the
committee packet], which read as follows:
Section 1:
City Population Eligibility: Establishes a threshold
of "less than" 400 persons, as verified by the latest
US Census, for automatically reclassifying a first-
class city that requests such action.
Local Boundary Commission Timeframe: Once requested, a
timeframe of 10 days is established for the Local
Boundary Commission to notify the requesting city
council that they are officially eligible for
reclassification.
City decision timeframe: After the council receives
official notification by the Local Boundary
Commission, the city has 30 days to reject the
automatic reclassification.
City reconsideration timeframe: If the city council
opts to reject the automatic reclassification for one
year from the date.
Section 2:
Establishes immediate effective date.
8:05:09 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 69 was held over.
8:05:15 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:05 a.m. to 8:06 a.m.
^PRESENTATION(S): Uncovering the Myths of School Choice by Bob
Griffin
PRESENTATION(S): Uncovering the Myths of School Choice by Bob
Griffin
8:06:34 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the final order of business would
be several presentations on school choice.
8:06:51 AM
BOB GRIFFIN, Senior Education Research Fellow, Alaska Policy
Forum, gave a PowerPoint presentation, titled "Uncovering the
Myths of School Choice" [hard copy included in the committee
packet]. He stated that the Alaska Policy Forum is a
nonpartisan thinktank. He provided an overview and introduced
the other presenters, as listed on slide 2. He shared that he
is a member of the Alaska State Board of Education; however, he
stated that he is not present at the meeting in this capacity
and the board is not affiliated with the school choice issue
except for the Tribal compacting work he is involved with.
8:09:34 AM
MR. GRIFFIN noted that he has provided the committee with the
same information provided to the board concerning the optimistic
outcomes for the state's educational ranking, as it has had some
of the lowest learning outcomes in the country. He stated that
there is a fare amount of work to be done, but because there are
already students enrolled in distance learning, improvements
have been seen. He reminded the committee that, even though
there have been disappointing results regarding the state's
educational ranking, "our kids are just as bright, our teachers
are just as dedicated, and our parents love kids just as much as
anywhere else." He expressed the opinion that the differences
in outcomes are mainly related to policy decisions.
8:11:16 AM
MR. GRIFFIN expressed the hope that the presentations will
communicate how policy makers can help improve student outcomes.
He noted that the subject is complicated and school choice is
only one element. He referenced that states with successful
ratings in education have some school choice options which may
work in Alaska. He pointed out some of the assets already
available in Alaska for school choice. He advised that
homeschools in Alaska are hard to track as many families are
living off the grid. He continued that the state already has
21,000 students in correspondence schools, which relates to
about 17 percent of the student population. He suggested that
because of this, Alaska has one of the lowest percentages of
learning loss from the COVID-19 pandemic. He discussed several
of these correspondence schools in the state.
MR. GRIFFIN continued that the 28 charter schools in the state
are another asset, with 6,700 enrolled students. He showed the
data on slide 2, which points out the downside to charter
schools in the state, as Alaska ranks low among other states.
He contributed this to the state's laws restricting charter
schools. He added that other alternative education programs in
the state include Montessori schools and the boarding school at
Mt. Edgecombe. Addressing private schools, he said that Alaska
has one of the lowest participation rates in the country.
Pointing out other types of schools, he described hybrid schools
as students being taught partially in homeschool and partially
in correspondence school. He described micro schools, or
podding, as where parents work together to hire a teacher. He
added that leveraging technology will be an asset to schooling
in rural communities. He moved to slide 3 and pointed out the
low poverty rate in Alaska compared with other states. He
stated that there is the idea that this contributes to
disappointing school rankings.
8:19:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented on the restricted laws for
charter schools in Alaska and requested an elaboration of this
point.
MR. GRIFFIN replied that the National Alliance of Charter
Schools ranks charter schools by their state laws, as seen on
slide 3. With the top state scoring 240, he stated that Alaska
is ranked 83. He stated that this score has to do with Alaska's
requirement for multiple authorizers. In response to a follow-
up question, he expressed agreement that this is because Alaska
authorizes its charter schools through the school districts or
through the Department of Education and Early Development. He
discussed the alliance's process of rating schools and gave more
details of why Alaska does not score better.
8:21:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT, in reference to slide 3 concerning
poverty rankings, questioned the number of Title I schools in
Alaska.
MR. GRIFFIN expressed uncertainty. He suggested that the number
of students receiving a free or reduced lunch would be a similar
result.
8:22:52 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:22 a.m. to 8:24 a.m.
8:24:01 AM
BEN DEGROW, Policy Director, Education Choice, Foundation for
Excellence in Education (ExcelinEd), gave a PowerPoint
presentation, titled "Education Choice: Overview and Trends"
[hard copy included in the committee packet]. He shared that
ExcelinEd has 15 years of experience of providing policy
solutions for education systems in the country. He moved to
slide 2, which demonstrated the broad range of policy solutions
for educational choice. He expressed the opinion that this
choice should begin and end with the needs of students and
families. He pointed out that this range of choices begins with
the "most overlooked," which is residentially assigned public
schools, as parents would be able to choose these schools by
purchasing a house in the district. He pointed out some of the
other options listed, such as open-enrollment public schools,
magnet schools, public charter schools, and the multiple types
of private schools, of which will be the focus of his
presentation.
8:26:26 AM
MR. DEGROW advised the committee that not any one system will
meet the needs of every student. He pointed out that students
assigned to residential school districts often have no other
options, and when the school does not work for them, these
students need an alternative option. The reasons for parental
school choice were listed on slide 3, as student safety,
personalization, experiences with faculty, opportunities to
achieve, and climate and culture of the school. He added that
very few schools excel in all of these areas.
MR. DEGROW moved on to slide 4, which laid out the three main
varieties of private education: state-funded coupons; tax credit
scholarships funded by businesses and donors; and education
scholarship accounts, also known as education savings accounts
(ESAs). He added that ESAs are issued in the student's name and
can be used for private school tuition, tutoring, curricular
materials, and much more. He moved to slide 5, which addressed
the international trends for education choice and the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
He stated that voucher tuition tax credits are widespread in
developed countries.
8:32:33 AM
MR. DEGROW moved to slide 6, which exhibited data on the growth
of programs supplying private school choice across the country.
He stated that slide 7 looks at this data from the perspective
of student enrollment in private schools. Moving to slide 8, he
pointed out the graph showing K-12 spending for state-funded
coupons, tax credit scholarships, and ESAs and said this data
shows that the amount of money spent on a student's education in
a private school is less than it would be in the K-12 public
school system. Research supporting this was shown on slide 9.
He pointed out the negative findings on the slide and explained
that these came from Louisiana, and it was determined this was
because of its rigid program design. He concluded with a map of
the country showing the states which have introduced ESA
legislation. He suggested that more parents are opting to use
their education dollars in creative ways. He expressed the
opinion that this is in response to school closings during the
pandemic, as families were frustrated. He said that opening new
school models has helped students thrive.
8:41:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referred to slide 2 which showed the
nine different choices for K-12 education. She questioned
whether there is a state that has all nine of the choices.
MR. DEGROW estimated that maybe a handful of states would have
all nine choices. He stated that around 45 states have both
charter schools and open-enrollment public schools, while every
state allows home schooling. Of the three types of private
schools, only a hand full of states have all of these, with
Indiana possibly having all nine.
8:42:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT, with a follow-up question, pointed to
slide 4 and the list of eight items ESAs can be used for. She
stated that public schools are mandated to supply six of these
eight items, and correspondence schools can do six of these
eight things. She requested a clarification why something
different would need to be done.
MR. DEGROW responded that the fact families have signed up for
ESAs means these students have not been well served by the
public school assigned to them. He pointed out that ESAs
originated by serving students with disabilities, as these
parents were frustrated by not receiving adequate services.
These families sought out alternatives from a broader range of
providers.
8:44:59 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE, concerning tax credit scholarships,
requested an example of an organization doing this at a high
rate. He questioned whether there is an organization doing this
in Alaska.
MR. DEGROW replied that about 20 states are operating these tax
credit programs, with each state's program being different. He
offered that a nonprofit in Florida is administering a program
which is the largest in the nation, serving about 100,000 low-
income students. He mentioned that some organizations operate
in multiple states, and there are those which work with certain
groups and types of schools.
MR. GRIFFIN added that this is not available in Alaska, as per
statute, Alaska is not recognized as a school choice state.
8:46:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed the understanding that the
Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibits the state from
spending money for private schools, tuition, and religious
organizations. She questioned whether any state has changed its
constitution to implement school choice.
MR. GRIFFIN deferred the question to Leslie Hiner.
8:47:30 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:47 a.m. to 8:48 a.m.
8:48:36 AM
LESLIE HINER, Vice President, Legal Affairs, EdChoice, gave a
PowerPoint presentation, titled "Educational Choice: The Future
of Education and Its Constitutional Foundation" [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. She shared that she has been
advocating for school choice since the mid-1980s and has been
involved with all types of litigation surrounding school choice.
She moved to slide 2. She stated that the core issue involving
school choice is "always keep the interest of the child out in
front of you." She made the point that bullied children have
motivated parents to look for different education systems as
places for their children to thrive. Moving to the next slide,
she stated that a strong legal foundation supports that parents
have the primary authority to decide how and where their child
is educated. Reviewing decisions by the Supreme Court of the
United States which support this, she began with the 1925
decision upholding the idea that "the child is not the mere
creature of the state."
8:54:11 AM
MS. HINER, continuing with the history of school choice,
discussed Dr. Milton Friedman, as seen on slide 4. She stated
that in 1954 he wrote an article, titled "The Role of Government
in Education." She stated that in this article he defined a way
to fund education to have the "best results," which is giving
parents the funds to choose the educational resources which
would be best for their child. She moved to slide 5 and spoke
about the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2002, which reiterated
that a child's educational funding should be directed to the
parent for the parent to decide. In result of this decision,
she said that there was a break between government and religion
concerning education. She referred to the court case in Alaska
in 1978 where the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that no private
schools can receive state funding.
MS. HINER moved to the next slide and discussed the U.S. Supreme
Court case which ruled that states are not required to subsidize
private education, but if a state decides to do so, it cannot
disqualify a private school solely because of its religion. She
moved to slide 7 and pointed out the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court
case which ruled that its previous decision applies to every
state in the country. In other words, a state's constitution
can not be used to deny the federal constitutional right of any
parent. She pointed to this case in addressing Representative
Story's previous question concerning the necessity to change a
state's constitution. She stated that this case supports the
edict that violating the rights of parents control over their
child's education is against the Constitution of the United
States. In conclusion, she moved to slide 8 which shows school
choice programs by state. She called attention to the
litigation in Alaska and across the country which is against
state funding for school choice programs. She remarked that out
of 48 recent cases, only 5 were lost. She further discussed how
quickly school choice is being allowed across the country.
9:06:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that using Alaska Policy Forum's
website she collected data on top performing states per the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). She pointed
out that six top-rated states are not on the chart on slide 8 of
schools with educational choice. She questioned this.
MS. HINER answered that in any one of these states, the
percentage of children participating in school choice programs
is small. She stated that because NAEP is so broad, the vast
majority of these scores are from students currently enrolled in
public schools. She argued that the children doing well in
public schools are not the ones moved to other school choice
programs.
9:09:26 AM
MR. GRIFFIN commented on the NAEP data for low income fourth
graders. He stated that Florida is first in reading with five
school choice programs and Mississippi is second with three
programs.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that she is not looking at
low-income students, but rather overall scores on the Alaska
Policy Forum's website. She reiterated that the top-rated
districts are not represented on the chart of states with school
choice.
MR. GRIFFIN responded that when looking at overall statistics,
the numbers are not stratified by economic status; therefore,
the data can be inaccurate, with wide variations on poverty
rates between states. He added that lower income children tend
to score lower on NAEP.
9:10:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT, if a private school is publicly
funded, questioned whether families in private schools would
still have 100 percent of their educational rights, including
free lunches, the right to free speech, and the right to
transportation.
MS. HINER replied that the school would not be publicly funded,
rather the child is funded, with the parent deciding how to use
the funds; therefore, whatever choice the parent makes will
define the benefit that the child would receive. She stated
that public schools and private schools are not the same, so the
benefits would be different.
9:12:42 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE questioned whether any state has altered its
constitution to avoid litigation.
MS. HINER replied that some states have considered altering
their constitution; however, the supreme courts in these states
concurred with the U.S. Supreme Court. She pointed out that
Oklahoma, with one of the most restrictive constitutions in the
country, had attempted this. She reiterated that the funding
for school choice goes to the family, and it is the parents'
choice, not the state. She further discussed this type of
litigation. In response to a follow-up question in regard to
the cost to states for this litigation, she stated that these
cases are handled by the attorney general's office. She added
that the Institute for Justice, which is a nonprofit
organization, will often intervene in these types of cases,
defending the rights of parents.
9:17:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX questioned whether Alaska's constitution
would allow private schools to be subsidized.
MS. HINER replied that she has looked at the state's
constitution. She pointed out that the section on education has
similar language as other states; however, there was an
amendment to the constitution which says that "no money should
be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any
religious or other private educational institutions." She
further discussed this issue and concluded that with the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision, there would be multiple ways to
provide different educational resources, while maintaining the
basic principle which prevents the state from establishing any
kind of religion.
9:21:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY, in a comment to the committee, suggested
that the question should be put to Legislative Legal Services.
9:22:49 AM
MATTHEW LADNER, PhD, Director, Arizona Center for Student
Opportunity, Arizona Charter Schools Association, gave a
PowerPoint presentation, titled "The Future of Public Education
is...Excellent" [hard copy included in the committee packet].
He discussed the history of school choice in Arizona, pointing
out it has more options than any other state. He moved to slide
2, which was a duplicate of slide 8 from Mr. DeGrow's
presentation. He reiterated that the chart covers the outcomes
of private school choice programs. He added that the effect on
public schools is a very important question. He moved to slide
3, which showed a map of the percentage of students across the
country with access to a charter school in 2014 to 2015. He
pointed out that while Arizona has the highest percentage of
charter schools, Alaska has the third highest. He moved to
slide 4 and slide 5, which showed a study from the Stanford
University Educational Opportunity Project. He stated that the
data in this study is different from NAEP, as it has data on
academic growth. He stated that within the community of
scholars on this subject, there is a consensus that the progress
of education over time is the best measure of school quality.
He continued that NAEP measures proficiency, which is correlated
with student demographics, but it does not address achievement
gaps. To overcome achievement gaps, he said there needs to be a
fast rate of academic growth. On slide 5 which charts academic
growth, he explained that most of the country falls into the
quadrant which has a faster growth rate for the non-low-income
students and a slower growth rate for low-income students. He
pointed out that Alaska has the second fastest academic growth
rate in the country for low-income students.
9:31:51 AM
MR. LADNER moved to slide 6. He explained the map of Ohio by
pointing out the shaded [urban] school districts with open
enrollment, as these students are allowed to attend any school
within the shaded areas. He pointed out that outside of the
urban areas there is little shading, representing few open-
enrollment choices. He deduced that this restricts the [low-
income] urban students from choosing these schools. He
explained this exemplifies most of the education systems in the
country. On the same slide, he pointed out the map of the
Scottsdale Unified School District in Arizona. He stated that
most of the students enrolled in this district do not live
within its boundaries. He contributes this to an open-
enrollment law that Arizona passed in 1994 and the amount of
school choice the state provides. He expressed the opinion that
the result of this is the positive academic growth in Arizona.
MR. LADNER moved to the next slide and addressed a study that
looks at rural schools. He stated that opponents of school
choice make two arguments. The first argument is there are no
options for rural students. The second argument is that school
choice will destroy rural school districts. He stated that the
study on the slide shows that both of these arguments cannot be
true at the same time; however, they both can be false. He
expressed the opinion that both arguments are false. He
discussed this using Arizona as an example which supports the
study's findings. He concluded the presentation by discussing
micro schools, suggesting that these schools have more to offer
smaller communities, and he gave examples.
9:42:26 AM
MR. LADNER, in response to Co-Chair Ruffridge, stated that the
data on slide 5, which shows Alaska's positive educational
growth, is from Stanford University's website. He stated that
test scores from each state have been linked to allow the
comparisons, and this was linked to NAEP. He stated that this
is only for the third grade to the eighth grade, as there is no
high school data. He further explained the study. He
reiterated that the measure of academic growth is a measure of
school quality. He expressed the opinion that this is better
than measuring proficiency. In response to a follow-up question
he stated that the Stanford University Educational Opportunity
Project has data for a number of different subgroups, but it
does not have data for every single school. He stated that the
data from this is a complement to NAEP data.
9:48:28 AM
JODI TAYLOR, representing self, gave invited testimony on school
choice from the perspective of a parent. She read from a
written statement [copy included in the committee packet.] She
stated that she had volunteered in the public school system, but
has since moved away from this, in part because her child was
shamed for her religious beliefs. She referenced involvement
with a charter school and described the administration as rigid,
with an unwillingness to change in the light of low performance.
She continued that she enrolled her younger child in a
correspondence school, but this school did not provide
proficient educational outcomes. She provided examples of
others' dissatisfaction with the public school system. She
continued with a discussion focusing on vocational education
opportunities. In conclusion, she stated that the point of
educational choice is that parents should have options; they can
choose what best fits their child, and this can change, "which
is just fine."
10:02:41 AM
DR. LADNER, in response to Representative Himschoot, expressed
doubt that Arizona and Ohio have schools only accessible by boat
or plane.
MR. GRIFFIN, in response to Representative Himschoot, stated
that according to the 2019 PEAKS English Language results for
Alaska, Skagway had the highest rating. He stated that he would
follow up to the committee with more information on this. He
expressed the understanding that the higher ratings tended to be
in the coastal towns of Alaska. He stated that he would follow-
up to the committee with a chart showing the corresponding
poverty rates.
10:05:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned whether there is a
correlation between high test scores and low-poverty rates.
Mr. Griffin replied "absolutely," as this is a common trend. He
stated this is the reason Alaska Policy Forum disaggregates its
data by economic status. In response to a follow-up question,
he expressed the understanding that the poverty levels between
Anchorage and Skagway are not very different.
10:06:32 AM
DR. LANDER, in response to Representative Prax concerning the
data used in the study, stated that the Stanford University
Educational Opportunity Project's website contains data on
individual school districts and on county and state levels. He
stated that specific year by year data is also available for
download.
10:08:39 AM
[Mr. DeGrow was unable to respond during the hearing because of
technical difficulties. The following two questions have been
put on the record for follow-up responses.]
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed the understanding that there were
negative effects in reading and math scores after the voucher
program in Louisiana, as discussed on slide 10 of Mr. DeGrow's
presentation. She expressed the understanding that he had said
this was because private schools needed to teach to the state's
test. For the record, she questioned whether Mr. DeGrow sees
this as a negative thing. She questioned the meaning of "teach
to the state's test."
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT, for the record to Mr. Degrow,
questioned why the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program did not
produce the expected results.
10:10:15 AM
MR. GRIFFIN, in reference to an earlier question concerning free
or reduced lunch rates, stated that Alaska is ranked thirty-
sixth in the country for free and reduced lunch rate, with 43
percent. He stated the New Hampshire is the lowest at 29
percent and Mississippi is the highest at 73 percent. In
conclusion to the presentations, he reiterated that there are
21,000 students and parents in Alaska who are choosing something
different than public school. He argued that the easy thing for
parents to do is send their children to public schools.
10:12:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that Finland is a top
performer in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). She stated that it does not have school
choice programs; however, it "doubled down" on public education
in the 1950s. She suggested that its high performance is the
result of this. If the goal is student achievement, she said,
when public schools are well funded, this provides a wide range
of opportunities. She pointed out that public education may not
be the right choice for everyone, but Alaska does have six of
the nine options for school choice. She argued if this same
effort is put into the public schools, outcomes would be better.
10:13:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that legislators need to consider
core concepts. He argued that the choice for education should
be the parents.
10:14:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY addressed the issues of sending children to
public school and the difficulties parents face. She reiterated
that the Legislative Legal Service's opinion needs to be on the
record concerning some of the school choices and the state's
constitution.
10:15:59 AM
MS. HINER offered consultation, as school choice is complex
litigation, and some local attorneys may not know the details of
this. She expressed the importance of understanding that school
choice is not a battle between private schools and public
schools. She suggested that it has been positioned this way.
She gave examples of public and private school teachers working
together, as this is about how students learn. She expressed
the opinion that just because a student and parent choose
another option, it does not mean public school is "bad."
10:19:29 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:19 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0069A.PDF |
HEDC 3/1/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 69 |
| Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 69 |
| Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB69 Sponsor Statement |
| Request Hearing.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB69 Sectional Analysis |
| 1. Bob Griffin - School Choice 1 Mar 2023.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2023 8:00:00 AM |
Bob Griffin Presentation |
| 2. Ben DeGrow - School Choice Myth Presentation 03-01-23.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2023 8:00:00 AM |
Bob DeGrow Presentation |
| 3. Leslie Hiner - Educational Choice.The Future of Education and Its Constitutional Foundation.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2023 8:00:00 AM |
Leslie Hiner Presentation |
| 4. Matt Ladner - School Choice Rural America.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2023 8:00:00 AM |
Matt Ladner Presentaiton |
| 5. Educational Choice - Parent Perspective.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2023 8:00:00 AM |
Parents Perspective |