Connect with us

Alaska

Alaska parents and legislators scramble for answers after judge rules homeschool allotments are unconstitutional

Published

on

Alaska parents and legislators scramble for answers after judge rules homeschool allotments are unconstitutional


Thousands of Alaska students face uncertainty about their education after a court decision issued late Friday upended the state’s long-standing correspondence schools.

Correspondence programs — which allow Alaska students to be homeschooled under the supervision of public school teachers and using public funds — have been a part of Alaska’s education system for decades.

But Anchorage Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman ruled Friday that key statutes governing the correspondence programs violate a constitutional prohibition on the use of public funds for private or religious institutions.

Advertisement

Zeman, who was appointed to the bench in 2020 by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, struck down as unconstitutional two statutes that were originally proposed by Dunleavy when he was a state senator in 2013.

Enacted a decade ago, the statutes allowed parents to receive thousands of dollars per year and use that funding for their children’s education with few limitations, including paying private and religious vendors. Increasingly, the money — up to $4,500 per student — has been used directly to cover tuition at private schools.

Zeman struck down those statues in their entirety, leaving lawmakers, school administrators, parents and students to wonder: what is the future of Alaska’s correspondence programs?

In a social media post on Saturday, Dunleavy said Zeman’s ruling could mean “much if not all the correspondence homeschool education that we do in Alaska may be unconstitutional.” He said his administration planned to request a stay — meaning a temporary pause in the implementation of the decision — and file an appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court. However, the Department of Law did not indicate that the court filings had been submitted on Monday, nor supply a copy of them.

“To say this would be disruptive would be an understatement. This disruption, coupled with the fact that we and many Alaskans believe this ruling is flawed, leads us to ask for a stay and quick resolution with our Supreme Court,” Dunleavy wrote.

Advertisement

The ruling came in a case filed by Alaska parents and teachers, and funded by NEA-Alaska, the largest teacher union in the state. On Monday, the plaintiffs asked the court to stay the effects of the judge’s order until the end of June, giving students time to finish the school year as planned and giving lawmakers time to consider whether to implement new legislation that would allow correspondence programs to continue operating in some capacity.

Tom Klaameyer, president of NEA-Alaska, said Monday that the union supported the short-term stay, adding he was “surprised at how broad the ruling was” but pleased by the court striking down what he called “a backdoor voucher program.”

“It is unconventional for prevailing parties to seek a stay of ruling in which they prevailed,” wrote attorney Scott Kendall, representing the plaintiffs, in a court filing. “However, plaintiffs do not wish to cause any undue hardship or disruption resulting from the timing of the order.”

The plaintiffs said they would oppose an attempt to delay the implementation of the decision beyond the end of the current fiscal year, which could be requested by the state or by a group of parents who intervened in the case.

“Now that these statutes are known to be defective, allowing additional unconstitutional spending to occur under them beyond June 30, 2024 would compound those violations and continue unlawful expenditures of public funds in amounts in the millions,” Kendall wrote in the filing.

Advertisement

Education Commissioner Deena Bishop wrote in a letter to district superintendents on Monday that the department intends “to take every action possible to protect this public school option for all correspondence students currently enrolled in the state.”

Under existing state law, districts are allotted 90% of the Base Student Allocation, or around $5,360, for every student enrolled in a correspondence program. A certain percentage of that determined by the program — typically 50% or more — is then allotted for students directly to spend on educational expenses as they see fit. The remainder is used to cover the operational costs of the program, including paying teachers and staff.

Families immediately wondered not only whether they could continue to spend their cash allotments, but whether their programs could continue to operate as they had known them. The statutes struck down by the court also included a framework known as Individual Learning Plans, or ILPs, used by every correspondence program to define a student’s course of study.

Bishop said the state would seek to maintain the status quo “until the Alaska Supreme Court has had a full opportunity to review this case.” If the case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court could issue an expedited decision within weeks. But a full decision timeline could take months or longer.

“It is possible the Superior Court order could become effective before the Alaska Supreme Court fully reviews the case,” Bishop wrote to superintendents, adding that districts should consult with their attorneys.

Advertisement

In the Matansuka-Susitna Borough School District, where about 18% of students are enrolled in correspondence programs, Assistant Superintendent Katherine Gardner said the district is working with an attorney and the state to learn how the decision impacts its operations.

Jason Johnson, superintendent of the Galena City School District, which houses IDEA, a correspondence program with over 7,000 students statewide, said in a letter on Monday to the families of students that “IDEA remains confident in Alaska’s support for the homeschooling model.”

“Expect to continue to rely on our team to support you as we continue partnering in the education of your child,” Johnson wrote to parents.

‘Use of public funds’

Jenn Griffis, a parent of three children enrolled in IDEA, said she has questions about the ruling’s impact on correspondence programs “beyond just the allotment.”

Griffis’ children’s allotments go to purchasing things like math curricula, writing courses, literature courses, piano lessons and field trips, she said. All the curricula her children use are on a list approved by IDEA.

Advertisement

“The idea of utilizing these funds to pay for private school tuition did not even cross my mind,” said Griffis. “I always viewed this as a use of public funds.”

She said she was not considering sending her children to a brick-and-mortar public school as an alternative. “But I have a strong sense that there are families that are definitely looking at weighing those options,” she said.

Dean O’Dell, Director of IDEA, said by email that around 2.9% of IDEA’s students take one or more private school classes, “all of which meet the criteria of being fully non-sectarian in both materials and instruction.”

Rep. Justin Ruffridge, a Soldotna Republican who co-chairs the House Education Committee, is one of many lawmakers who have enrolled their children in correspondence programs.

His two kids currently attend a private Christian school in Kenai. They are also enrolled in a correspondence program. Ruffridge said he does not use the allotment to cover tuition costs, but he uses it to pay for his son’s music lessons and his daughter’s dance lessons.

Advertisement

Rep. Will Stapp, a Fairbanks Republican, also said he uses an allotment through IDEA to cover the cost of dance lessons for his 6-year-old daughter. Rep. Sarah Vance, a Homer Republican, said she also has used correspondence allotments to cover the cost of dance and music lessons for her children — three of whom are currently enrolled in correspondence programs.

“I think the majority of correspondence programs use those allotments well and constitutionally for things that are not religious or private institutions,” said Ruffridge. He added there were “some concerning components” that “probably should be addressed.”

“If you’re using your homeschool allotment to pay for private tuition, that’s not the intent of that allotment money,” he said.

House Speaker Cathy Tilton, a Wasilla Republican, said that addressing the uncertainty created by the court ruling would be “a top priority” for the House Majority. Fewer than five weeks remain in the current legislative session.

The Alaska Policy Forum, a conservative group directed by Bethany Marcum — who previously worked as Dunleavy’s legislative aide — has published a list of correspondence programs that can be used to get tuition reimbursement at private schools. In 2022, the list included seven correspondence programs that collectively partnered with 11 private schools.

Advertisement

This year, the list numbers 10 correspondence programs. The Raven Homeschool program can be used to get $2,700 in tuition covered at “all private schools,” according to the webpage. The Anchorage Family Partnership school can be used to get up to $4,500 reimbursed at eight listed private schools.

Marcum said in an interview Monday that she was disappointed by the court decision. She hoped that the Legislature would consider a constitutional amendment that clarifies the prohibition on “direct benefits” to private and religious educational institutions. She also wanted clarity around the meaning of “private educational institution” as it appears in the constitution, and pointed to instances where private education institutions were getting public funds prior to the 2014 law change.

Anchorage School District spokesman Corey Young declined to respond to questions on the amount of district funds that have been used to subsidize private school tuition. Under the state statute that was struck down by the judge, the district was required to record all expenditures of state funds by correspondence students within the district, and audit those expenses regularly.

In a note to families of the roughly 2,000 correspondence students in Anchorage, the district wrote it “will work to make sure there is no disruption to students’ educational needs.”

Sen. Jesse Kiehl, a Juneau Democrat who also enrolled his children in correspondence programs, said that before the 2014 change in law that incorporated the now-unconstitutional statutes, correspondence programs still provided students an annual allotment that could be used for things like a laptop or curriculum, but there was greater oversight from the district, and many more limitations on the kinds of permissible expenses.

Advertisement

“There were limits. And the 2014 law struck down — forbid — the limits,” said Kiehl. However, he said the court decision did not spell the end of correspondence programs, even without new legislative action.

“Worst case scenario, they could go back to the way it was done before the 2014 law,” said Kiehl. That would mean correspondence students could carry on purchasing curriculum from approved vendors, as long as they fall within the confines of the constitutional prohibition on the use of public funds at private or religious institutions.

Kiehl said that a legislative fix to correspondence school funding could also be packaged with other education-related priorities, including an increase for public education overall. Last month, Dunleavy vetoed an education funding package that included a $175 million funding boost for public schools, and lawmakers failed by one vote to override the veto.

Members of the House minority said Monday that the court decision should refocus lawmakers — whose attention has been on the budget and other issues — on education.

“In the wake of Friday’s decision and the many crises that continue to face our schools, the legislature must quickly act to provide adequate funding for our schools, reinstate a fair and competitive retirement for our educators, and provide certainty for students in correspondence programs,” said Minority Leader Rep. Calvin Schrage, an Anchorage independent.

Advertisement

Daily News reporter Amy Bushatz reported from Palmer.

[Read the full ruling below]

• • •





Source link

Advertisement

Alaska

Opinion: Alaska’s $10,000 question: Leave or stay?

Published

on

Opinion: Alaska’s ,000 question: Leave or stay?


A new home under construction in Potter Valley in Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN)

This June, two very different offers reach Alaska families, and both amount to the same thing: $10,000. The difference is everything.

Bill Walker, running for governor, would hand every eligible Alaskan a one-time $10,000 check and then end the Permanent Fund dividend for good. Ask one question: Where does his $10,000 come from?

It comes from the Permanent Fund, the people’s own money and the savings Alaskans built for their children. Walker would spend that endowment once to pay Alaskans to give up the yearly dividend forever.

Think about what that does. It cancels the annual check that gives a family a reason to keep an Alaska address and replaces it with a single payout. You hand people their own savings, call it a gift and cut the tie that held them here in the same motion. It is the oldest mistake in governing money: raid what you have saved to buy a moment’s applause and call the spending generosity.

Advertisement

A plan that spends the people’s savings to send the people away is not bold. It is foolish.

Now consider the other $10,000. Through Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the state offers families up to $10,000 to build a new, energy-efficient home. AHFC raids nothing. It earns its own way. Over the years, it has returned more than $2 billion to the state treasury, and it spends some of that income the way any good business does: to win a customer.

Here, the customer is an Alaskan who wants to own a home, put down roots and stay.

That is the oldest sound move in business: Invest a little of what you earn to bring in someone who stays. The homeowner remains, the community gains a family and the corporation keeps earning. The money spent comes back. A plan that puts earnings to work to bring people home is not charity. It is clever.

Same amount. Opposite source. Opposite wisdom. One spends savings; the other spends earnings. One pays Alaskans to leave; the other pays them to stay. One empties the state; the other fills it.

Advertisement

This Homeownership Month, the choice is the size of a single check, and the whole question is where the check comes from and what it asks of you. Ten thousand dollars of your own fund, to wave you goodbye. Or $10,000, earned and reinvested, to help you stay and build.

Evan Swensen is the publisher of Publication Consultants in Anchorage and the author of “What’s the Money For: A Permanent Fund Mortgage Proposal.”

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan’s primary challenger who has the same name is eligible for ballot, judge rules

Published

on

Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan’s primary challenger who has the same name is eligible for ballot, judge rules


man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is eligible to challenge the senator in the August primary, a judge ruled Friday.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews’ ruling overturns a June 15 decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher to disqualify the challenger and keep him off the primary ballot. Matthews’ ruling can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the state have said Tuesday is the deadline for a final ruling so that ballots for the Aug. 18 primary can be printed.

The judge ruled that the division’s decision to exclude Dan J. Sullivan because his candidacy was not “in good faith” was not based on the Constitution, Alaska law or the division’s own regulations. The retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg filed to challenge the incumbent.

Advertisement

Dan Sullivan, who has filed to run for U.S. Senate in Alaska, poses for a photo Friday, June 26, 2026, in Petersburg, Alaska.

Katie Holmlund/AP Photo


“Instead, the decision was based upon a new, previously unstated, ‘good faith’ criteria,” the judge wrote.

The division is appealing the decision, Sam Curtis, a spokesperson with the state Department of Law, said by email Saturday. Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for Dan J. Sullivan, said in an email he expected the division to appeal and couldn’t comment until the Alaska Supreme Court rules on the case.

Advertisement

The controversy over the two Dan Sullivans has underscored the stakes involved in the incumbent’s reelection campaign. The Alaska race is one of about half a dozen U.S. Senate races expected to be highly competitive in the fall, and the seat is one Democrats are trying to flip in their efforts to try to regain the majority. But it’s expected to be an uphill battle in a state that President Trump won by 13 points in 2024.

The senator and allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have condemned the challenger’s efforts to join the race, arguing his presence could confuse voters. Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom earlier this month opened an investigation into the non-Senator Sullivan’s candidacy.

Under Alaska’s election system, the top four candidates from the primary, regardless of party, move on to the ranked-choice November general election.

The senator has accused the challenger Sullivan of working with Democrats and the campaign of Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola — who is considered the senator’s main opponent — to cause confusion and boost Peltola’s chances. The sitting senator brought the situation to reporters’ attention at the Capitol earlier this month, accusing Democrats of being “complicit in trying to trick Alaskans” to “rig an election in their favor.” 

Dan Sullivan

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., June 30, 2025.

Advertisement

Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo


Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.

Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile candidates in the crowded race and the only ones to report raising any money.

Beecher has said she determined the challenger Sullivan is not eligible to run because his candidacy was not filed in good faith and instead was done with an intent to confuse voters. She said he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and, in conjunction with his candidacy, changed his party affiliation to Republican. She also cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats. She did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination.

In arguing to keep the challenger disqualified, attorneys for the state pushed back on suggestions the ballot could be designed in a way to reduce voter confusion over two candidates with the same name and party running for the same office.

Advertisement

“The Constitution does not require States to place a sham candidate on the ballot and then attempt to mitigate the damage through design choices,” attorney Rachel Witty, with the Alaska Department of Law, and outside attorneys Christopher Murray and Michael Francisco wrote in court filings.

Attorneys for the challenger Sullivan argued that the Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate, addressing only age, citizenship and residency. They said Beecher lacked the legal authority to boot their client off the ballot.

The challenger Sullivan has said that sharing a name and party affiliation with the incumbent gave him “an instant megaphone.” But the 69-year-old retired teacher and former U.S. Forest Service employee said he had considered a run for some time and had grown frustrated with the senator.

He initially was certified on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan, with the senator listed as Dan S. Sullivan and identified as the incumbent.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Alaska

Delmonico’s Love Letter To America: A Red, White, And Blue Baked Alaska

Published

on

Delmonico’s Love Letter To America: A Red, White, And Blue Baked Alaska


In the conversation about the world’s greatest steakhouses, Delmonico’s is always among the shortlist of names.

The Lower Manhattan institution is a destination for New Yorkers and tourists alike, an attraction as much as a restaurant. First opened in 1837, it is widely recognized as America’s first fine-dining restaurant. It was here that dishes that have become cultural symbols of this country as much as they are cuisine were born: the Delmonico Steak, Lobster Newberg, Eggs Benedict, and perhaps most famously, Baked Alaska.

Now, as the United States prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, Delmonico’s is giving one of its signature creations, a dessert that’s as much a cultural symbol as it is a sweet ending, a patriotic makeover.

Advertisement

On July 4, the restaurant will debut the America 250 Baked Alaska, a reinterpretation of the classic dessert that celebrates both the nation’s history and North America’s native ingredients. The striking red, white, and blue confection has already earned the nickname “America’s Birthday Cake.”

The dessert was created by acclaimed pastry chef Miro Uskokovic of Hani’s Bakery + Cafe in the East Village, who also serves as Delmonico’s consulting pastry chef. While his interpretation is rooted in the original version, he has reimagined it with a distinctly American theme.

Pawpaw, the largest fruit native to North America, becomes a rich ice cream. Wild blueberry lemonade sorbet adds a bright, tart layer, while pecan cake- made with the only major tree nut indigenous to North America- forms the base. Mixed berry jam, toasted meringue, and fresh seasonal berries complete the dessert.

The cone-shaped presentation also pays tribute to history.

The original Baked Alaska dates to 1867, when the legendary French chef Charles Ranhofer, who headed the kitchen at Delmonico’s in the late 19th century, created the dessert to commemorate the United States’ purchase of Alaska from Russia. Epicurean lore goes that Ranhofer originally called the dessert “Alaska, Florida,” highlighting the contrast between frozen ice cream and warm toasted meringue. He later featured elaborate mountain-shaped versions in his 1894 cookbook, “The Epicurean.”

Advertisement

Today, nearly 160 years later, Delmonico’s is revisiting that theatrical presentation while looking ahead to its next chapter.

“This dessert is a piece of American history,” says Dennis Turcinovic, owner and executive culinary partner of Delmonico’s Hospitality Group. “Delmonico’s has never just served food. For nearly 190 years, it has served hope, opportunity, and the American dream. Today, we’re celebrating that with our red, white, and blue Baked Alaska.”

For Uskokovic, it’s both a history lesson and a celebration.

“America’s 250th anniversary presents an opportunity to celebrate not only our nation’s history, but the evolution of American cuisine,” he said in a release announcing the dessert. “We wanted to revisit one of the most important desserts in Delmonico’s history while showcasing ingredients that are uniquely American.”

According to a release, the dessert will be available as a serving for two for $40, with production limited to just 10 each day because of its labor-intensive preparation. Larger versions serving 10 to 12 guests can also be ordered for private celebrations.

Advertisement

The best part? For non-New Yorkers clamoring for a chance to try the dessert, the America 250 Baked Alaska is here to stay as a permanent fixture on the menu. And when Delmonico’s Reserve, the brand’s upcoming Midtown Manhattan restaurant, opens next year, New Yorkers and visitors alike can order it there.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending