Opinion: Fix state funding for education

Has been updated: 59 few seconds ago release date: 1 1 minute ago

On April 8, the Senate Education Committee held a hearing on adequate funding for education. Senator Loki Tobin invited me to testify about the state's constitutional obligation to adequately fund schools. My testimony focused on Justice Sharon Gleason's decision in Moore, which states that Article VII, Section 1 of the Constitution requires states to adequately fund schools; It said it could provide instruction that would give students “meaningful opportunities to achieve mastery” of the state's laws. standard. Senator Gary Stevens asked some insightful questions during the hearing.

Sen. Stevens pointed out that the Moore case was decided by the trial court judge, not the Alaska Supreme Court. Sen. Stevens asked whether the Alaska Supreme Court would rule that the Education Clause requires the state to provide adequate funding to meet the needs of students. I answered confidently that the court would do so for several reasons.

First, the Alaska Supreme Court has applied the same standard to interpreting the Alaska Constitution for decades. “In interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, we must give them a “reasonable and practical interpretation consistent with common sense'' and consistent with “the plain meaning and purpose of the provisions and the intentions of the framers.'' Sharon Judge Gleason applied this standard perfectly. Moore provides a carefully reasoned legal analysis. Second, the Borough of Massou has equal rights in how the state funds capital projects. The Alaska Supreme Court rejected that argument. A concurring opinion by esteemed Justices Jay Rabinowitz and Warren Matthews affirmed the requirement to adequately fund education. Two leading members of the court wrote that a claim for adequate education funding is maintainable under the Education Clause “if supported by the facts.”

Senator Stevens then raised the issue of textualism. He pointed out that the education clause does not express the words “adequate funding.” The Education Clause states that Congress “shall establish and maintain a system of education open to all.” The conservative minority in Congress does not accept the state's obligation to adequately fund education because the word “adequate” is not in the text of Article 7(1). These constitutionalists remove the word “maintenance” from the Constitution. What does conservatism mean to conservatives? I did not explain this in my response to Senator Stevens, but textualism begins and ends with what the text says and fairly suggests. The words in the text are determined by context and purpose. “Maintaining” a system has common sense meaning. It keeps something relevant and sufficient so that it continues to work and exist. A principled textualist would reach the same conclusion that Judge Gleason reached and that Judge Rabinowitz telegraphed.

Plain common sense leads us to the conclusion that education systems need adequate funding to maintain them and continue to operate in a healthy manner. My grandmother, Maggie Mulvaney, often spoke of the tools, equipment, and fences on her small property in northwestern Wisconsin. She “needs to be fixed before it breaks.” Congress' failure to adequately fund education has pushed the system to the brink of collapse.

Immediately before my testimony, two prominent national experts on school finance testified. An expert examined state funding programs in 2015 and published a lengthy report. Although it is not an adequacy study that focuses on student needs and performance, one of the findings is that current funding formulas are not effective enough to fund students with the highest educational needs. I conclude. This shortcoming is a major contributing factor to students' low performance scores. A second expert conducted suitability studies in 22 states. He recently conducted an adequacy review of the Anchorage School District and found the district to be significantly underfunded. Both investigations were recorded in the hearing record.

Sen. Stevens' final question asked whether the state has historically provided adequate funding for education. My answer is, “Maybe it's a coincidence.” The truth is that the state funds education to arbitrary levels based on raw politics. The current base student quota is any number. To be clear, the state has never fully funded schools based on student need, whether urban or rural. Congress needs to listen to school districts to understand the true cost of educating students.

In a stunning display of unity that is all too rare given our common problems, Congress passed SB 140. The bill won near-unanimous bipartisan approval before Gov. Mike Dunleavy injected his political brand into the political scrum with a veto. Congress still has time to act to significantly increase the base student quota. My grandmother Mulvaney also said this. She said, “Thank God for the 11th hour. Without it, nothing would happen.” It's her 11th hour to properly fund education. Fix it before it breaks.

howard trickey He is a partner at Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, where he represented the plaintiffs in the Moore case. For more than 48 years, he has represented clients including school districts.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a wide range of viewpoints.To submit your work for consideration, please send an email Commentary(at)adn.com. Submissions of less than 200 words should be sent to: Letters@adn.com or Click here to submit from any web browser.Read all guidelines for letters and comments here.