Home

















Recent Developments | Useful Resources | State-by-State Map | Litigation Calendar | Court Decisions | Legal Documents | Litigation News  

 

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,” Judge Sharon 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.

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.

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: January 2008