This editorial first appeared in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:
Any attempt to amend our Alaska Constitution deserves a complete and detailed review, which means that all the relevant legislative committees should weigh in on the matter.
This certainly is true with the effort in Juneau to amend our Constitution to remove the ban on spending public money on private schools.
Lawmakers in the Senate, worried their Education Committee might not move the measure along, pulled it from that panel.
Their claim this is more about funding than about education, and therefore the Education Committee should not look at it, has a hollow ring to it.
This sideshow threatens to overshadow the underlying debate.
Senate President Charlie Huggins, Sen. John Coghill, of North Pole, and other leaders erred with their decision to write the Education Committee out of the process of considering Senate Joint Resolution 9.
Senate leaders, to their credit, say that if significant education issues arise with the measure, it may be referred to the Education Committee.
That’s not good enough.
We urge the Senate to do away with this unnecessary distraction by referring the matter to the Education Committee, where a full debate on the educational implications of this measure can take place.
Sen. Gary Stevens, the chairman of the Education Committee, pledged this week to hold hearings on using public money for private schools whether or not the measure is assigned to his committee.
The ban on using public money in private education has a long tradition in Alaska, dating back to 1912 and the creation of the territory of Alaska.
Our Constitution has a simple and clear paragraph on the topic. It requires establishment of a system of public education with schools that are free of “sectarian control.”
The prohibition is contained in this sentence: “No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”
There have been a variety of court cases throughout the years, with many arguments centered on what is a direct benefit as opposed to an indirect one. The provision of bus services to the Catholic Schools of Fairbanks, for example, has been deemed an indirect benefit and therefore acceptable.
There are those, including some leaders of the Senate, who say the tradition of banning public funds for private schools should end.
To avoid creating either the impression or the reality of a less-than-thorough review, the measure needs to be reviewed by the Education Committee.
Comments (12)
Add commentWell stated
If this religiously motivated change to Alaska's Constitution ever makes it in front of Alaskans in the voting booth, so should Parnell's oil giveaway. Let's see how Alaskans feel about both.
Right thinking, wrong path.
The state should not fund private schools. There are too many strings attached to government money. And God knows the government can screw up a junkyard with a rubber hammer. Just look at the public school system. What the state SHOULD do is allow parents to spend their share of the education contribution on the school of their choice, be it run by a religious entity or not. Parents should have the option to be able to choose a superior education for their children and not be forced to pay for the existing inferior one at the same time. I've done it. It's tough. I'm done now and will never get all that money back. But, it was worth it. We can get back to producing well educated young men and women and get this country back up on the top of educational excellence if we can opt out of the failed public school system. It's FUBAR!
Same diff, skirkz
Whether the money goes direct to the schools, or funneled first through the parents, the end result is the same. The hollowing out of our school systems.
What about the kid with a disability? Or maybe the recent immigrant kid where English is a second language? Or the kid comes from a (gasp!) Muslim family? Your religious/private school would exclude all of them for cost/ideological reasons.
And your logic then should extend to all other public services.
How about private highways, private water systems, private fire departments, private airports...? Been there on a lot of that, don't need to repeat history.
Why do 'conservatives' hate the idea of people cooperating?
Should state fund private
Should state fund private schools? Hell no.
Scrap them.
Start over. They are like a $1000 car. Constant cash infusions are required to keep them limping down the road while gushing motor oil and tranny fluid and guzzling gas.
Private Schools
Private schools need to remain just that! The word private according too The America Heritage Dictionary says the word means"not available for public use, control, or participation".
This definition clearly states why private schools NOT be aloud to receive public money for education!
@lat - Do you just sit around
@lat - Do you just sit around making stuff up about conservatives? All your arguments ring so hollow.
Every talking point boils down to anti-christianity and how intolerant the right is on everything, basically.
You're becoming a mockery.
You write - "What about the kid with a disability? Or maybe the recent immigrant kid where English is a second language? Or the kid comes from a (gasp!) Muslim family? Your religious/private school would exclude all of them for cost/ideological reasons."
That's just made up bigotry, on your part. No Christian that I know feels that way. Do some research on private, religious schools and maybe deal with facts, for once.
more than just course
Public school funds pay for more than simply classes. The funds pay for the facilities which are used by many groups outside of school hours. School funding is used to pay for many aspects of the community from swimming pools to playgrounds using school funding. Are private schools willing to provide similar facilities open their doors for the same uses?
@Calypso
What motivation would a private school have to accept a non-english speaking child, or a disabled child? Private schools are run like a business. They are not subject to the same laws regarding disabled children, and I seriously doubt they are willing to shell out the tens of thousands of dollars it costs each year to have a severely disabled child in their classroom. If they take public money, should they also be subject to public education laws? And in that case wouldn't they just become a public school and no longer be private?
Most private schools shy away
Most private schools shy away from kids with sever disabilities. I really don't have anything against private schools. They have a place. However, they are oftentimes very selective on whom they will allow through their doors.
@Calypso
You wrote: "That's just made up bigotry, on your part. No Christian that I know feels that way. Do some research on private, religious schools and maybe deal with facts, for once."
I don't need to do research to know my child was rejected at a number of private schools (Yea...I was a christian once....)
He was rejected due to a disability.
Far from made up....it's called experience
Republican Playbook
Now that they have complete control, Republicans in Alaska are introducing the same old tired ideas they have tried in the rest of the country- Public funding for religious schools, tax cuts for wealthy corporations, restricting women's reproductive rights, gutting environmental laws, assault weapons for everybody, and cutting wages and benefits for public employees.