SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE February 7, 1996 9:07 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Lyda Green, Chairman Senator Loren Leman, Vice-Chairman Senator Johnny Ellis Senator Judy Salo MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Mike Miller COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 225 "An Act relating to access to extracurricular school programs by students who are not attending public schools." PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 225 - No previous action to record. WITNESS REGISTER Mike Tibbles, Staff Senator Green State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Read the sponsor statement. Rick Cross, Deputy Commissioner Department of Education 801 W. 10th Street, Suite 200 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 225. Vernon Marshall, NEA-AK 114 2nd Street Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 225 as written. Sharylee Zachary, Homeschooler Petersburg, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed disbelief at the comments opposing SB 225. Dana Thyness, Homeschooler Petersburg, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that "public" means access for all. Jim Simeroth, Teacher Kenai Peninsula Education Association PO Box 921 Kenai, Alaska 99611 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 225. Sandra Blomfield 7610 Wildwood Circle Anchorage, Alaska 99516 POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed her experience with this issue. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-5, SIDE A SHESS - 2/7/96 SB 225 STUDENT ACCESS TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS  Number 001 CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) Committee work session to order at 9:07 a.m. Chairman Green informed everyone that testimony would be taken on SB 225 until a quorum arrived at which time the meeting would be called to order. MIKE TIBBLES, Staff to Senator Green, read the following sponsor statement into the record. This bill was introduced by request to guarantee the right of access to extracurricular activities by students being educated according to AS 14.30.010(b). Under this measure, these activities would include, drama, debate, music, band, and athletics. Under Alaska law, city and borough school districts are required to contribute a local match to the education foundation formula. This local match is generally levied through a 4 mill property tax assessment and is paid by families with children being educated in public schools, private schools, correspondence curriculum, and home schools. Participation in extracurricular activities is an important component of the education of our children. It encourages the development of leadership skills, a healthy spirit of competition, confidence, goal orientation, and the ability to become a team player. Currently, access to extracurricular activities is impeded in some districts of the state. These programs that exist to benefit children should be made to available to all children. This includes students whose parents choose to educate their children in other than a public school. Denying access to these programs is discriminatory and contrary to providing equal educational opportunities to all students. Number 040 SENATOR LEMAN asked if this bill was common in other states. MIKE TIBBLES stated that SB 207 was modeled after statutes in Oregon, Washington, and Colorado. RICK CROSS, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Education (DOE), said that Commissioner Holloway supports all opportunities for parents, families, and children to have their choices increased. He informed everyone that Commissioner Holloway was the Superintendent in the State of Washington where there is similar legislation. DOE views SB 225 as an extension of the regulations increasing part-time participation in curricular activities which were recently enacted. Commissioner Holloway strongly supports any concept which provides greater opportunity and choice for parents and families. Mr. Cross expressed concern with the zero fiscal note of SB 225. SB 225 would not have any affect on DOE nor on the school districts. The bill would not have any affect technically on the school districts because currently, the foundation formula does not provide any means for school districts to receive credit for students participating in extracurricular activities, but who are not a part of the curricular program. SB 225 would not increase the foundation formula, however there could be costs for school districts implementing this bill. Mr. Cross pointed out that school districts receive revenue in proportion to the number of students they serve. There is no mechanism to pay the district for providing the extracurricular activities for students who are not a part of the regular school program. Number 118 CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to the minimum participation required of a student in order for the school to receive the minimum funding for that student. RICK CROSS explained that the formula allows districts to pro-rate for part-time students. The records in DOE do not show the numbers of part-time students. Mr. Cross noted that districts use different mechanisms to determine the number of students for the formula. Mr. Cross believed that a student enrolled in one class could be counted for the formula. Number 134 CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that a quorum was present and she called the Senate Health, Education & Social Services meeting to order. In response to Chairman Green, RICK CROSS explained that the student count utilized are of those attending the regular curricular program. Mr. Cross agreed with Chairman Green's assessment that this method is also used by the local funding authority. Mr. Cross said that the trend is towards a greater amount of user fees, but there would be variance across districts. Mr. Cross did not believe there would be a way in which to charge a differential fee. SB 225 does not prohibit charging fees to private and home schooled students as long as the regularly enrolled students are also charged. Number 180 SENATOR LEMAN asked if any analyses had been done regarding the cost of extracurricular activities in order to determine what portion is picked up by the foundation formula versus the money received from user fees, fund raising, etc. How much of this would be a drain on the funding? RICK CROSS stated that DOE had not done any such studies; this is a complex issue. Mr. Cross mentioned that with regards to travel, that is not budgeted and often the students and booster clubs do fund raising. Mr. Cross approximated that a quarter of the funding for an activity is covered by booster clubs. SENATOR LEMAN indicated that perhaps, the major portion of the cost of extracurricular activities could be attributed to the travel, uniforms, and officials. He suggested that gate fees and concessions could offset some of these costs. He asked if the part-time curriculum had been in place long enough to determine how many students are utilizing the program. RICK CROSS reiterated that the information collected by DOE shows totals, so there is no breakdown of information. Mr. Cross informed the committee of his experience with part-time enrollment in Fairbanks in which there was significant part-time enrollment. He considered 50 students utilizing the part-time program out of a student body of 1,600 a lot. Number 242 SENATOR LEMAN asked if that part-time option would increase the use of private schools and home schooling which could be an overall cost savings. RICK CROSS replied that it is unclear at this point. SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to who in the Knowles' Administration had made the decision that Mr. Cross would support SB 225. RICK CROSS said that Commissioner Holloway had asked him to be present and made the decision to support the bill. Number 262 VERNON MARSHALL, NEA-AK, said that NEA-AK is deeply committed to the cause of public education. NEA-AK supports opportunities for families to make choices in educational models. He recognized the importance of extracurricular activities in the public schools; many teachers organize and lead extracurricular activities with nominal financial compensation. Alaska's teachers support extracurricular activities for many reasons such as the benefits received by the student as well as the benefit realized by the school. Mr. Marshall pointed out that SB 225 by implementation proclaims that extracurricular activities are so successful, popular, useful, and important that students attending private or secular schools should be allowed to participate in public school extracurricular programs. Mr. Marshall asserted that SB 225 would practically provide private and sectarian schools with a public subsidy. Those schools could then utilize their resources solely for the purpose of academic programs. Mr. Marshall stated that NEA-AK does not believe that SB 225 is constitutional. The bill is not constitutional under the Alaska Supreme Court decision in the Sheldon Jackson case. In that case the courts struck down tuition equalization to Alaska students at private colleges who wanted to offset the higher cost of private education in comparison with the cost of studies at the University of Alaska. He explained that the Alaska Supreme Court said that an unconstitutional subsidy to sectarian education does not necessarily have to be a direct transfer of money from the government to the schools. SB 225 would provide a subsidy to non- public schools by the public sector. He posed the following question: should public funds be used to hire the debate teacher, buy uniforms and band instruments, pay for school maintenance and operation required for students already enrolled in religious or private schools? Mr. Marshall said that NEA-AK did not think that should happen. Mr. Marshall emphasized that Alaska's Constitution explicitly bands the expenditure of public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution or for sectarian purposes. CHAIRMAN GREEN interrupted Mr. Marshall and asked him to highlight his testimony. She suggested that Mr. Marshall could submit his written testimony to be placed in the committee packet. Number 343 VERNON MARSHALL agreed. He continued by predicting that SB 225 would undermine school moral. For instance, a student that does not attend the public school is selected to participate in a sport or in a play - that would require that a public school student would be denied that opportunity. The opportunities for non public students to participate in extracurricular activities would be greater than those opportunities for enrolled public school students. The private school student would enter the public school only to participate in extracurricular activities. The public school student is receiving an academic education and competing with others for the extracurricular activities. SENATOR LEMAN asked how the non public school student would have more opportunity. VERNON MARSHALL pointed out that the language of SB 225, subsection (a), establishes the increased opportunity by the non public school student. CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to how that language could be altered. She stated that it was intended only to give the same opportunity to compete already given to the public school students. SENATOR SALO said that it would be likely that a non public school student petitioning to access an extracurricular activity may only do so because of their particular expertise in that activity. Section 1 seems to guarantee that a non public school student could not be cut. CHAIRMAN GREEN emphasized that was not the intent and reiterated that the language in Section 1 could be changed. SENATOR SALO clarified that a non public student utilizing an extracurricular activity because of their particular expertise in that area is a good thing for that student, but not for the public school student who loses their opportunity in that extracurricular activity. Moreover, there is usually a limit on the number of students allowed to participate in activities due to budget constraints. Number 397 VERNON MARSHALL cited another inequity in the bill. The requirement that a non public student must meet all the public school and district's applicable eligibility requirements in order to participate in the extracurricular activity is not workable. For example, public schools have grading standards which may vary from those grading practices in private schools. A student's ability to participate in an extracurricular activity may be comprised when the grade requirement is applied to a student from a private school, where grades may be inflated relative to public school grades. Mr. Marshall also noted that private and religious schools are not required to maintain student records reflecting immunizations, physical examinations, standardized testing, academic achievement, and courses taken at school. How will a public school determine that a non public school student meets all the applicable requirements to participate in an extracurricular activity? This would impose significant administrative costs on school districts. Mr. Marshall proposed that school administrators could be faced with conflicts or even expensive litigation from honor roll students and their families and with private schools. Furthermore, an ineligible public school student could merely leave the public school in order to demand eligibility by obtaining an academic education in another environment. This could be supported by subsection (a), Section 1 of the bill. Number 441 CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that anyone has the right to return to the public school system at any point. VERNON MARSHALL interjected that some people are denied that by statute. SENATOR SALO commented that there is a difference between the right to re-enroll in the public school and the right to be eligible for athletic activity. For example, a student with two Fs could leave the public school, attend another program and re-enroll to maintain his spot on the football team. This may sound extreme, but parents sometimes go to drastic lengths to help their child remain eligible, especially if their child is the star of the team. CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated that lines 12-14 may address that issue. VERNON MARSHALL clarified that the requirements of the public school are being placed on a student who does not attend that public school. There are no required records or data for that non public student that could be applied to a decision that someone would have to make in the public setting. In essence, the person making the decision would be comparing oranges and bananas. This is a possible weakness in the bill. Mr. Marshall pointed out that at the time when public schools are being asked to do more with less, SB 225 requires that extracurricular activities be expanded to a new group. This group consists of children who opted out of the public school system. He reiterated that this would diminish extracurricular activities for students enrolled in the public schools and increase the current trend of public school districts eliminating their extracurricular activities due to budgetary constraints. Mr. Marshall noted that the supporters of the bill do not offer increased state assistance to public school districts in order to alleviate the extra costs of serving more students in extracurricular programs. He surmised that the bill's supporters must not want to serve more children in extracurricular activities, but rather serve different children than those presently being served. Or perhaps, the supporters expect school districts to find more money for extracurricular activities. Number 495 Mr. Marshall asserted that SB 225 as written is confusing. The bill refers to AS 14.30.010(b) which upon review of this portion of Title 14 refers to a large group of young people: private school students, tutored students, religious students, and many more. Is it the intent of the sponsors that a school district that has expelled a student who then enrolls in a private school or a correspondence program must allow that student to participate in an extracurricular program? He discussed another such scenario with the extracurricular activity being a sport. Could a teenager in the Department of Corrections assert the right to participate in extracurricular activities of a public school? He also pondered if the public school district should bear the transportation costs to transport a non public student to an extracurricular activity. All this confusion is caused by the language of the bill. Mr. Marshall pointed out that there is the possibility for incorrect practices under this bill. For example, a star athlete could be recruited by a public school under the vague eligibility requirements and an equally worthy young person would not be allowed to participate. Mr. Marshall anticipated that people will argue that NEA-AK is indifferent to the needs of young people not attending public schools and that these youngsters and their families make smaller financial demands on the public sector than do public school enrollees and their families. Perhaps, opponents of SB 225 will be charged with wanting to punish those who chose to receive their education apart from Alaska's public school system. This is not so, non public students are welcome to attend the public schools as regular attendees. Mr. Marshall believed that it is unfair to expect that those who choose not to undertake the opportunities or the challenges of the public school should be allowed to participate in the public school's extracurricular activities. The important purposes of extracurricular activities would be diluted if SB 225 becomes law. In conclusion, Mr. Marshall reiterated that SB 225 provokes many concerns. NEA-AK opposed SB 225 as currently written. Mr. Marshall offered to submit his entire testimony in writing. Number 547 SENATOR LEMAN agreed that there have been great successes in the public school's extracurricular activities. In all his time as an Alaskan student and volunteer, he said that he had not seen any of the concerns that Mr. Marshall had discussed. Senator Leman asked Mr. Marshall if he had examples of non public schools that were less rigorous than the public schools because he had not seen that problem. VERNON MARSHALL explained that there is not data to illustrate this problem. Mr. Marshall believed that there are private schools that do great jobs while there are others that could do better. Can data be collected over time in order to compare the standards of different schools so as to provide some comparative analysis? Mr. Marshall reiterated the language problems and the question of the constitutionality of SB 225. SENATOR LEMAN offered to discuss this further with Mr. Marshall. He emphasized that he did not have the same concerns as Mr. Marshall. With regards to the recruitment issues, Senator Leman said that he had seen those problems for years. TAPE 96-5, SIDE B Number 586 VERNON MARSHALL pointed out that lines 4-9 of the bill seem to set up a free agency system for a coach, but the source of players under SB 225 would be from any non public entity that educates children in that district. SENATOR LEMAN emphasized that the danger of this currently exists at a far greater extent than if the extracurricular activities were expanded to include the alternatively educated students. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that she intended for the language to be tightened in order to limit the participation in the extracurricular activity to the public school in which the student would normally be assigned. SENATOR SALO was glad to hear Chairman Green's explanation, but noted that it did not solve the larger constitutionality issue. She pointed out that extracurricular activities allow students and coaches to interact with one another in a different manner. Senator Salo opposed having coaches that were from different schools or from the public because those coaches did not get to know the students in the academic realm. Therefore, in that situation half of the advantages are lost. She did not view a non public student participating in a public school for extracurricular activities as a good situation. Number 534 SHARYLEE ZACHARY, testifying from Petersburg, expressed the need to include the public school library as an extracurricular activity. She discussed her situation in which she was denied the ability to utilize the public school library in her area because she did not have a student attending the public school. She emphasized the importance of merely allowing a child to learn to play an instrument in the public school because that cannot otherwise be assessed in some communities. In some states in the lower 48, private lessons are given in the school which can be done in the public school sector as well as the home school sector. DANA THYNESS, testifying form Petersburg, could not believe that public school teachers of whom the Mr. Marshall represents, only care about public school children. The term public means that everyone should have access, all Alaskans. She indicated that opponents of this bill must only be worried about protecting their job. She stated that home school students are an asset to public schools because when they are present it is because they want to be. A home schooled child can serve as an inspiration for other students due to their interest and willingness to learn. She pointed out that those in alternative schools are most interested in the facilities that public schools have which are paid for by the government of which we all are a part. Number 458 JIM SIMEROTH, Kenai Peninsula Education Association, informed the committee that he had been a public school teacher for 30 years. He opposed SB 225. He stated that public schools are about equality and fairness which this bill does not seem to provide. The cost to the public schools would be increased. A layer of bureaucracy would be produced in order to determine the qualifications and eligibility of non public school students; other than grade requirements for eligibility to participate, there are also attendance, conduct and behavior rules, and standing in the school program schools. How can the public school be expected to monitor this for non public school students? SB 225 opens up the possibility of abuse as in the recruitment for sports. Furthermore, funding restrictions have limited the number of spaces available in many extracurricular activities. Mr. Simeroth foresaw problems with fairness if a non public school student bumped a public school student off of a team on which there were limited spaces. With regard to fairness, would it also be fair for a public school student to be allowed to participate in extracurricular activities at a private school? Mr. Simeroth noted that in order to monitor the eligibility requirements and such of the non public school student, private and confidential files would be opened. In conclusion, Mr. Simeroth saw only considerable harm being accomplished from this bill. Number 417 MARY HUTCHINSON, speaking from Soldotna, wanted to make sure that the committee had copies of the fax of Maggie Riley's letter. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that the committee had received that fax and the letter had been distributed to each committee member. MARY HUTCHINSON, Home schooler, discussed her children's education. She pointed out that her son, Doug, utilizes a public school correspondence program in order to meet the requirements to participate in the public school's wrestling team. She informed the committee that in the public school a student who maintains an A is not required to take the final exam whereas the correspondence student's final exam accounts for one-third of their grade. Moreover, a public school student is only required to maintain a D- to participate in a sport; how many of you as parents would let your child have the privilege of playing a sport with a D-? She discussed the challenges of home schooling and pondered how public school students' questions could be answered when there are 30 children in the same room. She admitted difficulty with her eight children. Ms. Hutchinson noted that her son, Doug's public school correspondence has separated him from family functions such as preparing meals, changing diapers, and shoveling the driveway. Ms. Hutchinson asserted that public education should be for those that do not want to home school. She stressed the need to reinforce the family; and her following analogy illustrates this: the child represents the family, the school represents the community. If money could be given to the school district for home schooled children, then other public school students would not suffer. Number 351 SANDRA BLOMFIELD, mother of three, informed the committee of her eldest son who indicated to his mother that he had learned more at the private school than at the public school he was currently attending. Therefore, they requested a waiver from the Anchorage School District in order to allow her son to attend a private school, but continue to participate in the extracurricular activities of the public school system. Ms. Blomfield was not answered by the Anchorage School District School Board nor by the Superintendent at that time. Two months later she wrote to the new Superintendent and she received correspondence from his office advising her to seek legal council about this situation. Her son remained in the public school in order to maintain his extracurricular activities along side of his academic endeavors. Ms. Blomfield did seek legal council and after over one year of correspondence, Ms. Blomfield filed a lawsuit based on discriminatory practices of the Anchorage School District and the Alaska Student Activities Association (ASAA) and the State of Alaska - Department of Education. The lawsuit requested a standardized policy of participation for these alternative students. The judgement was in favor of the Department of Education, the Anchorage School District, and ASAA. However, the judge's summary contained a handwritten note which stated that this case offered convincing argument. Ms. Blomfield noted that last year the House HESS committee introduced HB 156, but it did not move from committee. SB 225 offers a fair and equitable education basis for all children. No matter how a parent decides to educate their child, everyone is a taxpayer and should be afforded the benefits of the public school. She informed the committee that the Anchorage School District's administration is concerned about the following areas: (1) accountability of students regarding grades and discipline, (2) fiscal responsibility and the associated cost which could result in a revision of the foundation funding formula in order to include these non public school students, (3) administrative burdens which could be placed on the incoming student, (4) school spirit which could be enhanced with a broadened base of support and diversity. In conclusion, she urged the Senate to adopt SB 225 which would bring Alaska in line with the other 19 states having pending or current legislation on this issue. Number 297 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if anyone else wished to testify or if there were any questions. Hearing none, she announced that there would be a Joint HESS meeting tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. and a Senate HESS meeting on Friday, February 9th regarding SB 188. She invited any comments or suggestions to improve this bill. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m.