Valley lawmakers support change to constitution

MAT-SU — One of the major debates roiling the state Legislature concerns school vouchers, and the Valley’s delegation is front and center. The piece of legislation touching off much of the debate originated with Rep. Wes Keller, R-Wasilla.

Keller said his resolution would put to a vote of the people whether to remove the so-called “Blaine Amendment” from the Alaska Constitution. The Blaine Amendment has to do with setting up schools in the state. The part relevant to the debate reads:

“No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”

So, Keller said, vouchers might be the result. But to talk about them now, he seemed to say, is getting ahead of things. He’s not setting up a voucher system.

“All House Joint Resolution 1 is saying is, ‘OK Alaska, you tell us whether we want to pull the Blaine Amendment out,’” Keller said.

Sen. Mike Dunleavy, R-Wasilla, introduced the Senate version of Keller’s House resolution last week. He was tied up in committee meetings when called for comment Thursday afternoon, but that morning he’d called in to the Casey Reynolds radio program to talk about it. He said the state constitution is standing in the way of a school voucher program.

“It’s done in many other states. Interestingly enough, it’s done in Canada, it’s done in Europe,” he said. “Many other states, many other countries, are headed in this direction, it’s just currently we can’t do it.”

Reynolds asked Dunleavy what would happen if a religious or private school faltered, if it started to underperform. What would be the ramifications?

“There’s literally dozens, and I repeat dozens, of different approaches that could occur if the people of Alaska wish to change their constitution for this,” Dunleavy said. “There are many people that believe if you take a public dollar the state can demand a public outcome.”

Which, he said, means the state could insist that kids even in private school pass public school tests if the school wants to continue to get the money.

“I’ve been a product of the public school systems. My children go to public schools,” Dunleavy said. “Our public schools, not all of them guarantee a public outcome, not all of them guarantee educational performance.”

As for the local school district, back in September before the debate began at a legislative level, the Mat-Su Borough School District School Board failed to endorse a resolution from the Alaska Association of School Boards opposing vouchers.

Voting in favor Sept. 19, and thus in opposition to vouchers, were board members Sarah Welton, Susan Pougher and Neal Lacy. In opposition and in favor of vouchers were Dunleavy and members Erick Cordero and Lynn Gattis, who is now in the state House. The final vote was 3-3, but tie votes fail at the school board.

Dunleavy and Gattis have since been elected to the Legislature and board member Cordero is serving as Gattis’ chief of staff in Juneau. Gattis stepped down from the board after being appointed to chair the House Education Committee, which she said would be a conflict of interest.

On break from a conference she was attending out of state, MSBSD Superintendent Deena Paramo said that in light of that board vote, the district’s policy has been neutrality on vouchers.

“I’m not afraid of vouchers because I know that Mat-Su really has some outstanding schools and I know they’ll spend our vouchers with us,” she said.

It’s not something she’s worried about or spends a lot of time thinking about, Paramo said.

“We’ll let the battle at the Legislature happen and we’ll just continue to move forward in Mat-Su with making the best environment for kids to learn and achieve,” Paramo said.

As for that fight, it’s likely to continue as the resolution moves forward. Keller said he hasn’t seen any kind of polling about his resolution in particular, but he said believes people are supportive of the general notion of giving public tax dollars to religious and other private schools.

He said he thinks he also has good support in the House and Senate, but that doesn’t mean he’s positive it will pass.

“Keep in mind we have to get a two-thirds vote. That’s what we need to get it through,” he said. “That’s a tall order.”

He said that if it passes, then the measure goes to voters in November 2014. That means there will be more than a year for both those opposed and in favor to square off in public debate.

Contact reporter Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.