Alaska

In 2011, the parties settled Kasayulie when the state agreed to provide $146 million for school facilities in rural Alaska communities. In 2010, the Legislature, responding in part to the Court’s order regarding constitutional violations in the funding of rural school construction, passed SB 237, which established a formula under statute for money to be available each year to fund school construction in the rural “Regional Educational Attendance Areas.” The formula is based on a percentage of the debt funding to urban schools, to become effective in 2012. The adoption of these statutes paved the way for settlement of this case by establishing a systematic, ongoing formula for funding rural school construction.

In 2007, in Moore v. State, an Alaska trial court held that a lack of state oversight and remedial efforts in support of school districts with weak outcomes violated the state’s constitutional duty to ensure each child in the state a meaningful opportunity to achieve proficiency in the state’s learning standards.

In 2010, the court again found the state’s remedial efforts inadequate. In early 2011, plaintiffs filed a remedy brief arguing that the state is still not meeting its constitutional obligation and asking the court to provide guidance to the legislature and require an audit of the state education department’s capacity to assist struggling schools.

More information is available here.

In 1975, in the narrowly drawn Molly Hootch v. Alaska case, plaintiffs argued that the state must provide local schools in small isolated communities, instead of requiring students to travel to live at boarding schools. The Alaska Supreme Court concluded that the Alaska context of vast expanses and isolation made such a request unworkable.

In 1997, in Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District v. State, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ equal protection claim, holding that school districts and local taxpayers are not guaranteed equal tax rates or equal state portions of education revenues.

In 1999, in Kasayulie v. State, a state trial court concluded that education is a fundamental right in Alaska. The court found that the state system for funding school facilities was racially discriminatory against Alaska Natives in violation of the implementing regulations of Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act, and violated the equal protection and education clauses of the state constitution because it did not allocate sufficient funding for school facilities in rural school districts. In the short-term, the state increased facilities funding for these districts, and recently passed legislation and promised certain schools would be built in order to settle the case.

In 2004, plaintiffs in Moore v. State challenged the constitutional adequacy of education in rural and remote Alaska communities. In 2007, the trial court found that, although state funding, standards, and assessments were constitutionally adequate, a lack of state oversight and remedial efforts in certain school districts violated the state’s constitutional duty to provide educational opportunity. In 2009 and 2010, the court ruled that the state continued to deny students the educational opportunities they are guaranteed under the Alaska Constitution. Remedial proceedings are ongoing.

The state constitution requires the legislature to "establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State," and permits them to "provide for other public educational institutions." Alaska Const. art. VII, § 1.

In Molly Hootch v. Alaska, while addressing plaintiffs’ contention that requiring students from isolated communities to travel to boarding schools violated the state constitution education clause, the Supreme Court of Alaska pointed out that the Alaska constitution does not require uniformity in the school system and noted:

“It seems likely that the drafters of the constitution had in mind the vast expanses of Alaska, its many isolated small communities which lack effective transportation and communication systems, and the diverse culture and heritage of its citizens. Since educational programs may well require special design to confront the divergent problems presented, a uniformity requirement in the Alaska education system might well prove unworkable. Thus, in art. VII, § 1, the Alaska Constitution appears to contemplate different types of educational opportunities including boarding, correspondence and other programs without requiring that all options be available to all students.” 536 P.2d 793, 803 (1975).

More recent litigation based on the Alaska education clause has not gone past trial courts, so the state supreme court has had no further opportunity to interpret the constitution. However, in 1999, the trial court in Kasayulie v. State held that the education clause “places an affirmative duty on the state” and that “[f]acilities funding is…inseparable from the State’s obligation to establish and maintain a public education system.”

In 2007, the trial court in Moore v. State interpreted the education clause, determining that the State’s constitutional obligation to maintain schools has four components:

“First, there must be rational educational standards that set out what it is that children should be expected to learn. Second, there must be an adequate method of assessing whether children are actually learning what is set out in the standards. Third, there must be adequate funding so as to accord to schools the ability to provide instruction in the standards. And fourth, where, as here, the State has delegated the responsibility to educate children to local school districts, there must be adequate accountability and oversight by the State…to insure that the districts are fulfilling the State’s constitutional responsibility to “establish and maintain a system of public schools” as set forth in Article VII, § 1 of Alaska’s Constitution.”

The trial court also concluded that “the Education Clause requires the State to take ultimate responsibility for insuring that each child in this state is accorded a meaningful opportunity to achieve proficiency in reading, writing, math, and science – the four subjects encompassed within the State’s performance standards.” The court also noted that it “does not read the Education Clause of the Alaska Constitution to accord to preschool age children the right to a public school education.”

The court also held that the Education Clause requires “only that education funding be adequate to provide a meaningful opportunity to meet the State’s standards.”

Finally, the court found that “the State’s responsibility does not end with adequate funding. If a school, despite adequate funding, is failing to…give that child a meaningful opportunity to acquire proficiency in the State’s own performance standards – then the concept of local control must give way because the school is not being maintained as required by the Education Clause.”  The court further elaborated:

“If generations of children within a school district are failing to achieve proficiency, if a school or a district has not adopted an appropriate curriculum to teach language arts and math that is aligned with the State’s performance standards, if basic learning is not taking place for a substantial majority of a school’s children then the Constitution places the obligation upon the Legislature to insure that the State is directing its best efforts to remedy the situation.”

The Supreme Court of Alaska has not yet ruled on the trial court’s interpretation.

In Moore v. State, plaintiffs point out the importance of early childhood education for “at-risk” students and the current lack of such programs in Alaska. No. 3AN-04-9756 Civ. (Superior Court of Alaska, Anchorage, 2007). In 2007, the trial court found that, while there was considerable evidence that pre-K programs are beneficial to children, they are not required under the state constitution, and it is not the courts’ role to make such policy determinations.

Nevertheless, the following year, as part of the remedial phase of the trial, the court had the parties provide further evidence on the use of pre-K education to “adequately maintain” schools. Although the court did not order the state to implement pre-K programs, it criticized the state’s failure to consider including an early-education component in its interventions and suggested that pre-K could be “considered and used as a case-specific measure to remedy a constitutional violation.”

The state Department of Education and Early Development is allowed by statute to develop a model curriculum for early childhood education programs. 

This authority prompted the development of AP3.  As a program, AP3 “focus[es] on all areas of a child’s development while emphasizing school readiness, language development, early literacy, mathematics, and cognition. 

For the 2009-2010 school year, 6 school districts received grants with a designated number of classrooms and children.  Grantees are encouraged to subcontract with Head Start, private childcare, family childcare, and faith-based settings to improve quality and access to services.  The grant recipients operate half-day preschool programs and meet for a minimum of four days per week.  For the first year, maximum class size was 20 students, with a staff-child ratio of 1:10.

Children are eligible from families at or below 100 percent of the federal poverty level, although programs may take up to 35 percent of children from 100 to 130 percent of the federal poverty level if space is available. 

Funding is awarded to public schools.  In its pilot year, the State of Alaska approved $2 million to be spread across the 6 selected districts.  Each grant covered a two-year period.  At the end of the grant year, each program must submit a report detailing compliance with grant requirements, and all items or equipment purchased with grant funds.

According to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), Alaska served 2% of all 4-year olds in its state preschool program in 2009-2010.

Quality Standards

Alaska reached an exceptionally high 10 out of 10 benchmarks during the 2009-2010 school year.

The 10 benchmarks reached were:

• Early Learning Standards
• Requirement that teachers have specialized training in pre-K education
• Class size limits of 20 students
• Class ratio of 1:10 or better
• Screening/referral and support services
• Monitoring/Site visit program
• Teacher must have Bachelor’s degree
• Assistant teacher must have a Child Development Associate credential, or equivalent
• Teacher in-service (15 hours)
• Requirement to provide at least one meal a day

The development of each child is measured against Alaska’s Early Learning Guidelines. The program itself is evaluated on the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale (ECERS).

Using data from the 2009-2010 school year, which was the program's first year of operation, the program will be evaluated for both process quality and program impact/child outcomes.

 Alaska Statutes and Administrative Code

Alaska Department of Education

Alaska Early Learning Guidelines

Alaska Pilot Pre-Kindergarten Project (AP3) One-Year Evaluation