FAIRBANKS -- Those who want to change the Alaska Constitution and allow public money to be spent on private schools still say it's not about money. They continue to say they can't attach a dollar figure to the proposed amendment because, as Sen. Mike Dunleavy puts it, "It is a language change only."
He is correct in saying no new programs would be created immediately if the constitutional ban on using public funds for private schools is overturned. But it makes no sense to forward the biggest proposed change in the history of Alaska's public schools to the voters without some idea of the cost.
The language that needs changing is not in the constitution, but in the arguments put forward by Dunleavy and others who want to amend the rules on education funding.
After I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago, a group that calls itself "Alaskans for Choice in Education" responded, "If you want to know how much school choice will cost, look at the fiscal note to SB 100." I looked. The fiscal note to Dunleavy's Senate Bill No. 100 says the cost is zero. He has a second bill on the topic, SB 89, to offer tax credits for contributions to private schools. The vague fiscal note on that one says the cost is impossible to predict, but it could be a decline of up to $500 million in tax revenues.
We need to see some analysis on this from the proponents of the constitutional amendment, starting with Gov. Sean Parnell and legislators. Their "it's not about the money" attitude discourages the open discussion that they say they would love to have.
Proponents not opponents must quantify
In Fairbanks Friday, the governor told a reporter for Channel 13 that it is a "legitimate concern" to talk about funds that would be taken from public schools and diverted to private schools under the amendment. He went to say that this is "something that I've asked opponents of SJR 9 to quantify."
Parnell knows that the proponents, not the opponents, need to quantify the cost of any proposed change in policy. But he has chosen to use a debate tactic to switch positions and avoid this difficult question. "If you think this is going to take money from traditional neighborhood schools because you don't think they really can compete with private schools or religious schools, then tell me what dollar amount you think is going to leave. Let's talk about that and how to address that through the budget process," Parnell said in Fairbanks.
As the state's chief executive, Parnell is in the ideal position to lead the discussion of a proposal he has decided to champion. If he believes that public schools can't compete with private schools or religious schools, he needs to explain why he believes that and how much he thinks "is going to leave" and be funneled to private schools.
One reason for Parnell's approach is that it is hard to say how much this change would cost because the details on implementing a new funding system are missing. A range of potential costs can be identified, however.
Is $100 million an extreme possibility?
Opponents of the amendment say that if you divert funds from public schools to the existing private schools in Alaska, the cost could be from $60 million to $100 million.
A Legislative Research Agency report said that if the estimated 11,000 students now in private schools received the per-student equivalent of what is spent on public school students, the cost would be $99.7 million, or more than $9,000 per student.
Dunleavy has said $100 million was an extreme possibility and that's not what he has in mind. He said that giving private money to religious schools would sooner or later be declared unconstitutional.
"The more appropriate vehicle for a voucher program to be developed in Alaska is through a tax credit approach. This is where a private business gives funds to private or religious schools in return for a tax credit from the state," he said in a long post on Facebook last April.
"This approach is safe from court challenges because private business is using private money to fund private/religious schools. No public funding from the state is used," he said.
I don't agree that no public money from the state would be used under his plan. It is a form of public funding in which the taxpayers decide how the money is to be spent. The fiscal note on Dunleavy's bill said it is difficult to determine how much state revenue would be lost through lower taxes because it is not known how many companies would use the 70 percent credit he proposed.
About 20 companies in Alaska pay more than $25 million a year in taxes. "If all 20 taxpayers availed themselves of the full amount of this credit, state revenues could decline by as much as $500 million a year," the fiscal note said. It would be greater if all 6,000 entities that pay taxes in Alaska took advantage of the credit.
It seems that more number crunching is called for. After that, the governor can follow his sound advice: "Let's talk about that and how to address that through the budget process."
Contact Dermot Cole at dermot(at)alaskadispatch.com. Follow him on Twitter @dermotmcole
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.