M ore than 22,000 Alaskan families are sweating over an Alaska superior court ruling last month that threatens the future of correspondence programs in the state. The fate of more than 1 in 6 of Alaska’s K–12 students now awaits a decision by the Alaska supreme court — and it may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
For decades, correspondence schooling has provided Alaskan families with resources and support to educate their children at home. The seeds of correspondence schooling originated as early as 1898 — 14 years before Alaska became a territory — with Gold Rush families in Douglas, Alaska, educating their children at home. For decades, students had to mail course materials by post office or plane between their remote villages and a teacher elsewhere. Today, students and teachers in correspondence schools anywhere in the state can interact in real time through the internet.
In 1997, the legislature allowed reimbursement for certain educational supplies, and in 2014, families became eligible for reimbursement for “nonsectarian services and materials from a public, private, or religious organization,” purchased in support of students’ customized educations.
These “allotment funds” are at the heart of the original lawsuit, brought in January 2023 by an NEA-backed group of teachers and parents, which alleges that the Alaska state constitution prohibits the use of public funds for “the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” Because parents can be reimbursed for nonsectarian public-school classes, public funds are flowing to private institutions — or so the logic goes. The Institute for Justice intervened to defend the program on behalf of parents Andrea Moceri, Theresa Brooks, and Brandy Pennington, whose children benefit from correspondence schools.
This April, the Alaska superior court judge Adolf Zeman ruled that providing allotment funds to correspondence students violated the Alaska state constitution. But the superior court went further in ruling that the “individual learning plans,” by which correspondence students receive a customized education, are also unconstitutional.
The ruling is so extreme that even the plaintiffs have asked the court for a stay, although only through the end of the fiscal year in June 2024, which was granted. The state had asked for an indefinite stay pending review by the Alaska supreme court. The Alaska Department of Education is urging school districts and correspondence schools to continue administering the correspondence study program and “paying outstanding invoices” to parents awaiting reimbursement until there are some answers on appeal.
The intent of the plaintiffs’ challenge, however, is clear: Force about a sixth of Alaska’s enrollment back into brick-and-mortar schools, where districts receive higher per-student funding than for correspondence students, and shut down the limited education-choice options that Alaskan students have enjoyed for a decade. The plaintiff’s attorney, Scott Kendall, said that “what is prevented here is this purchasing from outside vendors that have essentially contorted the correspondence school program into a shadow school voucher program.” Perhaps Alaskans should be more focused on making sure that students have access to a high-quality education — whether in a brick-and-mortar building or not.
More than 1 in 6 of Alaska’s 131,000 enrolled students attend a correspondence program. Though many correspondence students may be primarily homeschooling, allotment funds can be used in a variety of ways, providing diversity within the independent schooling arena. These programs offer flexibility, adaptability, and personalized support for students to learn at their own pace, in their own way, no matter where in Alaska they call home.
When the 2020 Covid lockdowns threw Alaska’s brick-and-mortar schools into chaos, correspondence schools were a lifeline for families. Enrollment grew between 2020 and 2021, and remained 42 percent elevated in 2024.
Parents and students stand to lose that lifeline for the 2024–25 school year. This ruling leaves them high and dry not only in emergencies like those we saw during the Covid lockdowns, but when it comes to everyday needs, many of which correspondence schools have continued to meet. Students that struggle in traditional classrooms, students looking to accelerate their learning, and students seeking alternative pathways to education will find their way blocked and their options limited.
There are more than 22,000 Alaska families waiting with bated breath, families who like the way they currently educate their children but who may have to scramble to place their child elsewhere this fall. Many of those families may not be able to afford other alternatives.
What happens in Alaska may seem distant, but it has national implications. In a press conference last month, Governor Mike Dunleavy has suggested that the case may reach the U.S. Supreme Court since the Alaska court’s broad ruling may prohibit common practices such as brick-and-mortar schools purchasing goods or services from private vendors.
If this feels like déjà vu, it should. The Alaska constitution’s provision is similar to the Blaine amendments present in 37 state constitutions, which prohibit public funds from flowing to any religious or “sectarian” institutions. These provisions were invalidated because of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the 2020 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified that if a state chooses to enact educational-choice programs, it may not discriminate against religious parents or schools.
However, because Alaska’s constitution prohibits aid to “any religious or other private educational institution,” rather than simply the “sectarian” institutions under question in Espinoza, there are serious questions about how the U.S. Supreme Court would rule if it goes that far.
The Alaska legislature has a powerful opportunity to reaffirm Alaska’s commitment to an individualized education through constitutional or statutory changes. A would clarify that “nothing in this section shall prevent payment from public funds for the direct educational benefit of students as provided by law.” That pathway would require a two-thirds majority in the legislature — a tall order in a legislative session rife with disagreements over education policy — and then a public vote on the amendment.
The house and senate have both advanced bills to bring the correspondence program into line with the decision. The senate’s bill, however, seems to be a wish list of NEA-AK priorities. The bill contains a stringent list of approved expenditures and new reporting requirements, one of which would remove the right of parents to withdraw their child from standardized assessments, a right that was written into Alaska statute in 2016. This provision seems to apply to all Alaska families but is specifically targeting correspondence families that have historically low participation rates in state testing. The bill would also require unused “student fund account” dollars to return to the district’s coffers at the end of each school year — unlike the current system, where allotment funds may roll over year-to-year.
Alaskans may now have to decide whether they value the customizability of Alaska’s historic approach to education, or whether they will abandon correspondence schools to align with the one-size-fits-all approach laid out by the Alaska superior court’s ruling. The state ought to appeal to the state supreme court, and if necessary, demand review by the U.S. Supreme Court to gain clarity. Alaska is in the crosshairs of the national debate about education choice. Let’s hope that these 22,000 students get the personalized education they deserve.