Moore v. State of Alaska, No. 04-9756 (Alaska Super. Ct. June 26, 2007)
An Alaska trial court has ruled that the state’s funding of public education complies with the state constitution’s education clause, which requires the state legislature to establish and maintain a system of public schools available to all children in the state. However, the court found the state has violated the education clause by failing to exercise adequate supervision and oversight of schools. The suit was brought by some parents, three school districts, the teachers' union, and Citizens for the Advancement of Alaska’s Children, a nonprofit advocacy group. The plaintiffs claimed that the state has failed to provide schools with enough money to provide an adequate education for all students, that the money is distributed inequitably, and that this violates their rights under the education clause and their right to substantive due process. They asked the court to declare the funding system unconstitutional, to declare what elements an adequate education must include, to order an analysis of the costs of providing an adequate education, and to order that the State fund the educational system in accordance with the results of the cost study. They also alleged the state’s high school exit exam violates students’ due process rights because it tests subjects not taught in schools. The court subsequently denied three separate motions by the state to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims, finding among other things that these matters were justiciable.
In its latest decision, the court made 476 findings of fact, including that (1) the state spends significantly more money on poor children; (2) it provides significant assistance to school districts but exercises relatively little oversight, even over those with poor academic achievement and even where the state theoretically could intervene more vigorously under the federal No Child Left Behind Act; (3) the plaintiffs did not show that students lack an opportunity to study subjects on the state exit exam; (4) the evidence is inconclusive that school districts have devoted funds directly enough to student learning, have ensured curricula are aligned with state standards or comport with school board directives, or have availed themselves of existing opportunities; (5) the correlation between funding levels and academic achievement is not clear, even when adjusted for challenging student populations; (6) the plaintiff witnesses’ studies into the state’s funding adequacy and their testimony were sufficiently flawed that they would be accorded little weight; (7) defense witnesses testified that although more funding may improve academic outcomes, it seldom is directed toward doing anything appreciably different from what schools were doing previously and may be less important than other variables; and (8) “considerably greater” state oversight is “critically needed,” at least in the state’s most seriously underperforming schools, even at the expense of local control.
After reviewing past education clause litigation in Alaska and other states, as well as the extent to which a state can delegate its constitutional responsibilities to school districts, the court reached 53 conclusions of law. These included that (1) the state has the authority to delegate responsibility to school districts as long as it establishes adequate safeguards, but the state retains both the constitutional responsibility and authority to maintain schools; (2) the four components of the state’s constitutional obligation are to set rational educational standards, to provide of an adequate method of assessing student achievement of those standards, to provide for adequate funding for instruction in the standards, and to provide adequate accountability and oversight of school districts to ensure the state is meeting its obligation; (3) the state is fulfilling the first two components, and the education clause does not require it to provide pre-kindergarten; (4) the plaintiffs failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that the state has failed to provide sufficient funds, that more funds would reduce the achievement gap, or that the state funding formula’s failure to weight for at-risk students is unconstitutional; (5) that although a considerable majority of Alaska children are receiving an adequate education, and although local control of education is deeply engrained, local control must give way where a school fails despite adequate funding to provide a constitutionally adequate education, and the state must exercise considerably more oversight and provide more assistance and direction.
The plaintiff’s due process claims related to funding failed for these same reasons, but as to the high school exit exam, the state’s constitutional shortcomings in oversight meant that it would be “fundamentally unfair” to condition the receipt of a high school diploma on passing the test. The court ruled that at any school the state has identified as not receiving an adequate education, as defined in this of subsequent proceedings, the exam cannot be used to preclude a student from receiving a diploma until the state demonstrates that it has undertaken sufficient remedial efforts that a constitutionally adequate educational opportunity is being provided. The court stayed the rest of its decision until June 21, 2008, in order to give the state an opportunity to address the issues.
Moore v. State of Alaska, No. 04-9756 (Alaska Super. Ct. June 26, 2007)
[Full opinion]
[Editor’s Note: For reactions to the ruling, see below.]
Anchorage Daily News
By Katie Pesznecker
[Full story]