You can
search the entire site.
or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices.
Hunt v. University of Alaska Fairbanks (8/9/2002) sp-5605
Hunt v. University of Alaska Fairbanks (8/9/2002) sp-5605
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before
publication in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are
requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk
of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
WILLIAM HUNT, )
) Supreme Court No. S-10115
Appellant, )
) Superior Court No.
v. ) 4FA-00-634 CI
)
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, ) O P I N I O N
FAIRBANKS, )
) [No. 5605 - August 9, 2002]
Appellee. )
________________________________)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State
of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District,
Fairbanks, Mark I. Wood, Superior Court Judge
Pro Tem.
Appearances: William Hunt, pro se, North
Pole. Paul B. Eaglin, University of Alaska
Office of the General Counsel, Fairbanks, for
Appellee.
Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Matthews,
Eastaugh, Bryner, and Carpeneti, Justices.
CARPENETI, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
I. William Hunt applied for and was denied outright
admission to the Elementary Education Program by the School of
Education at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Instead, he was
granted conditional acceptance. After he was unable to fulfill
the conditions of his acceptance, the university removed Hunt
from his student teaching class. Hunt appealed this decision to
the university academic appeals committee, which found that the
School of Education acted in accordance with its published
guidelines for admission. Hunt then appealed to the superior
court, which upheld the decision of the academic appeals
committee and awarded the university $3,000 in attorneys fees.
Because the university complied with its regulations in denying
Hunt admission, we affirm that decision.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
William Hunt is an aspiring elementary education
teacher at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). After being
injured while working as a mechanic in 1995, Hunt enrolled at
UAF using his workers compensation benefits to pay for his
education. When his workers compensation benefits ended, Hunt
relied on temporary public assistance to pay for his education
and the expenses of raising his children as a single parent. Due
to the constraints of the welfare program, Hunt needed to obtain
his degree by May 2000.
In early 1999, Hunt applied for admission to the School
of Education (SOE) at UAF, three years after first enrolling at
the university, as is customary for elementary education majors.
Admittance to the SOE is required for an elementary education
major to take the methods block1 and student teaching classes
(the so-called professional year) needed to obtain a bachelors
degree in education.
While Hunt apparently excelled in math and science
classes, his language and reading skills were not nearly as
strong. The committee of faculty members who reviewed his SOE
application (which consisted of his transcripts, recommendations,
and timed and untimed writing samples) rated his writing skills
as marginal at best. Rather than rejecting Hunt outright, the
committee recommended that Hunt be allowed to take the Praxis
exam, a test of basic reading, writing, and math skills, after
which a decision on his acceptance into the SOE would be made.
When Hunt entered UAF, the Praxis exam was not required
for admission to the SOE. In 1998, the state began to require
passing scores on the Praxis exam for teacher certification. In
the 2000-2001 UAF catalog, students were, for the first time,
required to report their Praxis scores to the SOE when applying
for admission to the elementary education program.
Hunt took the Praxis exam in spring 1999 and failed the
reading and writing portions. The SOE informed Hunt that, unless
he retook and passed the Praxis exam, he would be unable to
proceed into his professional year. As he did not believe he was
required to take the exam under his catalog year2 of 1996-1997
and the exam was offered only in Anchorage that summer, Hunt
requested a waiver of the exam. Hunt was eventually granted a
partial waiver that allowed him to take the Fall 1999 methods
classes on the conditions that he pass the Praxis exam before
beginning student teaching in Spring 2000 and that he attend the
Writing Center at UAF to further develop his language skills.
Hunt took the exam again in Fall 1999 but did not
receive a passing score. After passing his methods classes and
submitting an essay for student teaching that exhibited better
writing skills than those exhibited in his initial application to
the SOE, Hunt again applied to the student teaching program.
Though Hunt began student teaching in January 2000, he was
informed by the SOE that he was unable to continue with his
student teaching because he had failed to fulfill the condition
of passing the Praxis exam. He was then removed from the class.
Hunt appealed the SOEs decision to UAF. A university-
wide academic appeals committee held a hearing on Hunts case in
February 2000. In that hearing, it was established that Hunts
approval to student teach was contingent only on his passing of
the Praxis exam. The appeals committee decided to uphold the
requirement that Hunt pass all three parts of the Praxis exam
before he began student teaching.
Hunt appealed this decision to the superior court.
Superior Court Judge Pro Tem Mark I. Wood held that UAF complied
with its catalog in requiring Hunt to pass the Praxis exam before
student teaching. Finding that UAFs decision to require Hunt to
pass the exam was a reasonable exercise of its discretion, the
court held that the final decision of the academic appeals
committee was not arbitrary or unreasonable. Judge Wood later
granted UAF attorneys fees in the amount of $3,000. Hunt now
appeals.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
I. In administrative appeals, we directly review the agency
action in question.3 Review of whether UAF complied with its own
regulations is limited to a determination of whether the decision
was arbitrary, unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion.4 An
abuse of discretion is found when we are left with a definite and
firm conviction, after reviewing the whole record, that the trial
court erred in its ruling.5 In matters of academic merit,
curriculum, and advancement, courts afford university faculty and
administrators substantial discretion.6
We review the imposition of an attorneys fees award
under an abuse of discretion standard.7
IV. DISCUSSION
A. UAF Was Entitled To Require Hunt To Pass the Praxis Exam as
a Condition of Admission to the Elementary Education Program.
Hunt argues that UAF ignored all the factors that
demonstrated he was ready and able to complete his professional
year. He claims that UAF arbitrarily and capriciously based its
decision solely on whether he passed the Praxis exam. He claims
that the university failed to comply with the terms of the UAF
catalog because successful completion of the Praxis exam is not
required in the catalog.
The UAF catalog requires that, to be admitted to the
SOE, a student must formally apply for admission to the Fairbanks
elementary education program . . . .8
The Elementary Education Program is a
selective teacher education program . . . .
Admission to UAF as a degree student majoring
in education does not automatically qualify a
student for admission to the Elementary
Teacher Education Program. Admission to the
Program is based on a comprehensive system
that includes more than one measure and is
used by the education faculty to assess the
personal characteristics, communications, and
basic skills proficiency of candidates
preparing to teach.[9]
Applicants are measured on multiple factors, which are weighed
and assessed by various means, and include, but are not limited
to, faculty rating forms, letters of reference, university
transcripts, writing samples, and evaluations from University-
sponsored practicum placements.10
Hunts overall grade point average of 3.58 on a 4.0
scale exceeded the 2.7 GPA required for admission. Though he
received no grades lower than a C, Hunts lowest grades were in
his English courses. In his application for admission to his
professional year, Hunt received recommendations from Pat Wise, a
teacher at North Pole Elementary School who had worked with Hunt
when his daughters were in her class, and Dan File, Assistant
Principal at North Pole Middle School.
Wise recommended that Hunt be admitted to the methods
classes at UAF, stating that his earnestness, concern, and
knowledge of typical school programs would be beneficial.
However, Wise also stated that Hunt needed more experience in
classrooms. She found his area of weakness to be language
presentation, stating that he needed to practice correct
grammatical and written skills. Because of his conscientiousness
and willingness to learn and practice, Wise felt that Hunt would
be able to succeed in a methods class with proper guidance so as
to avoid any language hindrances.
Files recommendation was more reserved. He found Hunt
to be extremely reliable and motivated, dedicated to his goal of
achieving a teaching certificate, as well as a dedicated single
father of three girls. Files concern centered on Hunts ability
to deal with middle school students. He felt that Hunt may be a
better fit at the intermediate grades and that Hunts lack of
experience would work itself out in his methods classes and
student teaching.
Also as part of the application process, Hunt wrote
three untimed essays and one timed, extemporaneous essay. These
essays, as well as the other aspects of his application, were
reviewed by a three-member committee that made admissions
decisions.
All three committee members ranked Hunts interpersonal,
intercultural, and professional indicators on the high end of the
scale. His basic written communication/literacy skills, however,
were an area of concern for the evaluators. For his
extemporaneous writing sample, one evaluator circled both
marginal and fail, another circled between marginal and fail, and
the last circled marginal. One evaluator found weakness apparent
in all areas and especially in written communications. Another
found serious writing problems grammar, sentence structure,
spelling, etc. The other evaluator found Hunt to have writing
difficulties mechanical/grammar.
For his untimed application essays, Hunt received
similar scores of marginal to fail. One evaluator was
surpris[ed] (and discourag[ed]) to find errors in essays prepared
with plenty of opportunity and time to make corrections, proof-
read, etc.
In their final recommendations, two evaluators did not
choose between the admit and reject options, and the third chose
reject. One of the undecided evaluators stated that Praxis
scores were needed before a decision could be made. The other,
who placed a question mark next to each option, stated that
[w]ith writing marginal, its important to receive Praxis scores
before making a determination about methods. The final
evaluator, who chose to reject Hunt, stated that [t]his is tough
he still lacks necessary skills and knowledge for the profession
He certainly is progressing.
Ultimately, in April 1999, the SOE conditionally
accepted Hunt into the Elementary Education Program. His
acceptance into the methods blocks was contingent upon passing
scores on PRAXIS I, successful completion of all remaining
required courses, availability of practica placements, and
resources in the School of Education. In addition, the School of
Education require[d] that [Hunt] attend the Writing Center to
further develop and refine [his] writing skills. As noted above,
Hunt failed the Praxis exam in both the spring and fall of 1999.
Although the Praxis exam was not a requirement of
admission to the Elementary Education Program during Hunts
catalog year, Hunts demonstrated weaknesses in the areas of
language and communication gave UAF a justifiable reason to
require that he pass the Praxis exam before admittance. The
requirements state that the measures listed are merely examples
that do not encompass everything the admissions committee may
consider. Rather than requiring Hunt to pass the Praxis exam as
a newly-created requirement to the program, the committee sought
to give Hunt a chance to enter the program in spite of his weak
language skills. With the Praxis exam, the committee afforded
Hunt an objective opportunity to demonstrate his capacity for
reading and writing.
Furthermore, the choice of the Praxis exam as this
objective measure was appropriate. In July 1998, a new
requirement for those seeking an initial regular teacher
certificate took effect successful completion of a competency
examination by the standards established by the state.11 The
competency exam chosen by the state was the Praxis exam.12 As
such, the committees decision to require Hunt to pass the Praxis
exam as a condition of his admission to the SOE was not an abuse
of discretion. Rather, it was a legitimate choice of an
objective measurement of his skills that he would have been
required to pass in order to be licensed in the state. Requiring
Hunt to pass the exam before applying for his license merely gave
Hunt an extra chance to be admitted to the program when he
otherwise would have been denied admission based on his
application. The university thus complied with the terms of the
UAF catalog and did not abuse its discretion in conditioning
Hunts admission on his successful completion of the Praxis exam.
B. There Is No Evidence that UAF Violated Hunts Equal
Protection Rights.
A. Hunt argues that he was treated differently than other
students who had applied for admission to the SOE. Citing Jones
v. Central Peninsula General Hospital,13 Hunt argues that the SOEs
decision to admit certain students into the Elementary Education
Program while not admitting him was unlawful. He asserts that
UAF has acknowledged that it is unacceptable for UAF to
arbitrarily and capriciously grade students. This standard, Hunt
argues, should be applied to the subjective decisions of the SOE
on admissions to the professional year.
However, the record before us does not support Hunts
claim. Hunt rests his argument on a spreadsheet of test scores,
majors, and GPAs. It is unclear from this spreadsheet which
students were admitted to the professional year, which had
successfully completed the methods block, and which were allowed
to student teach. Furthermore, in regard to the students Hunt
discusses in his brief, there is no indication who was admitted
to the professional year or any evidence of the other aspects of
their application, i.e., writing samples, evaluations, or grades.
To determine whether Hunts equal protection rights were violated,
evidence would be needed of students with marginal/failing SOE
applications who were admitted to the program notwithstanding a
failing score on the Praxis exam. Based on this record, Hunt has
failed to show that he was treated differently from students in a
similar situation.
C. Because UAF Complied with Its Catalog, We Need Not Decide
Whether the Catalog Created a Contract between Hunt and UAF.
Hunt argues that UAFs policy of allowing him to pick
the catalog he wanted to use to guide him through his final year
created a contract. In Bruner v. Petersen,14 we found that,
because the University of Alaska Anchorage had complied with the
provisions of the course catalog and the student handbook, we did
not have to reach the question of whether the catalog and
handbook resulted in a contract between Bruner and the
University.15
The decision to admit a student to the SOE is a
subjective one, involving the consideration of many factors. We
have held that where matters of academic merit, curriculum, and
advancement are concerned, university faculty and administrators
should be afforded substantial discretion.16 When judges are
asked to review the substance of a genuinely academic decision .
. . they should show great respect for the facultys professional
judgment. 17 Therefore, the SOE committees decision to not admit
Hunt to the SOE due to his weak writing skills, and the academic
appeals committees review of that decision, should be afforded
deference. As Hunt has not presented any evidence indicating
that the decision was made for a reason other than his language
abilities and because we hold that UAF complied with its catalog,
we need not decide whether the catalog created a contract between
Hunt and UAF.
D. UAF Did Not Violate the Alaska Statutes and UAFs
Policies.
Hunt argues that UAF has violated several Alaska
statutes and university policies and regulations by forcing him
to take the Praxis exam before being admitted to the teaching
program. Specifically, Hunt points to AS 14.40.170(b), which
provides that the Board of Regents may adopt reasonable rules,
orders, and plans for the government of UAF.18 Hunt states that
UAF complied with this requirement by adopting a policy allowing
students to choose any catalog in effect when enrolled as a
degree-seeking student, with a seven-year limit on the catalog
year.
Further, Hunt argues, the state has adopted a policy of
protecting students by prohibiting misleading literature.19 He
claims this policy was violated by UAFs requirement that he take
the Praxis exam. Hunt also argues that UAF violated AS
14.48.060(b)(4)20 by changing his graduation requirements and that
he would not have enrolled had he known this was going to happen.
UAFs requirement that Hunt take the Praxis exam before
admitting him to the Elementary Education Program was not an
additional requirement that was misleading to Hunt or a changing
of the requirements Hunt needed in order to graduate from UAF.
Rather, the requirement of the Praxis exam was an alternative
measure the committee employed to give Hunt a chance to enter the
program because without it he would have been denied admission.
Instead of changing requirements in the middle of his UAF career,
therefore, UAF gave Hunt an extra, alternative opportunity to
fulfill the established requirements for entry into the teaching
program.
E. The Superior Court Did Not Err in Awarding UAF
Attorneys Fees.
Hunt challenges the superior courts order that he pay
$3,000 in legal fees to UAF. He argues that the award of
attorneys fees is based on the superior courts finding that UAF
did not act arbitrarily or capriciously and did not breach a
contract with Hunt. As this finding by the court was incorrect,
Hunt argues, the award of attorneys fees should be reversed.
Hunt does not, and could not, dispute that UAF was the
prevailing party in the action, instead basing his appeal on the
claim that the superior court erred in its underlying decision
and therefore erred in its award of fees. In the superior court,
Hunt did not offer any other reason to deny fees to UAF. Rather,
in his opposition motion to UAFs fee request, Hunt argued that
the trial court should apply the standard of Civil Rule 82,
providing for an award of thirty percent of reasonably and
necessarily incurred costs and fees.
Attorneys fees were awarded in this case pursuant to
Alaska Rule of Appellate Procedure 508(e).21 Such fees should
only partially compensate a party for its fees.22 In awarding
fees, a court may exercise its sound discretion in making awards
that are justified and reasonable.23 While Hunt argued to the
superior court that if fees were to be awarded, no more than
$4,779 should be granted, the superior court only awarded UAF
$3,000. Because Hunt offered no other reason, either before us
or the court below, for challenging the award, we affirm the
superior courts award of attorneys fees.
V. CONCLUSION
Because UAF complied with its catalog requirement when
it required Hunt to pass the Praxis exam before admitting him to
the Elementary Education Program, and because the court awarded
UAF fees less than the amount suggested by Hunt, we AFFIRM the
decision of the superior court in all respects.
_______________________________
1 The methods block is a hands-on class where students
learn to teach particular subjects to students. During the
blocks (usually one for each subject elementary educators are
responsible for), students prepare lesson plans and work with
teachers in a classroom setting.
2 A students degree requirements are established by
choosing the requirements listed in the catalog for one of the
academic years in which he or she is enrolled as a degree-seeking
student.
3 Northern Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. State, Dept of Natural
Res., 2 P.3d 629, 633 (Alaska 2000).
4 Nickerson v. Univ. of Alaska Anchorage, 975 P.2d 46, 50
n.1 (Alaska 1999) (quoting Szejner v. Univ. of Alaska, 944 P.2d
481, 484-85 n.2 (Alaska 1997)).
5 Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. v. Stepanoff, 650 P.2d 375,
378-79 (Alaska 1982).
6 Bruner v. Petersen, 944 P.2d 43, 48 (Alaska 1997).
7 Id. at 49.
8 University of Alaska, Fairbanks 1996-97 Annual Catalog
79.
9 Id. at 81.
10 Id.
11 AS 14.20.020(i) states, in part:
Beginning on July 1, 1998, a person is not
eligible for an initial regular teacher
certificate unless the person has taken and
successfully completed a competency
examination or examinations designated, at
the time the person took the test, by the
board.
12 4 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 12.010(b)(5) (2002)
states:
[F]or an applicant as to whom the provisions
of AS 14.20.020(i) apply, the official scores
on the required Praxis I: Academic Skills
Assessments demonstrating that the applicant
meets or exceeds the following Alaska
qualifying scores [for the computer based
exam] on the competency examinations:
(A) reading: 322;
(B) writing: 321; and
(C) math: 318.
13 779 P.2d 783, 789 n.6 (Alaska 1989) (recognizing that
contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires
employers to treat similarly situated employees equally).
14 944 P.2d 43 (Alaska 1997).
15 Id. at 48.
16 Id.
17 Id. (quoting Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474
U.S. 214, 225 (1985)).
18 AS 14.40.170(b)(1) provides, in part:
The Board of Regents may adopt
reasonable rules, orders, and plans with
reasonable penalties for the good government
of the university and for the regulation of
the Board of Regents . . . .
19 AS 14.48.010(a)(4) provides, in part:
It is the purpose of this chapter to provide
for the protection, education, and welfare of
the citizens of the state, its postsecondary
educational institutions, and its students,
by
. . . .
(4) prohibiting misleading literature,
advertising, solicitation, or representation
by educational institutions or their agents .
. . .
20 AS 14.48.060(b)(4) states, in part:
[T]he institution provides a catalog or
brochure containing information describing
the programs offered, program objectives,
length of program, schedule of tuition, fees,
and all other charges and expenses necessary
for completion of the course of study,
cancellation and refund policies, and other
material facts concerning the institution and
the program or course of instruction that are
reasonably likely to affect the decision of
the student to enroll, together with any
other disclosures specified by the commission
by regulation; and this information is
provided to prospective students before
enrollment . . . .
21 Alaska Rule of Appellate Procedure 508(e) provides:
Attorneys fees may be allowed in an amount to
be determined by the court . . . . If the
court determines that an appeal or cross-
appeal is frivolous or that it has been
brought simply for purposes of delay, actual
attorneys fees may be awarded to the appellee
or cross-appellee.
22 Carr-Gottstein Props. v. State, 899 P.2d 136, 148
(Alaska 1995).
23 Id.
