HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to state aid for education. 9:06:04 AM REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, SPONSOR, discussed that HJR 16 put before the voters the choice to allow indirect assistance for students attending private schools. The bill was directed at the Blaine Amendment; he noted that constitutional delegate Vic Fischer called the amendment a standard feature of all western state constitutions, which had been implemented after a vote failed to include it in the U.S. Constitution. He explained that the bill did not institute any programs, but allowed the state to develop programs that would provide indirect aid to students in Alaska. Vice-chair Fairclough moved the bill before the committee. Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Doogan asked for detail related to a similar amendment that had been voted down 2 to 1 at the Alaska Constitutional Convention. Representative Keller provided an excerpt from a book by Vic Fischer related to the issue. He informed the committee that after Blaine Amendments had been included in western state constitutions a proposed amendment had been offered to include the words "and indirect" in the language; the updated language would have included a prohibition against providing direct and indirect assistance. He read from the excerpt: Proponents of the proposed amendment stressed the importance of protecting the integrity of public education while the opponents argued for the provision of services to the individual students if otherwise in keeping with the constitution. Representative Keller furthered that the amendment had failed 34 to 19. He discussed that support for the issue had been 64 percent and 55 percent in two recent polls in Alaska. He believed the polls were consistent with the objective proposed in HJR 16. 9:10:32 AM Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that while the polls provided useful information, the legislature was also guided by the values of its members and other views. Representative Wilson pointed out that HJR 16 would take the issue to voters for a decision. She had received letters from parents of special needs children and explained that some children in public schools needed more than the schools could provide. The bill would allow the system to address their needs in a private school setting. She stressed that the bill was not taking a "shot" at public schools; she felt it allowed parents to choose a school based on their child's needs and not on what they could afford. She believed that the "sad thing" was that the details would be determined (the parameters the department would apply and how schools would qualify for vouchers) if voters passed the issue. She stressed that a significant number of single parents could not afford an option outside of the public school system. She spoke in support of providing voters with the choice. Representative Gara provided information about the constitutional history. He relayed that the Alaska constitutional delegates [Jack] Coghill and Rivers [Representative Gara subsequently clarified that he had meant delegate Metcalf instead of Rivers] had both expressed their desire for a free public education system in the state. He read a statement from former Representative Coghill: I believe the way our government was set up 175 years ago that the founders felt that public education was necessary to bring about a form of educating the whole child for the civic benefit through the division of point of the home taking a certain part of the child, the church taking a certain part of his education, and the government or state through public schools taking the other part. I feel that the intent of public education is primarily a state function and does not belong to any private or any one particular group. Representative Gara read a statement from delegate [Irwin] Metcalf: There are 16 states that have sections in their constitution preventing public tax dollars from being spent for private schools in any way, shape, or form. Representative Gara read from the constitution that had been drawn in 1945: No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sector, denomination, or religion; or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister, or teacher thereof as such. Representative Gara expounded that delegate Metcalf had been a "firm believer in the complete separation of church and state, especially with the use of state money and state property." He communicated that the delegates had chosen not to fund private schools for a reason. He elaborated that once there was state funding of private schools, factions would develop in the legislature; there would be a group that believed private school funding was very important and there would be a group in favor of public education. He opined that support for public education funding would be lost because there would be a rift in the legislature. He did not fault people for having differing views on education; however, a public education system kept people "all in the same boat" with the goal of having the best public schools possible. He believed that the result would be a worse and underfunded education system. He had no problem with people attending private school; many private schools offered scholarships. He stressed that the state had done a phenomenal job offering alternative schools within the public education system. He pointed to publicly funded boarding schools and charter schools in larger Alaskan communities. 9:17:50 AM Representative Gara pointed out that public education had been improving. Graduation rates and proficiency scores were increasing because there had been a significant amount of funds invested in public schools in recent years; the formula had been adjusted that he felt had previously discriminated against rural Alaska. He stressed that funding parity had helped rural areas, children needing special education, and with Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) debt. He believed the improvements would be reversed if state funding was extended to private education; he did not support the legislation. Representative Joule had attended a Catholic boarding school in high school and had paid his own way. He believed he had gotten the best education that he could have received. He expressed frustration related to the separation between church and state; he opined that freedoms had become so far reaching that people forget or prevent the items that are important to individuals from entering the classroom. He understood respecting people's rights and responsibilities, but asked "what about respecting everybody else's." He understood the opportunities that could arise out of the bill, but he had not seen all of the detailed information. He wondered how many students would be counted in the Base Student Allocation (BSA), how much additional funding would be necessary, how much the transportation costs would increase, etc. He understood that people wanted to spend money on education, but there were questions in his mind that had been unanswered. He believed a debate on the bill on the House floor would be healthy, but he would have to be convinced that it was the right thing to do. 9:23:07 AM Representative Neuman had spent time at a private school, but attended a public high school. He believed his time at the private Catholic school was very beneficial. He discussed that the school had provided basic academic courses in addition to religious studies; he had learned things in Catholic middle school that were taught in his senior year in public school. He discussed the home schooling of his own children. He had chaired the education committee during his first two years in office. He believed the education system in Alaska was not a one-size-fits-all system; he pointed to rural schools with 10 students where the cost could be $40,000 or $50,000 per student per year and urban schools that had up to 1,400 or 1,500 students. He opined that regional learning centers were "fantastic" and would probably be part of Alaska's future. He asked what the funding to private or Catholic school would be. He discussed the BSA; correspondence programs were 80 percent of the base. He wondered whether private schools would receive the base allocation if they were funded by the state. He stated that schools currently were trying to grow their student population in order to obtain more funds; however, increased student numbers led to overcrowding in the classrooms. He believed the bill would provide parents with more opportunities and would put the decision in their hands. He stressed that Alaska had many various educational opportunities and led the nation in correspondence programs. 9:28:09 AM Representative Neuman believed that it was important to give parents a choice about their children's education; he spoke in support of the resolution because he felt that it gave parents the choice. He opined that the public school system was currently facing a significant number of issues. He emphasized that the issue was about what was best for the kids. Representative Guttenberg recalled a past conversation with constitutional delegate Jim Doogan who had explained why the issue was a "no." Mr. Doogan had been a very active member of the church and had explained that once there was public money in a private school the door was opened to control issues; he had wanted no part of the control and firmly believed in keeping his church separate from the state for that reason. He stated that parents currently had a choice where their children were educated; the question was related to who paid for the choices. He had gone to Hebrew school, which had been paid for by his parents. He pointed out that it was problematic that "when money follows, control follows, and budget issues follow." He was honored to have received the information from a delegate who had been a part of the decision making process. He relayed his opposition to the bill. 9:33:53 AM Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that he would vote to move the bill from committee. He discussed that government had a way of "mucking things up" in school systems. He hated to risk ruining private schools that were offered as an alternative to public education, but he supported the bill because philosophically he supported school choice. Representative Doogan stressed that the issue should not be taken lightly; even passing the bill from committee with "no recommendation" gave people information about what the course of the debate would be. He stressed that he would not vote for the bill for reasons beyond his father telling him not to and not only because his father was strong in his support for private schools. He discussed that he had gone to private school for 16 out of 18 years. He was opposed to dividing people up based on their religious beliefs. His father did not believe that the civil institutions should use religion to make decisions; he believed there should be a clear line between the two. He furthered that the wording of the constitutional statement on education read that "no money shall be paid from public schools for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution." He opined that the statement could not be any clearer. Representative Doogan believed the bill would inevitably damage the system; he was against allocating money based on people's religious beliefs, economic situations, or other. He did not agree with a statement made by Co-Chair Stoltze; he did not believe that the obvious failures of the education system should be the reason for the legislature to contemplate its complete dismantling. He opined that people in the rich districts would get together to improve their educational system and the people in the poor districts would have to deal with social, economic, and other handicaps. He voiced strong opposition to the bill. 9:39:37 AM Representative Doogan referenced the quote "I'm a man of principle and my first principle is flexibility." Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that the quote came from former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois. Representative Doogan liked to think he was flexible, but he was inflexible on the issue. He relayed that he would vote against passing the bill from committee. He did not see the sense in "inflaming the passions of people" on the question. He believed that if the resolution passed the outcome would be unknowable related to an election and what would happen if the issue became law. He stressed that the flaws of the current education system would be nothing compared to the fight that would result if the issue went to the voters; it was not possible to know what would happen if state funds were stripped from the current educational system and allocated out in "unequal ways." Co-Chair Stoltze wanted the record to accurately reflect his prior statement. He communicated that there was no pressure to let the bill move forward. He understood that it was a serious issue. Representative Doogan clarified that he had not meant to mischaracterize any prior statements made by Co-Chair Stoltze. Co-Chair Stoltze was glad there was passion related to the issue. Co-Chair Thomas noted that 8 out of 55 constitutional delegates had been born in Alaska; he wondered who could have more passion than a person born and raised in the state. He noted that the constitution had been amended in the past and that the resolution was not the first attempt to make an amendment. He stated that it was the state's ordained right to change the constitution if it thought something was wrong or flawed; the issue may fail, but he believed people should have the option to vote on it. He had spoken to family members about the past move from Native schools to public schools; people had thought the education system would fall apart. He had not been a big proponent of the resolution at first, but he had reflected on his own children's education. He wondered what was wrong with letting parents choose where their children would be educated. He opined that there was nothing wrong with religious schools; he had been in church three or four days a week during his youth. 9:45:48 AM Co-Chair Thomas remembered that he had learned to pray in Vietnam. He was in support of moving the bill out of committee and would probably vote for it on the House floor. He noted that the Alaska Federation of Natives supported the concept because they wanted their children to have the ability to receive a stellar education. He thought the people should decide. He did not want to stifle the voice of the people. He believed children should receive the best education possible. He discussed his district and the school options when he was a youth. He would vote for what he thought was right for the children. A roll call vote was taken to report the bill out of committee. IN FAVOR: Joule, Neuman, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon, Fairclough, Stoltze, Thomas OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Doogan, Gara The MOTION PASSED (8-3). There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HJR 16 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the Office of the Governor. 9:49:38 AM AT EASE 9:50:05 AM RECONVENED