Education lawsuit comes at wrong time, with wrong message

Frontiersman editorial board

Just when we thought it was safe to go back to school, another battle is brewing over education in the Mat-Su. Two Wasilla parents are at the center of a lawsuit filed against the state of Alaska, and the pair are joined in the suit by other parents and the National Education Association of Alaska and two rural school districts. So far no large district has joined the suit, and it's not likely any will.

The suit essentially makes two claims -- that the state inadequately funds education, and that those inadequate funds are not distributed to special-needs students.

It's difficult to fault someone who is attempting to secure more funding for education, but in the battle for better schools, it's critical that the players are all using the same game plan. This lawsuit is a mistake for a number of reasons.

The first problem is a simple matter of timing. The Legislature just ponied up an $84-million increase in education funding this year, and legislators seem willing to work with districts to address the problems that have been building for several years. It's not perfect, but it's progress, and sometimes we have to acknowledge movement, and exercise patience to ensure the trend continues. A lawsuit, by its adversarial nature, can only serve to set a wedge in a communication process that has finally gained some ground. At best, the suit will serve as a distraction, and you can be sure the Legislature won't make funding increases while a suit is pending.

The logic behind the suit seems flawed, as well. The concepts seem too vague and general in places, and where they are specific, they seem potentially damaging. The current funding formula is based upon enrollment, and the numbers are broken down on a per-student basis. One problem with the idea of increasing funding for specific groups is that those funds will come with strings attached. If the state increases funding to districts, but dictates how that money is spent, other programs will continue to suffer. It would become easier for the state to simply reduce what it defines as core curriculum and fund only those things that fit within a narrow academic scope -- leaving the rest to local communities. If you think that's a good idea, remember that we're only paying for about 23 percent of education in our local schools; the state covers 73 percent.

Funding that comes with strings attached will only serve to hamstring the school board and administration further. The president's No Child Left Behind initiative has already locked up $500,000 of district funds this year. That money must be held out of the operating fund because it might be needed to bus students who choose to move to schools that cleared the Annual Yearly Progress bar this year. The money could be better spent addressing the needs of schools that didn't make the grade, but instead it will sit in limbo. That's what happens when we move education decisions further from the community.

We could do much to improve education in our community. Those improvements will be the products of cooperation and positive change, however. There may be times when it is necessary to bring education reform to the courts, but the outcome always creates messes that must be dealt with for years. Lasting reform that benefits all is best created through negotiation and planning at the local level.

The groups bringing this suit can be applauded for other victories they've gained, and they deserve credit for their fight to increase education funding. This lawsuit seems like the wrong tactic at the wrong time, however. We'd rather see local forces band together with teachers, the board and the district administration to pressure the Legislature to continue increasing education funding. We'd also like to hear views from our readers on this important topic.