An important piece of legislation for Alaska’s children is House Bill 145 establishing the parental choice scholarship program to pay the cost of attending grades kindergarten through 12 at non-government schools. The bill, HB145, was approved the other day by the House Education Committee and is now before House Finance.
The bill would empower parents to choose the school their child attends, with state money following the child. In addition to approval by the Legislature and governor, the measure requires passage of a constitutional amendment to permit tax money to go to a private or religious school.
In a September 2011 statewide poll, 64 percent of Alaskans said they support the concept of school choice (to review the survey, go to akchoice.org).
Many Alaskans are not convinced government is doing an adequate job of educating our K-12 students. At the Anchorage Mayor’s Summit on Education, national leaders told us we are on the bottom rungs in national testing. There is a nationally expressed belief that change is needed. The president, Congress, and most of the state legislatures are addressing the problem.
There is a strong belief good education comes from competition. Government monopoly doesn’t produce the best of anything. Competition allows creativity and development of new ideas and systems.
Secondly, parents bring a child into life. They accept the responsibilities and obligations to raise that child into adulthood and become part of the American dream. An impediment to fulfilling that obligation is the limitation of sending their children to public schools. There are other schools, but they can be prohibitively expensive. In Anchorage, for example, a non-public school ranges from $4,000 to $12,000 per student per year. All Alaskans pay taxes to support K-12 education, but only those children who go to a government school actually receive a free education.
Parents know their children best. They love them and have the responsibility of raising them to be the best they can be. Some want their child to get schooling that emphasizes discipline. Others may want an emphasis in school on sports, languages, religious philosophy, or their culture. Some parents of children with special challenges want those aggressively addressed in their schools. The majority of parents don’t have that choice because of the substantial cost to send their child anywhere other than public school.
Per the survey, if cost were not a consideration, 39 percent of parents would send their children to public school, 30 percent to private school, 15 percent to a charter school, and 11 percent would homeschool. Currently, about 85 percent of Alaskan children go to public school and 15 percent are in the others.
The goal of this legislation is that each K-12 child receive the best education available for that child.
Our government spends lots of money on K-12 education. Opening education to competing sources where parents make the school choice will result in the best educated child. In the long run, it will result in a less costly education system. In the short run, the cost could increase as we would be picking up the tuition parents currently pay for non-public schools.
The proposed legislation provides that tuition and fees at a non-public school be paid by the government, not to exceed the state and local funds the school district spends to educate a similar child. The current cost for non-public schools is between 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of public schools.
The National Education Association vehemently opposes this legislation as do some members of local school boards and school superintendents. Their primary argument is that it may take money away from public education. The existing educational establishment has always said they can improve K-12 education if just given more money.
The battle for K-12 parental choice education is moving across the country. Last year, 13 states improved laws regarding parental choice. A dozen additional states are actively pursuing new laws to provide parental choice and improve education.
In the Alaska legislature HB145 or SB106 cover the proposed statutory change. The constitutional change is in HJR16 or SJR9. The public will have the final say as the statute is ineffective without the constitutional amendment which would be on the ballot in the general election in November.
Legislators need to hear from you now.
• Fink is a former Anchorage mayor who is heading an ad hoc group of volunteers called “Alaskans for Choice in Education.”
Comments (4)
Add commentFink already has a choice: Put his money where his mouth is
Tom Fink and others who support public funding of private religious schools already have a choice.
They can choose to use their Permanent Fund Dividends for tuition, or donate them to a foundation which can give scholarships.
While Fink and legislative supporters admit the proposed legislation violates the Alaska Constitution, they seem to ignore that there is something called the U.S. Constitution, and the legislation is woefully lacking in meeting the 5 part test established by the U.S. Supreme Court for public funds going to private schools.
The nugget...
...of his argument resides here: "Government monopoly doesn’t produce the best of anything."
Let's follow that 'conservative' logic. Today it's education. Tomorrow it's toll roads, mercenary armies, private courts and law enforcement.
Where do you draw the line on this slippery slope in the sand?
(Tuesdays are Mixed Metaphor Day)
Public Education
A strong, free public education system is imperative for a strong America.
If we allow the wealthy to take over and create a privatized education system, the divisiveness in this country will increase dramatically.
We would quickly find a plebeian and patrician class system emerging that would be the downfall of this republic.
Let him send his own children to private school. America needs good public education supported by our government to ensure that the American Dream survives.
SAME OLD RHETORIC
I have not heard a new reason put forth in years as to why public funds should be used to pay for private schools. You can easily sum up the six or seven reasons stated over and over. They always presume the private school will produce what they want. They hardly every use a reason that implies it would give more than their kid what they want.
While the proposer would never allow public schools to be operated without a substantial amount of financial accountability, student testing, and school boards elected by the entire community, they never seem to identify those items for their private school requirements. I question why a private school using public funds should not have to meet the same financial reporting requirements. Why should a private school determine its course of study for students without the entire community being represented. Certainly private school students should be test by the same test used to evaluate public schools.
Public and private schools will never be the same simple due to the differences under which each must operate: public school being public control while private schools not having public oversight.
Mr. Fink some how promotes parents wanting school choice as synonymous with using state and local funding at private schools. The two views are substantially different. Choosing which school in the local district you child attends is not the same as having to meet some criteria set by a private school that does not have to accept your child.