On March 16, 2004, a group of students with disabilities filed a law suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska against the Alaska State Board of Education and Early Development as violating 42 U.S.C. § 12101, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 794. The plaintiffs, represented by private and public counsel, sought and received class certification including all Alaska public school students with qualified disabilities. The plaintiffs asked the court for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, alleging that the defendant's High School Graduation Qualifying Examination (HSGQE) discriminated against students with disabilities and failed to provide an alternate assessment that leads to a standard diploma.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that in formulating and administering the Alaska HSGQE, Defendants failed and refused to take into account the needs of students with disabilities. Defendants restrict the plaintiffs' access to many of the most common learning accommodations available under Individualized Education Programs ("IEPs") or education plans established pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The plaintiffs allege that the HSGQE discriminates against students with disabilities because, among other problems, (1) there is no meaningful access to an alternate assessment, (2) the accommodations policies illegally burden students' rights to use the tools necessary to demonstrate their skills, and (3) the HSGQE unfairly tests disabled students on material they have never been taught.

On April 7, 2004, the plaintiffs and defendant filed a joint stipulation that allowed students with disabilities in the Class of 2004 to get a diploma without passing the HSGQE and agreed to negotiate a settlement. On January 20, 2005, the District Court (Judge James K. Singleton) granted final approval of the class settlement agreement stating that defendant was to develop equitable provisions and issue semi-annual reports to the plaintiffs' counsel for purposes of monitoring defendant's compliance.

The settlement lasted until 2008 without any further litigation. The case is now closed.

David Cho - 09/30/2014


compress summary