It’s a blow to school choice and a slap in the face of educational freedom: An Alaska Superior Court judge has made a stunning ruling against the State of Alaska in a case involving how the state financially helps families with funding for correspondence schools.
The lawsuit filed in 2023 sought to ban the use of state allotments for private or religious education. The judge agreed, and ruled that “AS 14.03.300-.310 must be struck down as unconstitutional in their entirety.” The statutes in question authorize all public correspondence school programs in the state.
The State of Alaska will appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court, Must Read Alaska has learned.
The ruling impacts 24,518 students, fully 17.3% of all Alaska enrollment in the 28 districts that have programs. It impacts the $119,559,805 these districts get in state funding.
If this ruling were to stand, there would be no public correspondence school options in Alaska and families currently in correspondence school would be forced to pay for what is otherwise public schooling out of their own pockets.
But the ruling is not in effect yet. Parents and school districts do not have to close down correspondence schools; the State Department of Law will ask for a stay until this is sorted out.
The case was filed last year by a group backed by the National Education Association-Alaska, with liberal activist attorney Scott Kendall (Alaskans for Better Elections fame) as one of the lawyers suing the state.
The plaintiffs were parents of students in public schools who were not using state-approved correspondence programs but offended that others use them and are reimbursed by state funds. The defendant was Acting Education Commissioner Heidi Teshner.
Students enrolled in an approved state correspondence program can use the annual allotment to homeschool or instruction provided by a private school, with allotments running between $2,000 and $4,000. It allows parents to opt their children out of troubled, sometimes violent, and provably low-performing public schools in Alaska.
“This suit challenges AS 14.03.300-.310, which is being used to reimburse parents for thousands of dollars in private educational institution services using public funds thereby indirectly funding private education in violation of Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution,” the lawsuit said.
The funding for correspondence programs came from Senate Bill 100 in 2013, sponsored by then-Sen. Mike Dunleavy. In his sponsor statement back then, Dunleavy wrote, “[m]ost [correspondence programs] provide a student allotment to purchase educational services or materials to meet the student’s Individual Learning Plan (ILP). Under SB 100, a parent may purchase services and materials from a private or religious organization with a student’s allotment to meet the student’s ILP.”
SB 100 was introduced as part of a legislative package which included Senate‘ Joint Resolution 9 (“SJR 9”), which contained two proposed amendments to the Alaska State Constitution. The first amendment proposed deleting the final sentence of Article VII, Section I of the Alaska State Constitution which provides, “[n]o money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” In 2014, successfully sponsored a bill that further enabled parents to be reimbursed for nonpublic education.
Judge Adolf Zeman ruled that there was an acknowledgement back in 2013 and later in 2014 that the change would require a constitutional amendment.
Zeman ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state to pay for educational services from private organization using private funds, because it is in contravention of Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution.
The plaintiffs suggested that the matter could be remedied if the state simply strikes the words “private, or religious” from the statute and require people to purchase the educational support from the state. The judge appeared to agree, but he went much further in an example of judicial activism: In a case that only asked for the allotments to be changed, he threw out the entire correspondence program.
Judge Zeman wrote, “If the legislature believes these expenditures are necessary — then it is up to them to craft constitutional legislation to serve that purpose — that is not this Court’s role.”
Alaska Statute 14.03.300(a) provides that under a “correspondence study program” an individual learning plan is developed in collaboration with the student, the parent or guardian of the student, a certified teacher assigned to the student, and other individuals involved in the student’s learning plan. To meet instructional expenses, AS 14.03.310(a) allows a district to provide an annual student allotment to a parent or guardian of a student enrolled in the correspondence study program. A parent or guardian may purchase nonsectarian services and materials from a public, private, or religious organization with a student allotment if they are consistent with the ‘individual learning plan. AS 14.03.310(b).
This story will be updated as more details are known.
