HJR 1-CONST. AM: EDUCATION FUNDING  9:12:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to state aid for education. 9:13:31 AM JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State Legislature, recapped the previous hearings and reviewed the points of HJR 1, as it was held over during the interim. 9:15:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked about fiscal impacts. MR. POUND answered that the fiscal impact is zero. 9:15:33 AM CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony. 9:16:03 AM TOM COBAUGH stated support for HJR 1 and said this would level the playing field and invite public debate. He suggested it would correct the current economic disparity that exists, where only parents of means can gain open access to educational opportunities beyond public schools. Further, the possibility could result in a competitive school system, and he opined that competition, in our society, creates a healthy environment. 9:17:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked witnesses to include a statement in their testimony regarding parental status and the educational situation they have chosen for their children. 9:18:13 AM BOB GRIFFIN stated support for HJR 1 and said it would be important for residents to be allowed to vote on this important issue. He opined that school choice improves student outcomes and reduces costs; as proven through peer reviewed empirical data gathered from 23 other states. 9:20:08 AM BETHANY MARCUM stated support for HJR 1 and said it would be important for residents to be allowed to vote on this issue, and express their wishes. 9:20:42 AM MEGAN LOCKARD stated opposition to HJR 1 opining that educational choice already exists. As a parent of six children, she said she can choose home school, charter school, or public school. She said the cost of the private school she looked into would not be covered by the proposed voucher amounts. Further, those who choose private school can already afford it and this bill would not provide enough in tuition to allow low income families to enroll their children. 9:23:19 AM MICHAEL CHAMBERS, Chair, Alaskan Libertarian Party, testified with official support for HJR 1, on behalf of the Alaskan Libertarian Party, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: I have one child who attended and graduated from West High and is currently attending UAA on a full academic scholarship. I was a public school teacher in Delta Junction and currently I am the Chair of the Alaska Libertarian Party. In this capacity, I am the official voice of approximately 9000 registered libertarians. The vast majority of us are in support of HJR1 because it removes the prohibition of legislation to actively engage in future educational choices of Alaskan children. I have heard many "scare tactics" from citizens opposed to this constitutional amendment. One issue they are concerned about is the "loss of accountability" in other educational settings, hut as you know, the Department of Education is currently engaged in vacating the high school exit exam, which is in fact, a measure of accountability in the current educational monopoly. Additionally, you know support of HJR 1 merely establishes only two issues going forward. 1. It allows all registered voters of Alaska to cast a vote. This issue reaches into virtually every household in Alaska and should be settled by the citizens themselves and not the legislature. 2. If approved by the citizens, this passage would allow our elected representatives the opportunity to consider and legislate school choice options in a representative environment instead of the current environment of "special interests." Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 9:25:01 AM ELIZABETH MANNING stated opposition for HJR 1 and said it would siphon needed funds away from an excellent existing public school system. Choice already exists, she opined. She reported that her children currently attend Government Hill Elementary. 9:26:42 AM MIKE PRAX stated support for HJR 1 to maximize choice for everyone, as lack of choice causes conflict. He reported that his two children home schooled and also attended public high school. He urged passage of the bill to allow a statewide vote. 9:28:11 AM MARITZA BLADA stated support for HJR 1, stressing the importance to allow residents an opportunity to vote on the issue. 9:28:56 AM MARY TOUTONGHI stated opposition to HJR 1, paraphrased from a prepared document, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: I observed the invited testimony of the Senate Finance Committee on Monday, February 3, [2014], would like to share some observations and concerns regarding that meeting and the Senate Joint Resolution 9 which was under discussion. My first concern was that no one with alternative points of view was invited. I sincerely hope that as you acquire information you explore both sides of the issues to be sure you are making an informed decision rather than a preformed decision. Another concern was that prior to spending public monies you have a workable end goal and a protocol for exit effectiveness. If you are offering money to an entity to educate children, how are you breaking down your goals and measuring effectiveness? It is difficult to consider what is expected without common standards that involve thoughtful planning backed up with appropriate data. It is not clear what Senator [Dunleavy] meant when he [said] (paraphrased) everyone should have their own standards in utilizing the public monies for education. We use goal setting and evaluation processes with every other aspect of our planning for state activities, roads, construction, etc. Why should State standards for the education of our children not be planned with goals and exit criteria for all those who utilize public allotments, (i.e. vouchers) that affect our most precious assets, our children. Following this thought it has been my observation that the plan to draw public allotments (vouchers) been carefully developed and choreographed with backup plans of various types. (Changing the State Constitution, bringing the issue to the voters, etc.) The actual plan to spend the funds extracted from the educational budget of the public schools is amorphous: no goals, no criteria, no evaluation. In addition the Governor mentioned the use of white boards as a wonderful opportunity for many of our children. With the cuts in personnel, who are the people who will form the goals and objectives to make these experiences a truly educational one? It is clear that the individuals in our legislature have carefully planned their goals for this session. They are clearly choreographed to produce certain outcomes. Since this is a body that has sworn to provide for the common good of the people in the State of Alaska, why are the State's children offered such a poorly planned and implemented education? As a mother, grandmother, educator and speech language pathologist, I would certainly hope for a better planned educational program for the children of the State of Alaska. 9:32:04 AM BILL LIGHT stated support for HJR 1 and said it is an American traditional to have choice and discussion. He urged the committee to send the issue to the polls. 9:32:52 AM MIKE COONS stated support for HJR 1, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: First off HJR 1 is not about vouchers. All HJR 1 and SJR 9 does is refine the Constitution as to education and how the State can dispense funds and then to give We the People the ability to debate, research, find the truth, vs the lies, and then go to the voting booth and vote for or against the Constitutional Amendment, period. In direct response to comments made that those in the legislature who feel that since they have a college education, that they are the only ones able to make such a decision, I say thanks but no thanks! I as a responsible citizen and voter not only can, but will make a valued decision on this subject and will not give up my God Given rights to anyone to cast a vote for me! If people cannot understand the issue, don't have the time to research, debate and listen to the facts, then I say, don't vote! For to vote No or Yes means you have weighed the facts and made a decision. Secondly, our nation and State are not a democracy, we are a REPUBLIC. Third, all private/secular/religious schools will have to meet all existing standards and laws. The accusation of segregation that is sadly pervasive by the NEA and NAACP is racist in form, function and nature and I will do all I can to point that out! In point of fact, it is a sad fact that when the left is losing a battle, they revert to pulling the race card or personally attacking people! That is repulsive and I will continue to fight back! Fourth, the continual attack that this is somehow violating "separation of Church and State" is another red herring. President Thomas Jefferson for far too long has been misquoted and I'm sure he is rolling in his grave with the progressives using his words in vain! "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion", that is from the First Amendment and is clear as clear can be to those who have even a 5th grade reading comprehension! No where is a "separation of Church and State" even inferred! All it is saying is our government cannot force us to be any religion, nor making a State religion as it was in England. In closing, I ask only that We the People are able to vote this Constitutional Amendment up or down and if NEA and NAACP or other progressive people and organizations want to vote against it, fine. For I will be voting YES! 9:34:03 AM KRISTINA JOHANNES stated support for HJR 1, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: I live in Representative Lindsey Holmes' district. I am the mother of four adult children who at various times were homeschooled, public schooled and private schooled. I represent myself. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I urge you to support HJR1 and let the people vote on this important issue. HJR 1 is about whether or not we should eliminate language in our constitution that we now know has an anti-Catholic pedigree. The United State Supreme Court has made it clear that this language is not necessary. I feel very strongly that if it is not necessary to have particular language in our constitution it is necessary that we not have it. As a Catholic I would prefer that my constitution not contain language derived from an animus against my religious ancestors. As to those who fear removing this language is an attack on public education, let me reassure them. If HJR 1 passes, the education section of our state constitution will still say, "The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State, and may provide for other public educational institutions. Schools and institutions so established shall be free from sectarian control." Again, I urge you to pass this amendment and let the people vote on this issue. 9:35:33 AM MARTHA FREEMAN stated opposition to HJR 1, opining that the difficulty for school success is poverty based. She paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: I'm a resident of Anchorage, and have two children in Anchorage public schools. I have two points to share regarding HJR1 and the use of public funds for private schools. First, our public schools are providing an excellent education for most students. With a daughter in college and another in 8th grade, I've been consistently impressed with the quality of their experience, thanks primarily to many outstanding teachers. Students that are succeeding in our public schools don't need vouchers - they already have access to a fine education. Second, vouchers won't help the students who aren't succeeding. Several years ago I attended a parent assembly meeting to hear a presentation by the Anchorage School District's testing specialist. He stated that if you know the percentage of students at a school that qualify for school lunch subsidies, you can predict that school's average test scores within a few percentage points. Why? Because school lunch subsidies are an indicator of poverty. Poverty is correlated with a host of other problems from transience to poor nutrition to weak English language skills. These are the real challenges that make it so difficult for some children to succeed in school. Sadly, vouchers don't address any of those problems. In short, most students succeed within our public schools without a voucher system, and vouchers won't help those who don't. The real goal for us as a city, a state, a democracy is to address the poverty that undermines school success, so that our public schools can provide a great education to all students. 9:37:18 AM LISA PAESANI stated opposition to HJR 1, testifying as a parent of three children. She opined that it would siphon funds away from Alaska's excellent public schools and a voucher system may create a segregated atmosphere. She said choice exists, that her children attend Romig, and that there is a healthy diversity represented in the student body. Having attended an information meeting on this topic, she reported that there is more to consider than tuition cost, as logistics play a large part in having a child attend a school outside of the neighborhood. Additionally, comparing Alaskan needs statistically to the contiguous states is incongruent. 9:39:23 AM TERRIE GOTTSTEIN stated opposition to HJR 1, and said she is thankful that her two children were able to attend the public school system and are currently succeeding at the college level. The proposed bill would allow state funding for private and religious education, which goes against separation of church and state mandates. At a time of decreased public school funding, this type of action could decimate the current system. The legislature will be held accountable, should a dismantling of the state education program occur, as a result of this constitutional amendment passing. She suggested that those in support of this measure could bring the topic to the ballot via a grassroots petition, and opined that such action would eliminate outside funding of the issue. Finally, the full fiscal impacts need to be further investigated and understood. 9:42:26 AM HOPE FINKELSTEIN stated opposition to HJR 1 and said it is important to uphold the current constitution. She thanked the committee for their public service and reminded them that they are elected to uphold and protect resources, as state stewards. She cautioned that it is important for the members to refrain from manifesting personal interests, while in office. She said her two children attended charter schools. Choice exists, and for her family it meant relocation. To a member's question, she indicated that her children have attended Romig Middle and West High schools. 9:46:21 AM LADAWN DRUCE, Representative, National Education Association of Alaska (NEAA), testified with official opposition to HJR 1, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: I am speaking on behalf of NEA Alaska and the over 13,000 members who work in our public schools. I thank you for the opportunity to testify because constitutional changes should be considered very carefully. HJR 1 if passed would start the dialogue which would lead to the greatest change in public education in the state of Alaska since statehood. To date there has been no relevant data or information presented what would suggest our state needs to open the constitution for this purpose. If "choice" is the concern; I would ask, "Is the public aware of the numerous choices we currently have within our public school structure today?" I would also ask; "What is our state trying to address with this type of action?" If the answer is "greater accountability in education", then what evidence is there that opening the constitution and allowing public monies to follow the student to "undefined educational choices" would result in students being better educated in our state? There is no evidence that HJR 1 would result in students having a better educational experience and greater opportunities than they currently have. Please consider the following: Access in rural Alaska would be limited at best, it would not expand their education and would in fact dilute it. Outside money will pour into this state if this is on the ballot. Americans for Prosperity, members of ALEC, and the NEA will spend millions to convince our citizens this would be good for our state. With school districts and the state facing budget deficits, we should not gamble on an expense this large and should instead invest in all of our students' education. Please do not pass HJR 1. 9:47:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many polled members were being represented by her statement. MS. DRUCE responded that no poll had been conducted. 9:48:36 AM STEPHEN O'BRIEN stated opposition for HJR 1, and stressed the need to proceed with caution. He paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: My primary concern [regarding] HJR 1 is its vagueness and lack of accountability. With this potential re- allocation of state resources how will these expenditures be monitored? Who will oversee the curriculum? Will the teachers be certified? Administrators? How will budgets and expenditures be monitored? What discipline protocols be determined? How will student admission requests be handled? Will these students be eligible for buses? I am very concerned about the lack of accountability. Our country was founded on the cry "No taxation without representation." From my perspective this Amendment would jeopardize the public's right to monitor these public expenditures. 9:50:00 AM JOE BOYLE, President, Matanuska-Susitna Education Association, stated opposition for HJR 1, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: I'm the president of the Mat-Su Education Association and the father of two Wasilla High School graduates. I am speaking in opposition to HJR. Our goal as stakeholders in public education is to provide a quality education to every child. We need to provide that education to every child because the health and prosperity of our republic depends on it. When Horace Man and others advocated for universal, public education in the 19th century, their intent was to unify our increasingly diverse population. And it worked! When I was a little boy reciting my lessons about George Washington, I had no idea that my relatives came to this country long after the Revolution. George Washington was the father of my country, and it didn't matter when my ancestors arrived on these shores. Even today, it's a wonderful thing to hear little boys and girls, some with distinct accents, talking about our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution as if they were there when they were written. That's what public schools do. They continue to unify our ever more diverse people. Because of public schools we celebrate our diversity and our unity at the same time. This is one of the things that make our country exceptional - it's not that common around the world - and we have public education to thank for it. I don't know why some people want to weaken and dilute universal, public education, but I know if they succeed, our children and grandchildren will regret it and ask us why? I support public schools; I support the idea of a people united; I don't support the dividing and sorting of American children, and I don't support HJR 1. 9:51:52 AM ALISON ARIANS stated opposition to HJR 1, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Sometimes when I've listened to the debate on this bill, I've wondered whether it's really worth arguing about. "So what," I think. If people want to risk sending their kids to unaccredited schools that might spring up to take advantage of their stat-sourced funds, well, that's not my problem. Lots of people have had bad experiences in the Lower 48, with unscrupulous school owners taking off with their money, or just not educating their children properly. But my child will be safe in our public school system. Why should I bother weighing in? The reason is that I have listened to what teachers have to say about this bill. I am not a teacher, nor have I ever been a member of the NEA [National Education Association]. But I have great respect for the teachers in our schools. They are doing a wonderful job educating our children. Some legislators seem to feel that teachers' testimony on this resolution is worthless. But teachers are the very people we should be asking about this bill. Let's acknowledge teachers' expertise. If we were instituting a change in oil policy, of course we would ask the oil companies their opinions. When I listen to what the teachers are saying, I hear a resounding NO on this resolution. Will this resolution have a negative impact on the kids with plenty of parental involvement and economic resources? That's not clear. What is clear is the negative impact on the kids without it. Lots of kids don't have the option of having mom or dad driving them around town to a school other than a neighborhood school. And if resources are bled from those very neighborhood schools educating our poorest students, they are shortchanged even more. Please be responsive to what our public school teachers have to say. Thank you. 9:53:35 AM ANDY HOLLEMAN, President, Anchorage Education Association (AEA), testified with official opposition to HJR 1, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: I'm president of the Anchorage Education Association, representing 3500 educators in the Municipality of Anchorage. I'm in Representative Lynn's district, and I have one son that went to private kindergarten. In the ASD he was in an alternative school, an optional program, a neighborhood school, a program within a neighborhood school, an ASD charter school, and a private/public partnership his senior year. I am a member of the NEA. I'm speaking against HJR 1. I'm also a happy resident of south Anchorage, and it's a fine part of town. I've lived there for decades, and taught there for some time as well. We're pretty independent. We do some of our own road maintenance, and some of our neighborhoods have their own individual or community well and septic. We take care of a lot of things on our own. We tend to be pretty well mannered and cooperative. And yes, we chip in for police and fire and the all kinds of stuff all over Anchorage even if we don't use so much of it ourselves. I've often thought how nice it would be for us to be our own school district. If we were smaller and more nimble we could do things we cannot now. We have a lot of parental support in the neighborhood, and that would add a big boost to us as a compact district. If we as a community wanted to run our own schools, we'd do a great job. We'd just need some of our property tax money and the money you currently give to the Anchorage school district. But there's a reason we shouldn't ask you for that, and there's a reason you should say NO to us if we did. Yes, we would do a great job with our children. But YOUR job is to see to the education of ALL children…..not just ours. That we are "in" with the rest of Anchorage makes a lot of sense, and even if we want to draw a line around ourselves, and take this on…...well, we could do that, on our own. But you shouldn't fund it. Similarly, although the logic is inviting, when you fund individuals to make choices about their own children, you may have made them happier, but you have not met YOUR responsibilities to the State of Alaska as outlined in the Constitution. You have a responsibility to educate all children. That includes the students with great parents, the students of parents that aren't doing so well, and the students that have no parents at all. If you try to solve education problems by handing vouchers to people to spend on their own children, you don't fulfill your mandate to educate Alaska's children. Make Alaska education the best you can, and leave people free to make their own choices. 9:56:08 AM MEGAN RICHOTTE stated opposition to HJR 1, agreed with the previous speaker and said the conversation needs to be fully explored and expanded. She said harm could occur, such as in the Copper River Basin school district. The area once had seven schools, but three have been closed in recent years. As a parent, she has one child at Roger's Park Elementary and one in pre-school. 9:57:34 AM DEENA MITCHELL stated opposition to HJR 1, stating that it would be naïve to expect no impact to the public schools. She said her three children have been attending the public system for the last three years, having arrived from an area in Chicago that has received national recognition for school quality. A non- partisan study shows that an immediate $100 million would be drained from the Alaska public system, should the voucher system be adopted. Oversight of the voucher system would be costly or possibly lost, and she opined that the vetting process on the entire bill appears to be weak. Statistics from a poll, recently released by the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, indicate strong community support for the public schools. Further, she maintained it is the responsibility of the legislature to use their resources and time to vet issues of this nature. She said: To say that you should put it to the voters for a choice, to me, is very disingenuous. ... Only if you think it is in the best interest of Alaska, and your stewardship, for all our ... children, should you release this to a vote by the general public; which is going to be greatly influenced by money from the Lower 48. CHAIR GATTIS clarified that it was the recent National Education Association (NEA) poll, which indicates how 90 percent of the parents throughout the state would recommend their public school. 10:02:30 AM DAVID NEES stated support for HJR 1 by making four points. First, he said the state constitution has been continually amended since it was written; by both legislative action and citizen initiative. Secondly, the term "voucher" does not appear in the language of HJR 1. Thirdly, the religious school argument is false, he opined and read language from the bill, which states, "... will be free from sectarian control." Fourth, an [education] task force member has stated that the discussion, for too long, has been between three groups: unions, legislators, and EED; it is time to bring parents, teachers, and business into the discussion. He said HJR 1 would bring the absent voices into the discussion. Finally, he added, no Title I charter schools exist, and the working poor have no options for education. He said they want the best for their children also, but trust the legislature to provide a quality system; having no time to leave their jobs and lobby for themselves. 10:05:10 AM DANNA GRAMMER, Business Owner, stated opposition to HJR 1, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: I am a small business owner and single mother living in the Anchorage School District. So to say that I do not have the time to be here today is putting it politely. However, I am here because I'm very afraid of how our state is proposing to handle our current public education system. My daughter attends Government Hill Elementary School and is registered in the Spanish Immersion program. She has been given the gift of a second language through this program. What I call a "gift" of a second language is actually mandatory in most developed nations throughout the world. So I am thankful that the Anchorage School District offers this program so my daughter has an additional skill that she can use when she is an adult and faces having to compete in a very competitive global economy. I am here to testify in opposition to the [HJR 1] bill currently under consideration in the Senate to eliminate the part of the Alaska State constitution that specifically states that public funds will not be used to fund private schools. I understand the proposed bill is only to take this to a vote of the people. However, why are we even considering such a measure when our public schools are facing harsh budget cuts such as increased class sizes in already overfull class rooms, less funds for school supplies when many teachers are already purchasing supplies out of their own pockets, less extracurricular activities that contribute to overall develop of a child, less school counselors to help assist and guide our students to a better future, and the list goes on. I would like it if our elected public officials would spend their time and energy into fixing the problems in public school system rather than trying to fund private and religious schools. I know there are some legislatures that are working toward that goal and I do appreciate your efforts. The Alaska education system is not without its flaws as is how the state of Alaska appropriates the funds in its budget. However, it should be a mission of ALL members of the legislature of this state to continue to work on those flaws and improve public school education--NOT pass off this responsibility to privately run schools or schools based on a particular religious philosophy that is only going to benefit a small segment of school age children in Alaska. With 90% of Anchorage school age children (and 90% of Alaska school age children) attending public school, this bill does not accomplish that mission. It is my belief that this bill undermines that mission. Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns today. It is my hope that what I have said today will encourage you to prioritize the education of the majority of Alaska's children who attend public school. 10:08:12 AM DON GRAY stated opposition to HJR 1 stressing that the public schools would suffer economic harm through the process being proposed. He said his two children graduated from the public schools and both had successful college careers, as well, who have produced two grandchildren now attending Anchorage area charter schools. This measure would dilute the public funds and remove schools from democratic control of a locally elected school board. 10:10:13 AM MARY GRAHAM stated opposition to HJR 1, stressing the negative effect that occurred in her home town in Wisconsin, which, once a model system, is now being decimated by this type of action. She urged the committee to consider what has happened in that area. Additionally, she clarified that the previously mentioned poll was funded by the NEA but designed by the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce and United Way. She urged the need to have a discussion about supporting public schools, not a constitutional amendment. 10:11:58 AM ANN FULLER stated opposition to HJR 1, stating that her child attended public school. She said she has taught for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and acknowledged that it is a challenge to educate children throughout Alaska. Funding a public school system open to all children is the job of this committee, she finished. 10:12:38 AM MARY HAKALA stated opposition to HJR 1, and said her school career was in the Juneau public school system, as were three of her children. When the Juneau Community Charter school formed, she was one of the founders; volunteering many hours to help offer a unique opportunity as an improvement on the public system. She suggested focus be brought to improve the existing public school system, and said the amendment would be an act of violence on the state. 10:13:43 AM ANDREA STORY, Member, Juneau School Board, testified with official opposition to HJR 1, paraphrasing from a prepared document, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: I am a member of the Juneau School Board and I am testifying today on behalf of the Board. The Board is in opposition to HJR 1. The intent appears well meaning to give more choices to families in education and to make improvements to education. But in examining what has happened in other states, this is not the case. It appears that this gives a false choice to many parents and community members. It assumes a significantly better education for their children and the community's children than public schools. In looking at information on evaluation of student performance in current voucher programs, research and evaluation have found little of no difference in voucher and public school student performance. Vouchers from D.C. to Cleveland to Milwaukee have not raised student achievement. Another false choice to parents and community members is that vouchers give choices to all families. Vouchers give choices to private schools, not parents. Private schools decide if they want to accept vouchers, and how many students they want to admit. Private schools can discriminate against students on the basis of disability and economic status or reject students with poor academic performance. Students may qualify for a voucher but may never be able to use it because private schools may choose not to accept them. Public schools are not to discriminate against families based on any circumstances, if they do, there are grave consequences. Public education is a building block to our society. It brings our youth and families and community together, it is a basis of our democratic system. Our families of different faiths, ethnicities, and financial backgrounds come together and learn to work together and respect our diversity and see how alike we all are. Public schools are accountable to their communities and state. Elected school board members and school staff are working very, very hard to improve student achievement. Higher standards have been adopted, attention to professional development, monitoring student progress and providing choices within the public schools. Budgets are scrutinized 10:16:02 AM SUSAN SIMMONS stated support for HJR 1, and said she is the mother of four children who were home schooled as well as attended charter and public schools. The charter schools in the area have long wait lists and a voucher system could prove helpful, even to low income families. In some states, this type of move has been helpful; she finished, urging passage of the bill. 10:17:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report HJR 1 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected for discussion. 10:17:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she remains conflicted on this topic and postulated at length on both sides of the issue, mentioning legal as well as public considerations, and the existing educational options. Finally, she said, although it does not necessarily represent any future vote, at this point she will support moving the bill from committee. 10:21:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recapped that the committee's responsibility calls for consideration of the fiscal constraints prior to passage of the bill. He said fiscally it would be difficult to support this proposed legislation, and he reviewed the funding requirements and the possible negative impact on public school allocations. Further, accountability must be considered. Referring to a section of previously drafted legislation, labeled committee substitute (CS) for HB 145, 27- LS0223\G, which preceded HJR 1, and passed this committee, he paraphrased the language which states: (b) Nothing in this chapter authorizes the department to regulate a participating private school except as necessary to carry out the program. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out, that given this language, there is no criteria that can be used for oversight by the state to ensure teacher/curriculum quality and standards. He reminded the committee that a two-thirds floor vote is required to amend the constitution, and such restriction is imposed to ensure that the legislature takes the time to understand all facets and effects in detail. He said that given the current level of discussion, and seeing no benefit to the public education system by passage, he would not be supporting moving HJR 1 from committee today. 10:24:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said moving the bill out of committee will not be the final word, but will serve in allowing the process to continue. 10:25:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reiterated that the Blaine Amendment was a bigoted, anti-Catholic, antireligious measure and enabling legislation was forwarded to ensure that federal territories planning to become states included this, or similar, amendments in the development of constitutions; every state formed after 1876 has included the Blaine Amendment. The passage of HJR 1, she opined, will allow the voters of Alaska to have a voice in the question of whether to alter the state's founding document. 10:26:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that other states hold their own counsel, and all are attempting to improve their local public schools. No silver bullet exists, nor is there evidence that state funding of private schools is effective, and she said it is important to consider unintended consequences. The base result of this legislation is that the state will be charged with funding private schools. She maintained that the committee should have the opportunity to delve further into the possible ramifications and fiscal implications, and opined that passing the bill from committee today would be premature. 10:28:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said the feedback to her office has been overwhelming opposition for this bill. Further, she opined that it would be remiss, and irresponsible to release the bill from committee without further investigation regarding fiscal impacts. 10:29:17 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Saddler, Reinbold, and Gattis voted in favor of HJR 1. Representatives Drummond, Seaton, and P. Wilson voted against it. Therefore, HJR 1 was reported out of the House Education Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3. 10:30:02 AM