Education Justice News

In response to an Alaska trial court order in Moore v. Alaska, the Alaska Legislature invited plaintiffs’ attorneys and superintendents from "underperforming" districts to address the House and Senate Education Committees in early April regarding the state’s responsibilities under the order. The attorneys explained that the court’s holding requires the state to address the two longstanding root causes of chronic underperformance in these schools -- inadequate school readiness and a lack of teaching capacity. They further said that the court's order is not about ending local control; instead the court has specifically explained that local control works best when the state Department of Education provides adequate support and assistance to districts.

The legislators were also very interested in hearing from the "intervention" districts themselves about the current situation "on the ground" -- including what's effective, how it's effective, what isn't working, and what could be more effective. The legislators were particularly concerned with pre-k and teacher capacity and retention issues, including practical problems such as extreme climate in remote villages and the lack of adequate housing for teachers. Several superintendents also testified about their districts' inability to provide subjects like art and music due to a lack of resources and the state's focus on test scores.

The court’s latest order was issued shortly before the end of the legislative session, limiting the legislature’s ability to fully tackle the court’s directive. Nevertheless, the legislature appropriated $7 million for addressing issues raised in Moore, including curriculum design, professional training and retention, pre-kindergarten and other intensive early learning, and remediation plans for individual students, though the bill has not yet been signed by the governor. The legislature also requested an audit of the Alaska Department of Education's capacity to effectively intervene in struggling schools and districts.

Furthermore, the Department of Education has, for the first time, expressed a willingness to consider a settlement. The parties are currently preparing for settlement discussions, scheduled to take place in June. Plaintiffs’ attorney Howard Trickey said that he is "optimistic the State will now have to provide the support and assistance needed to build local school district capacity."

In 2007, in Moore v. Alaska, an Alaska trial court held that the state had failed to identify the schools in the state that were not according children a meaningful opportunity to reach the state standards and failed to provide adequate supervision and oversight to remedy those situations. On March 31, the judge overseeing the case found the state’s efforts to still be inadequate.

Though the state has identified five districts as chronically under-performing, the court concluded that the state has made insufficient progress in providing necessary support to those districts. The court previously ordered the state to address teacher retention and capacity, and to ensure that 1) the curricula in the underperforming districts are aligned with the state’s instructional content standards, 2) individual remediation plans are developed for each student who is not proficient in one or more subjects on the state’s high school graduation exam, and 3) each of the intervention districts has appropriate plans to address the constitutional deficiencies. The court found that none of these requirements had been met, and gave the state 60 days to submit plans addressing each of these issues.

The plaintiffs asked the court to appoint a special master. A special master is an individual designated by the court in the remedial phase of a school funding case or other lawsuit to help ensure compliance with the court’s order. Special masters’ monitoring responsibilities may include evaluating legislation and regulations, visiting and inspecting schools to assess their needs, and considering expert testimony. They typically prepare a report for the court containing their findings and recommendations, providing valuable expertise and efficiency. Courts have appointed special masters in education finance litigation in a number of states, including Arkansas, Idaho, New Jersey, and New Mexico. The Alaska court declined to appoint a special master at this time, but noted that if the continuing constitutional violations are not promptly remedied, then the plaintiffs may renew their request.