PETITION LAUNCHED, AND A HEARING ON HOUSE BILL 400 IS SET FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Alaska Department of Law will file a request with the Alaska Supreme Court to extend the enactment date of a Superior Court judge’s ruling against state in a matter that may irreparably harm tens of thousands of students and parents in Alaska.
Judge Adolf Zeman said in his ruling in April that the state cannot pay for correspondence classes for Alaska students because it is unconstitutional.
He later granted a stay of his own ruling at the request of the National Education Association, which had brought the lawsuit in the first place, before the NEA realized the political firestorm that would result from pulling funding from as many as 24,000 students in Alaska and their tens of thousands of parents.
But Zeman’s stay was miserly in that it only means students and families can finish out the school year under the current law, which allows families to get reimbursement for the education of their children in a non-brick-and-mortar setting. Zeman’s stay on his own prohibition lasts until June 30.
“A longer stay would give the most certainty to the tens of thousands of students, families, and educational vendors involved in the correspondence program while we wait for a final determination. This is too important a matter for Alaska and Alaskan students for short cuts or rush to judgments without even hearing a final decision from our highest court,” said Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor. “Although I appreciate a stay of any length, we need certainty until the Alaska Supreme Court gives everyone guidance on this issue, and the Legislature and Governor have an opportunity to react to that guidance, if necessary.”
If reimbursing home school and correspondence coursework is unconstitutional, as Zeman says it is, his stay is allowing that “unconstitutional act” to continue for several weeks, raises the question about whether he is violating the Alaska Constitution.
PETITION STARTED
A group in Anchorage has created an online petition calling on legislators to take immediate action to move forward an amendment that clarifies the Alaska Constitution, so that judges like Zeman cannot misconstrue it.
ANCHORAGE SCHOOL RESPONSE
This past week, Anchorage School District Superintendent Jharrett Bryantt has sent a statement out regarding the reimbursements through the district, which will continue through the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends June 30.
“ASD is ready to start issuing payments for past and current reimbursement requests and vendor payments next week,” Bryantt wrote. “We acknowledge the ongoing concerns that families have had with the temporary pause placed on reimbursements for purchases made using correspondence school allotments. We are here to support you to get your reimbursements for this school year.”
He noted that the Anchorage School Board is advocating that the State Board of Education and Early Development to meet as soon as possible “to enact regulations that provide for constitutional correspondence study programs for the 2024-25 school year and beyond.”
HOUSE HEARING IN FINANCE
The Alaska House Education Committee will held a hearing regarding House Bill 400, which addresses aspects of state law that the judge found unconstitutional. The bill is now in Finance.
“HB 400 gives the Board of Education the direction to develop and implement regulations that align with the State Constitution. Allotments and Individual Learning Plans (ILP) will continue as they have demonstrated they are vital in the continued operation of correspondence programs,” says the sponsor statement. Documents and hearing information is at this link.
BACKGROUND
Alaska has had a correspondence school program since before statehood. In fact, correspondence school education in Alaska dates at least as far back as 1918. It has been an important public education option, and of some Alaskans, it has been the only choice for those living in logging camps, mining camps or other remote communities.
In 2014, the Alaska Legislature amended the correspondence school statutes to codify existing regulations in addition to other changes.
“Importantly, the Superior Court judge did not rule that some parts of those laws are unconstitutional and that others are valid—or that some kinds of spending under the allotment statutes are permitted but other types of spending are not. Instead, he issued an order simply declaring the correspondence program statutes unconstitutional in their entirety. This is precisely what the NEA had asked the judge to do,” the Department of Law wrote.
Attorney General Taylor gave the following statement in response to the recent assertions and confusion surrounding this pending court case and the granted stay:
“This decision has caused a lot of consternation and concern for Alaskan families. There has also been confusion about what the decision says and means and what is the best way forward to ensure that public correspondence school education remains an opportunity for Alaska families—an opportunity that has existed and been supported by public funding since territorial days. I want to make several things clear for Alaskans.
“First, the Alaska Supreme Court should make the ultimate decision about whether laws passed by the Legislature (like the correspondence program statutes) conform with the requirements of the Alaska Constitution. The Alaska Supreme Court has not ruled on this case. Instead, we are only at step one of this process with one lower court having looked at the case.
“Second, to ensure that the Alaska Supreme Court will review this important issue before Alaskan families, the Department of Law filed an expedited appeal today with the Alaska Supreme Court to get a final determination as quickly as possible.
“Third, the recent clarification by the Superior Court does open up the possibility of an interim solution. I would caution putting into place anything permanent, but rather keeping the current statutes as they are (because the Alaska Supreme Court could uphold them, requiring no changes to our program). Any potential solution should be tailored to the interim only and cause the least disruption to existing programs, while recognizing the judge’s decision. This is why a stay remains the best option for stability.”
Read the appeal here.
