A high-profile lawsuit challenging a key part of Alaska’s homeschool system moved ahead this week after an Anchorage judge denied a motion to dismiss the case.
The lawsuit centers on what are known as correspondence school allotments, cash payments to families who homeschool their kids in the state’s public correspondence school system. They’re meant to pay for things like lessons and supplies, and some parents use them to pay for private school tuition.
A group of parents sued the state in 2023, saying the use of allotments on private school tuition violates the state Constitution. Article 7 bars state spending “for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”
At first, a judge ruled the allotment system as a whole was unconstitutional. That was later reversed by the state Supreme Court, which sent it back to a lower court for a closer look at how school districts allow allotments to be spent.
Then, earlier this year, a group of correspondence school parents represented by the legal nonprofit Institute for Justice asked the lower court judge to dismiss the case. They argued allotments are a direct benefit to correspondence school families, not private schools, and that the use of allotments for private school tuition is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
“The reality is that the Alaska Legislature has provided parents with funds to ensure that they can choose the education that fits their families’ needs, regardless of each family’s income,” they wrote. “That is a fully constitutional objective and the Program is a fully constitutional way to pursue that goal.”
But in an eight-page order on Monday, Superior Court Judge Laura Hartz disagreed. She said the Supreme Court’s decision requires a review of how allotments are actually spent in practice. The plaintiffs, the state and the school districts added to the case following the Supreme Court ruling all argued against dismissing the case and said a final ruling would require more evidence.
“Litigation of this case requires a factual record establishing actual authorized allotment expenditures,” Hartz wrote.
The ruling moves the case into the discovery phase, where attorneys for the parties will exchange evidence as they build a case for a possible trial.
