Judge Zeman first created uncertainty for students and now has created uncertainty for the legislative branch, the executive branch, and school districts throughout the state.
Superior Court Judge Zeman put the question of adjournment into a tailspin last Thursday when he chose to grant the NEA plaintiffs’ request for a brief stay (suspension) on his court ruling that the core public correspondence school statutes are unconstitutional. The State of Alaska had requested a stay until the Alaska Supreme Court had reached a decision to prevent any disruptions to the education of nearly 1 out of 5 public school students. The judge turned down the State’s request and granted the NEA’s* request.
The judge listened to the union whose job is to lobby for funds for employees but not to the State whose job is to ensure children receive an excellent education.
*Because NEA is footing the bill for the plaintiffs, I am using shorthand and referring to the “NEA” as the plaintiffs although they as an organization are technically not. The plaintiffs are Alexander Edwards, Josh Andrews, Shelby Beck Andrews, and Carey Carpenter.
The shorter stay creates more uncertainty and chaos for correspondence families. Because correspondence is not based on a typical 9-month school calendar and is available year-round, the legislature does not have the summer months to analyze and vet policy options.
With too short of a stay, the judge has created an untenable situation in the people’s branch. He handed down a mess – a ruling that lacks precision and clarity and seems to be based on very little knowledge of a myriad of other educational programs in statute that involve public funds directed to private and religious educational institutions. He failed to analyze and consider the “direct benefit” language in the state constitution. The court could determine that the allotment is ultimately designed to benefit the student, not to benefit private educational institutions.
If I didn’t know any better, I would say the judge is essentially attempting to force the rushed adoption of statutes to appease the NEA-backed plaintiffs and their attorney.
The judge should have known better than to give the deliberative lawmaking branch of government such a narrow window (2-months) to address his ruling to keep the public correspondence program afloat when he took a wide window (14.5-months) to determine his ruling.
The judge took more than 14 months to break it and gave the legislature less than 2 months to fix it.
His short-sighted stay could also cost the state millions in a 10-day extension of the legislature and/or a special session.
Ironically, in trying to clean egg off NEA and company’s face, the judge, by issuing too brief of a stay period has added yet another layer of it – with plenty of splash-back of yolk and albumen landing on his own face.
Yolk and albumen splashes once again on homeschool adversaries.
The State of Alaska Department of Law filed an appeal to Judge Zeman’s April 12th ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court on Friday with a request that it be expedited. The Department of Law will also be filing a request to extend the short stay granted by the lower court; the request will be for the extension to remain in place until the appeal process is complete and the Alaska Supreme Court has issued its decision.
In the meantime, the legislature will have to make some temporary tweaks so the public correspondence programs across the state can continue. Because the Alaska Supreme Court could overrule the Superior Court’s decision, I am advocating that the current statutes not be repealed.
My big question is how do we craft a temporary fix and not run afoul of violating the equal protection provisions in the Alaska State Constitution and the US Constitution?
If our state allows public funds for private educational institutions for other groups of students (preschool, postsecondary, public neighborhood school students, etc.), how do we craft a temporary band-aid that is not discriminatory toward public correspondence students? I’m not sure we can follow Judge Zeman’s ruling without violating the equal protection provision.
