|
Alaska
Recent Events |
Costing Out | Useful
Resources
Historical Background
In 1997, plaintiffs filed an "adequacy" and
"equity" suit, Kasayulie v. State, against
the state of Alaska, claiming that the state's method
of funding capital projects for education violates the
education clause and the equal protection clause of
the Alaska Constitution and the implementing regulations
of Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In 2004, a different set of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit
against the state ( Moore v. State ),
alleging the state's education finance system is inadequate
and inequitable in funding operating costs.
Kasayulie v. State
In Kasayulie v. State, 3AN-97-3782 CIV (Sept.
1, 1999), the Superior Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment, holding that Alaska has
a dual, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and racially discriminatory
system for funding school facilities. It also held that
education in Alaska is a fundamental right.
In March 2001, the Superior Court rejected a motion
from the state to reopen the Kasayulie decision,
concluding that the new information the state submitted
reinforces the court's prior findings. After the 2001
decision, the state allocated significant funds for
construction and renovation of rural schools. However,
the state has not yet changed the unconstitutional,
dual system of facilities financing. The 2001 decision
was not a final, appealable order.
Moore v. State
The trial court in Moore v. State ruled on
June 21, 2007 that “Alaska’s funding of
public education…comports with the Education Clause”
of the state constitution, but that “the State
has violated the Education Clause” because it
“has failed to identify those schools that are
not according to children a meaningful opportunity”
and has failed to provide “a concerted effort
to remedy that situation.” The court also ruled
that, “because the State has failed to meet this
component of its constitutional responsibility,”
it is an unconstitutional violation of due process to
require students to pass the state exit exam to graduate
from high school. “It is fundamentally unfair,”
Superior Court Judge Sharon L. Gleason wrote, “to
hold students accountable for failing this exam when
some students in the state have not been accorded a
meaningful opportunity to learn the material on the
exam.”
Judge Gleason said the state was failing to provide
sufficient oversight of school districts with low test
scores. Despite a tradition of local control of schools,
she wrote, the Legislature is responsible under the
State Constitution’s Education Clause for providing
students “the opportunity to acquire the basic
tools they need to succeed in both traditional and global
societies.”
Judge Gleason stayed judgment in the case for one year,
giving the state an opportunity to remedy the constitutional
violations.
In June 2008, the trial court ordered the parties to
enter mediation to attempt to reach an agreement, but
the mediation was not successful. The remedy phase of
the trial began October 6, 2008.
Based on an extensive evidentiary hearing, on February
4, 2009, Judge Gleason held in a further decision in
Moore v. State that the State of Alaska is
not meeting its constitutional responsibility to “maintain
a system of public schools open to all children of the
State.” Specifically, the judge found that the
State Education Department was not providing sufficient
oversight and assistance to schools in chronically underperforming
school districts. These deficiencies included, among
other things:
• A failure to insure that each school district’s
curriculum is aligned to the State’s standards
• A lack of attention to content areas not covered
by the State’s standardized testing
• Limited interventions that are not addressed
to the specific strengths and weaknesses of each chronically
underperforming district
• Inadequate consideration of pre-k and other
intensive early learning initiatives
• Failure to address high teacher turnover and
teacher inexperience
The Court ordered the state to file with the court
revised district intervention plans that address each
of the problem areas identified in the findings.
The State then submitted extensive evidence claiming
that it had now complied with the Court order. In a
further “Order on Review of 2009 Submissions”
issued on March 31, 2010, Judge Gleason disagreed with
the defendants and required them to submit detailed
plans regarding how deficiencies will be corrected in
each of the remedial areas she had previously identified.
At the same time, the Court rejected plaintiffs’
proposal to appoint a special master “at this
time,” warning, however, that if “these
continuing constitutional violations cannot be promptly
remedied after this Order, then the Plaintiffs may renew
their request for a special master.”
Costing
Out
Remote, sparsely populated school districts in Alaska
incur significant costs due to their isolation and extreme
climate. In 2002, the Alaska state legislature released
a cost-of-education study that it commissioned to calculate
educational costs in the diverse geographic regions
of the state for: personnel; energy; supplies, materials,
and small capital items; and travel. This study updated
a geographical cost-of-education index developed in
1998.
Recent Events
The State defendant in Moore v. State has
submitted motions to the trial court claiming that it
was already in compliance with the court’s order
at the time of trial. Alternatively, the state requests
clarification of its responsibilities of oversight and
assistance vis-à-vis the local control afforded
the state’s school districts.
In February 2010, several rural lawmakers and Republican
Governor Sean Parnell renewed efforts to improve facilities
for schools represented in the Kasayulie v. State
case by utilizing Fiscal Year 2010 budget surplus funds.
Other Litigations
In 2004, disabled students in Alaska filed a class
action lawsuit against the Alaska State Board of Education
and others, charging that the way in which Alaska's
high school exit exam was formulated and administered
discriminated against them. Within months, the parties
settled the case, after the state committed to broadening
“accommodations” and offering alternative assessments.
Useful Resources
For information regarding other states with facilities/capital
funding cases, see Arizona,
Colorado, Idaho,
and New Mexico.
Last Updated: May, 2009
|
