 |
Governor / Lt Governor Candidate Questionnaire
Campaign 2006
Candidate: Sarah Palin Office: Governor
Candidate responses exceeding 50 words have been truncated.
ADEQUATE FUNDING
1. Presently three methods are recognized by experts and the courts as reliable means to determine adequate funding: resource cost, best schools, and professional judgment. Do you support the use of a recognized, research based study to determine the adequate funding level of K-12 schools?
Yes
Explain:
Such a study would be beneficial and its findings could be compared with the adequacy study conducted on behalf of the school districts and educators who filed Alaska’s pending school funding lawsuit. Resource cost, professional judgment, and best schools models should all considered in the study process.
If you support an adequate funding study, how would you accomplish this?
The current lawsuit (Moore vs. Alaska) will probably not be decided before Oct ’06. The lawsuit asks the State to conduct a cost analysis for a constitutionally adequate education. Once the suit is settled, an independent study could then be commissioned for comparative quality control.
2. Do you support the use of area cost differential factors to provide equity in school funding?
Yes
Rationale
Individual school districts can have unique funding concerns. This is especially true in rural Alaska where adequate teacher housing, high energy costs, salaries, and other considerations attendant on rural education differ from urban school districts. Funding can be matched to individual districts.
3. The recent changes in funding for pupil transportation have had negative impacts in a number of school districts. How would you address this issue?
Currently, pupil transportation is being funded by money which should be used strictly for education. We should reinstate the previous funding practice of creating a separate budget for transportation. This will have the added benefit of serving as a quality-control and accounting for our transportation needs.
4. Will you commit to working with NEA-Alaska and other groups in developing a long-range plan to supplement current funding levels and achieve adequate funding for schools within a decade?
Yes
Rationale
It is essential to include all stake-holders in the planning process. This will be especially true in analyzing the current and future studies which may be mandated during the adjudication of Moore vs. State of Alaska and any other independent studies focused on adequate funding.
5. Would you support adequate funding of Alaska’s public schools to meet the constitutional mandate prior to funding of any other programs not constitutionally mandated?
Yes
Rationale
This, of course, would have to be done on a case-by case basis. Individual school boards would have to be judicious in their selections. We want to avoid the discontinuation of federal funds for mandated programs receiving federal support.
LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN
The 23rd and 24th Legislatures identified several revenue sources for consideration: alcohol tax, cruise ship tax, fuel tax, income tax, sales tax, and use of the Permanent Fund earnings.
Please list, in priority order, the sources you would utilize to create a long-range fiscal plan.
None of the above. There is no reason that we can’t, in this time of surplus, build a trust fund that will begin to address future funding issues. In a short amount of time, we could ease the financial strain of providing a world-class education.
PERS/TRS
1. What percentage of their salary at retirement do you believe public employee retirees should have to retire with dignity?
66%-75%
2. Given that most public school employees will not be able to collect Social Security benefits due to the federal law (GPO/WEP), the employees’ retirement income must come from their pension plan and personal income. Do you believe a defined contribution plan with a 15% of salary contribution will generate a pension that will provide a retirement with dignity?
No
If not, what do you propose to do to provide public employees access to a pension plan that provides a retirement with dignity?
Again, if we set aside some of the surplus and make this a financial habit, we can fund our priorities.
3. Would you support returning to a defined benefits retirement plan as a means of attracting and retaining quality educators?
Yes
Rationale
In a defined-benefits system, teachers receive monthly retirement checks. A defined-contribution plan cannot provide this assurance, but offers a partial solution to the funding gap. Both systems have positive elements and should be studied to determine the practicality of selecting and combining the best of both to produce a third approach.
4. According to recent actuarial reports, PERS and TRS have unfunded liabilities. How do you see the state eliminating these unfunded liabilities to meet their financial obligations to retirees?
I would give this problem a high priority as it involves a promise by the state to fully fund PERS & TRS. This needs to be “fixed” concurrently with a fiscal program for providing adequate funding for education. They are inseparable.
5. Will you commit to consulting with NEA-Alaska and other employee organizations whose members are participants in TRS and PERS when changes to the retirement plans are being considered?
Yes
Rationale
Absolutely YES. Any changes in TRS and PERS affects all beneficiaries and NEA-Alaska employee organizations should have full input in deliberations. Employee organizations are excellent management resources during all stages of the decision-making process .
ATTRACTING & RETAINING QUALITY EDUCATORS
The #1 factor in student achievement is a quality teacher supported by quality administrators and support staff. It is well known that Alaska is facing a teacher shortage. The legislature held several hearings on the matter, but has done little to address the issue.
1. What do you believe are the three essential factors in recruiting and retaining quality teachers?
1) Salaries and health/benefits packages
2) Manageable, satisfying classroom environment
3) Good housing for remote and rural Alaska
2. As Governor / Lt. Governor, what will you do to address these factors?
Work for the alteration or repeal of SB 141 and explore broad-spectrum methods of making teachers’ salaries/benefits the best in the U.S. again.
3. Fiscal uncertainty has caused many “new to the profession” educators to leave Alaskan school districts and even leave the state. According to Commissioner Roger Sampson, the out-of-pocket cost to a school district of losing a teacher is $12,000. What would you do to eliminate this annual turnover that has cost our state so many valuable educators?
SB 141 must be altered or repealed. Revive our original defined-benefits approach for teachers and make salary scales comparable with Outside. Explore abandoning the BSA and return to Alaska’s original funding mechanism based on student needs.
4. Would you work to amend state statute to make sure that district claims of financial shortfalls are verified by independent third parties when dealing with the layoff of tenured teachers?
Yes
Rationale
This would bring to light and help identify financial needs which should be addressed by the governor and legislature. It would also help ensure fairness in the layoff process.
CLASS SIZE
An important factor in student achievement is small class size. Bills were introduced in the legislature, but little has been done to address the issue. Would you support a bill that sets recommended class size by grade level and provides for additional funds to schools that meet the standards.
No
Rationale
I do not believe class size should be legislatively mandated. This has proved a failure when attempted Outside, most notably in California. Class size should be determined by our professional educators and be based on subject, student needs, classroom limitations. Schools should be funded to meet the professionally defined objectives.
If yes, would you introduce such a bill and seek co-sponsors?
No
Rationale
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT / NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (ESEA/NCLB)
What are you willing to do in concert with NEA-Alaska and other organizations to ensure that federally mandated programs are “Alaska friendly’ and adequately funded?
It is the state’s responsibility to completely fund the NCLB program, a federally mandated requirement. It would be my responsibility to work with the federal gov't to help make their mandates, "Alaska friendly".
1. Students and staff must feel safe and secure in our schools for learning to take place.
Would you support funding for programs/staff that have been demonstrated to increase student and
staff safety?
Yes
Rationale
Again, I would work with the legislature to support and sign into law such programs.
2. A safe learning environment is a key factor in student achievement. Would you support the use of restraining orders for individuals who threaten or endanger students or public school employees in the public school environment?
Yes
3. Would you support legislation to make a school-related assault on an education employee an aggravating factor in sentencing?
Yes
HIGH STAKES TESTING
1. For the past three years, some students did not receive diplomas for the sole reason they did not pass the High School Graduation Qualifying Examination (HSGQE.) Would you support amending the law to allow schools to assess student knowledge and abilities through a variety of means and not just through a single test?
Yes
2. Would you support categorical funding for district-developed remedial programs for students who do not meet standards on Alaska’s benchmark exams?
No
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
What additional ideas do you have to improve K-12 education in Alaska?
