SJR 9-CONST. AM: EDUCATION FUNDING  2:12:27 PM CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SJR 9 and opened public testimony. 2:14:13 PM DAVID NEES, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, reviewed the dialog on day 48 of the Alaska Constitutional Convention and quoted delegate Fischer. He highlighted that the final motion that day was to strike the third sentence in art. VII, sec. 1, which is exactly what SJR 9 does. The closing argument was that public funds for education should not receive more restrictive or more favored treatment. He said he believes that the public purpose provision should be the only guide when it comes to appropriating public funds, but the public purpose has probably changed since 1957. The proposed constitutional amendment will serve the public purpose, and a heartfelt public discussion on how it will manifest itself is appropriate after it moves out of the committee. The discussion could also include whether to include the terms parochial or private. 2:20:02 PM JERRY COVEY, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, said he is an education and nonprofit consultant, former Alaska commissioner of education, former school superintendent, principal, and teacher in Alaska's public education system who is testifying in support of SJR 9. He stated his belief that public funds should only be used for public outcomes, and that any organization that accepts public monies should be required to abide by statutes and regulations governing public schools. He also stated support for giving a voucher to every student in Alaska and letting the parents decide where to use it as long as the school complies with education statutes and regulations. MR. COVEY said he appreciates that some professional groups see SJR 9 as a threat to public education, but his view is that the public education system belongs to the public and that voice should be given priority over the voice of those who operate the system. He warned that if SJR 9 fails at the legislative level, the public will be denied its voice. He recalled that in the past some professional groups opposed the creation of education standards that are now considered the foundation of the school system. It took significant public engagement to override that internal opposition and move the standards forward. He said he believes that the public deserves that level of engagement on this issue. SJR 9 is an opportunity to engage the public in making revisions to the education system that will translate to better opportunities for parents and students. He asked the committee to advance SJR 9 to give the public its rightful opportunity to decide this issue. 2:23:08 PM DAVID BOYLE, Alaska Policy Forum (APF), said APF supports SJR 9. It will lead to better education outcomes for Alaskan students and loosen the grip of special education interests. He characterized education in Alaska as a monopoly and the Blaine Amendment language in the Alaska Constitution as anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant. He described the differing points of view as a battle between those who support the right of parents to choose the best education for their child, and those who want to maintain their stranglehold on Alaska education. MR. BOYLE quoted the past general counsel for the NEA to illustrate that to the NEA this was a matter of power and control. He noted that NEA-Alaska had collected more than $5.6 million in dues for the current school year, but that it was only using its power and influence to speak for itself and its members, not for the children of Alaska. He said the Alaska Constitution has provisions for amending the document and the people play a large part in that process. He urged the committee to give the people the opportunity to vote on this important matter. 2:27:30 PM TOM FINK, representing himself, stated that he is a board member of a private K-12 school in the Anchorage area and an active in a volunteer taskforce that supports SJR 9. He urged the committee to allow the public to decide the issue and not allow NEA leadership to deny the public the opportunity to make this important decision. He emphasized that the existing inadequate K-12 situation cannot be solved without this constitutional amendment. 2:29:28 PM VICTOR FISCHER, representing himself, stated opposition to SJR 9, the proposed constitutional amendment that would provide public funds for religious and other private educational institutions. He affirmed that he was a delegate to the Alaska Constitutional Convention and noted that he was quoted in earlier testimony. He relayed that he also served in the Territorial Legislature and the Alaska State Senate. MR. FISCHER highlighted that earlier testimony quoted him as having been in favor of eliminating the language that SJR 9 proposes to strike. That language says, "No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution." Mr. Fischer clarified that in principle he opposed eliminating that language during the Constitutional Convention days in 1955-1956, and he opposes eliminating that language today. He reiterated that he opposes the concept of public funding of private educational institutions, including religious institutions. MR. FISCHER explained that the quote was not in context. It had more to do with placement of the prohibition than whether to fund private and religious educational institutions. He said there was no objection during the Constitutional Convention to having that language in the Alaska Constitution; it was the principle that was involved of what constitutes public interest and what constitutes use of public funds for public purposes. MR. FISCHER said his basic concern with eliminating the third sentence [in art. VII, sec. 1] and then adding language to the finance art. [IX] is that it effectively removes any kind of constitutional limitation on putting public money into private and religious institutions. He suggested that leaving the education language and amending the public purpose article might achieve the aim that most people who have spoken in favor of SJR 9 are after. That is to benefit the individual child, which is what was accepted at the Constitutional Convention. Removing the provision against public funding for the direct benefit of religious and other institutions combined with the amendment to the finance article leaves the gates wide open to provide money through the student for the direct benefit of religious and other private educational institutions. He said he was bothered by the combination, because of the potential for subsequent abuse. MR. FISCHER concluded that he very much opposed SJR 9 as currently written. 2:34:37 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted the earlier testimony that this was a discriminatory provision, and asked if that was his recollection of how this amendment was adopted. MR. FISCHER replied that it was never thought of in those terms. Free-thinkers were well represented at the Constitutional Convention; there was no discrimination and the language was in accordance with that approach. He noted that a convention colleague pointed this out in his strong arguments on behalf of adding the word "indirect." He wanted it very clear that public funds would not go for the direct or indirect benefit of religious and other private educational institutions. His argument, in part, was that parents can choose to put their children in a public educational institution or a private educational institution. It was a matter of not having public tax monies go directly or indirectly for the benefit of religious institutions. He reiterated with emphasis that it was not meant to be discriminatory and has never been discriminatory. MR. FISCHER noted that one of the arguments made on behalf of this amendment was that public money was already going for the benefit of students. His perspective was that if that was already occurring and hadn't been challenged, then there was no need for the amendment. 2:38:26 PM DAN KENNEDY, representing himself, said his three children graduated from the Wasilla school system with high honors. Two are currently at the Annapolis Military Academy and the third is at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. He described the requirements and rigorous competition to gain entrance to these academies and stated that he and his wife believe that competition with education is imperative. For that reason they support the opportunity for Alaskans to vote to change the constitution to allow for choice, including private education. He said he understands that the accelerated programs his children participated in through elementary and middle school were eliminated because of budget constraints and other requirements of public education. This is unfortunate because he knows that options must be available if gifted Alaskans are to continue to compete with some of America's finest students. He urged the committee to support SJR 9. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI observed that his children did very well going through the public schools. MR. KENNEDY restated how important the extended learning programs in elementary school and middle school were in preparing his children to attend elite colleges. 2:43:02 PM SHARON AUBREY, representing herself, described the barriers she encountered as a parent educator trying to fulfill her children's individual learning plans (ILPs) because of constitutional language interpretations. These restrictions hinder many public school students from achieving their academic and career goals. For example, if she purchases a sectarian textbook to fulfill her daughter's ILP for an algebra class, her allotment will not pay for the scientific calculator. However, if she buys a secular textbook the allotment will pay for that same calculator. Materials that are used daily in brick and mortar schools are denied to other public school students in alternative programs because of the current interpretation of the constitution. MS. AUBREY said she wasn't necessarily asking the state to purchase faith-based curriculums. She was asking for a change in the constitutional language so that courses that meet state grade level expectations could be recognized for enrollment, and for the basic supporting materials required for general education to be made available. She stated her belief that SJR 9 would solve the limitations and problems currently facing the public education system and give better educational options, curriculums, and materials for Alaskan students to succeed. 2:46:01 PM SAMMY CRAWFORD, representing herself, said she was a classroom teacher for 30 years and a member of the Board of Education for 15 years. She stated her belief that SJR 9 needed full vetting and the potential impact explored before moving forward. Since it was an education issue, the Education Committee should be part of the process. She pointed out that every ten years the voters are asked whether or not they want a constitutional convention to vet major changes, and since statehood they have always declined. MS. CRAWFORD described herself as a public education advocate who believes that to further divide the pie of financial assistance to public schools would make it more difficult for public education. 2:48:08 PM CONNIE BELL, representing herself, described herself as a homeschooling mom who takes the responsibility for educating her children very seriously. She offered her belief that the responsibility of choosing the best education possible lies first with parents. The opportunity to vote on whether or not to amend the constitution would begin the process of giving Alaskans that freedom. Competition has always has always encouraged excellence and better stewardship of finances and resources, and freedom produces prosperity. Don't be afraid to give Alaskans the freedom to choose; put the amendment on the ballot, she said. 2:49:37 PM MARY TOUTOUNJHI, representing herself, described herself as a 25-year public school educator who had strong feelings about public education. She pointed out that both the state and federal constitutions mandate the concept of separation of church and state, and the concept of public education available to all. SJR 9 denies both of these concepts. She said she respects religious beliefs but doesn't want the state funding those beliefs. MS. TOUTOUNJHI observed that this resolution represents a consistent pattern. It will reduce funding to schools already stressed by reductions in funding and it will make it impossible to make long-term plans and set educational goals because funding will be inconsistent year-to-year. She offered her belief that one of the single most effective ways to maintain a viable government of the people is to provide a strong educational base. She urged the committee to leave the constitution alone. 2:52:52 PM MIKE COONS, representing himself, said he supports SJR 9 and fully opposes the notion of separation of church and state. He quoted the First Amendment and argued that giving parents the right to choose their child's school does not mean the State of Alaska is establishing a religion to get an education. He discussed the history of schooling and pointed out that Jefferson, Madison, and Adams had no formal schooling until their teens and they went on to write the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. MR. COONS quoted Wikipedia on the history of education and noted that states that adopted Blaine Amendment language did so because they felt that Catholic children should be educated in public schools to become American, not to stop a religious belief. Then in 1925 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students could attend private schools to comply with state compulsory education laws, thereby giving parochial schools an official blessing. He corrected testimony a professor gave to a joint committee that Wisconsin and the District of Columbia showed improvement after giving parents choices outside of public education. In fact, the testimony was that the underprivileged were the vast majority who moved out of public schools and into private schools with immediate and long-lasting increases in learning and graduation rates. Public schools were helped from a financial standpoint. Clearly, giving parents and children a choice in their education benefits all. He urged the committee to pass SJR 9 and give the people the opportunity to debate, learn, and vote on this important matter. 2:56:43 PM JANE ANGVIK, representing herself, stated opposition to SJR 9. She said she believes the prohibition in the constitution against using public funds for private and religious education is appropriate and should be retained. She reminded the members that they weren't just deciding on whether to let the people vote, because they were actually required use their judgment to decide whether this was a good idea or not. She encouraged the committee to consider the financial obligations to the state for including the opportunity for public funding for private or religious education. She questioned whether the state was prepared for the financial cost of adding the 9,600 students that are currently enrolled in private schools in Alaska to the current education budget. She encouraged the committee to seriously consider the content and ramifications of SJR 9. 2:58:52 PM VICKI CHEKAN, representing herself, said she had experience with both homeschooling and the public system and she was testifying in support of SJR 9. She urged the committee to consider the derivation of the original language and to examine the historical interpretation against universal principles, and to base their vote on factual information from varied sources, as opposed to special interests. MS. CHEKAN quoted the opening section of "The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution" to support the position that the founding fathers did not intend to remove religion from formal education. She expressed hope that the committee would allow the people to determine the future of their government and their lives. 3:05:34 PM CHAIR COGHILL held SJR 9 in committee and stated his intention to take additional public testimony on Wednesday.