May 3, 2024
(Anchorage, AK) – The State of Alaska has been granted a short stay until June 30, 2024, in the ongoing fight for correspondence schools and educational allotments. The decision to stay the ruling, at least in the short-term, means that the allotment program will continue as it has since 2014. The State will be filing a request to extend that stay through any appeal and today filed an appeal with a request that it be expedited.
“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.”
Alaska has had a correspondence school program since before statehood. It has been an important public education option for all Alaskans—and a necessity for many Alaskans living in remote areas. In 2014, the Alaska Legislature amended the correspondence school statutes to codify existing regulations in addition to other changes. Some parents, financially backed by the National Education Association, brought suit alleging in their complaint: “Alaska Statute 14.03.300-.310, which allows for payment of educational materials and services provided by private institutions using public funds, is unconstitutional.” Two weeks ago, an Alaska Superior Court judge surprised Alaskans and agreed with the NEA by striking down the correspondence program statutes in their entirety.
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.
In the stay decision, the court did seem to clarify that a correspondence school program is permissible—the question is what does that program look like and what spending is deemed appropriate and inappropriate. The court stated in its recent ruling:
“To reiterate, the only statutes at issue in this case are AS 14.03.300-.310, which expanded the allotment program for correspondence study students. As a result, this Court did not find that correspondence study programs were unconstitutional. Correspondence (homeschooling) programs existed before AS 14.03.300-.310 were enacted, and correspondence programs continue to exist after this Court’s Order.”
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.”
# # #
Department Media Contacts: Communications Director Patty Sullivan at patty.sullivan@alaska.gov or (907) 269-6368. Information Officer Sam Curtis at sam.curtis@alaska.gov or (907) 269-6269.
