| 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
|
