• Overcast, light rain
  • 55°
    Overcast, light rain
  • Comment

My Turn: Don't allow public funding for religious, private schools

Posted: March 12, 2014 - 12:00am

Alaska’s constitution is the fundamental document for the state. It sets forth basic principles and individual rights, the structures and responsibilities of government, and other provisions for the functioning of the state.

Amending the Constitution is a serious matter. We’ve done it before to strengthen our right to privacy, to establish the Permanent Fund and for other purposes. But you make a change only if the need is great, the justification is clear and you don’t create more problems than you solve.

An amendment is before the Legislature to delete the following sentence from the Constitution’s section on Public Education: “No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” (HJR 1, SJR 9)

Supposedly, the amendment is needed so that home-schooled and other children could obtain vouchers for private or for-profit schools.

But is that all the amendment does?

No way.

Eliminating that one sentence would allow the state to appropriate or otherwise spend public money for the direct benefit of any religious or other institution.

I can’t imagine that such is the intent of the amendment’s legislative sponsors. Yet, those would be the doors this change would open.

Beyond that, I’m appalled by the nonsense and drivel that has surrounded consideration of this amendment.

The argument that legislators should “just let the people vote”, and the legislature would later decide what is to be done, denigrates the amendment process of the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote by the Senate and the House to bring a proposed change before the electorate.

This is serious stuff, and the people need to know what they’re voting for.

The lack of consideration and specificity is further evidenced by the pretense that there are no financial effects to this proposition. As others have calculated, the negative effect on public schools of spreading limited education funds to religious and other private institutions could run into hundreds of millions of dollars, having particularly deleterious effects in rural areas. The cost in the long run could be far greater.

Alaska’s Constitutional Convention extensively discussed the particular sentence that some legislators now wish to eliminate. It was included in the constitution not because of any such federal requirement. The Statehood Act provided only that we have a system of public schools open to all children of the state and that it be free from sectarian control.

Despite the implication by some, the language that amendment supporters like to refer to pejoratively as the “Blaine Amendment” was not included out of any anti-Catholic bias. In the nonpartisan Convention, there was none such.

All constitutional delegates, every one, including the about 20 percent who were Catholic, supported the education provisions of Article VII as they exist.

Today’s education language is in the constitution because all convention delegates accepted the basic policy that public funds were not to directly benefit religious and private educational institutions.

That policy is in line with the fundamental reality that separation of church and state protects both — public schools remain open to students of all faiths and religions, and religious schools remain free of the government regulations and interference that are inevitably connected to public funds.

So let’s please protect Alaska’s system of public schools, reject the education amendment and leave the constitution be.

• Victor Fischer was a delegate to the Alaska Constitutional Convention, and was a member of the Territorial Legislature and State Senate. He is author of Alaska’s Constitutional Convention (1975) and To Russia with Love: An Alaskan’s Journey (2012).

  • Comment

Comments (14) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Steven Rosales
Steven Rosales 03/12/14 - 09:44 am

Dont worry I have enough for myself and you if you ever want to borrow some. I would like someone to tell me whats wrong with a private religious school recieving funds for a student if the parents decide they want their child to attend? This country after all was founded on the belief of god right? Doesnt our money say "In God we Trust"? I dont even go to church and I dont care if they get money to teach a child! Probably better off!

Wayne Coogan
Wayne Coogan 03/12/14 - 12:09 pm
JM, it pleases me that your

JM, it pleases me that your parents could afford to send you to a private school. However, most parents cannot afford that choice. The constitution provides public money to each child for education but fails to give parents the choice; relegating them to the public school bureaucracy unless they can afford other choices. "Separation of church and state" is a non-sequitur fallacy. The First Amendment is not a "separation clause" but rather a non-establishment clause. Non-profit and non-governmental organizations regularly receive government funds in exchange for public services. Courts have correctly determined that such funding is an economic transaction rather than the establishment of religion. The real question we should ask is, why do opponents fear giving parents a choice?

Steven Rosales
Steven Rosales 03/12/14 - 12:10 pm

I guess my point is education is education! I also went to private school for 2 years as a middle schooler and my dad paid for it on a cops salary which isnt easy to do. I dont thinkthis is just against religious schools but I could be wrong, I know charter schools across the country are under attack. Remember the teachers in private schools are not crying for more money like public even though they make better pay here than 45 other states plus benefits! So also if I dont agree with the new propossed 50 million dollar arts theater can my taxes be witheld from that?

. Shannara
. Shannara 03/12/14 - 12:13 pm
Wayne ...

The correct answer is, "They Don't". Feel free to read all of the articles on this. Even after you commenting on a few, it still sounds like you do not actually read the articles.

Instead of asking a question you have the answer to. Hint: That question doesn't match the subject. Perhaps you should be asking, "Why does the public not want to fund free loaders?".

As mentioned time and time again, in which you flat out refuse to read. No parents are having their choices taken away. I don't think I can answer that more simply for you.

Choose to understand if you will. If not, that's on you.

Judy Hodel
Judy Hodel 03/12/14 - 01:10 pm
Private schools = private funding.

Public schools = public funding...Private schools = private funding. It's as simple as that. The authors of the Alaska Constitution got it right the first time.

If you parents want to send your kids to a private school that teaches them that the earth is 6,000 years old, that Noah really did float around in that boat for 40 days with all those animals on board and that puts creationism ahead of evolution, then have at it.

But do it with your own money. That State should not pay for the dumbing down of your children, you should.

Back to Top


  • Switchboard: 907-586-3740
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-586-3740
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Business Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-523-2230
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback