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