In Alaska, a critical dialogue is taking place regarding the future of education in the state, revealing alarming trends about the effectiveness of the traditional public education system.
State assessment data and national rankings indicate a troubling reality: many Alaskan children are not receiving the education they deserve.
As a result, parents across both rural and urban communities are increasingly seeking public education alternatives that provide more control over their children’s learning experiences.
This shift in parental preferences is fueled by the failure of the traditional system to adapt and innovate.
Changing demographics, rapid technological advances, the rising demand for flexibility among families, and growing distrust in established public-school models have led to a significant decline in enrollment in neighborhood schools.
Fewer students are enrolled in Alaska’s public schools today than two decades ago, with some districts facing drops of 30% or more.
This decline mirrors trends seen nationwide.
Unfortunately, many school boards and administrators seem more dedicated to maintaining existing structures—keeping every school open, every job secure, and every overhead unchanged—rather than prioritizing improvements in student outcomes.
The idea of consolidating schools to adapt to a shrinking student population is often dismissed as political heresy, highlighting an unwillingness to accept necessary changes in governance.
Supporting the status quo are a number of special interest groups, including the Alaska Association of School Boards (AASB), NEA-Alaska, and the Alaska Council of School Administrators (ACSA), who continue to request increased funding even as enrollment decreases and student achievement rates linger among the lowest nationwide.
These organizations seem committed to preserving the existing system rather than undertaking reforms aimed at enhancing educational opportunities for families.
A recent school board meeting featured a statement from the superintendent of the largest district, emphasizing a goal to “save jobs,” which raised concerns that student needs are being overshadowed by the desire to maintain the status quo at all costs.
In contrast, while enrollment in traditional public schools is declining, homeschooling and charter school participation has surged in Alaska, demonstrating the demand for alternative educational options.
These alternatives, which are public rather than private, employ certified teachers and administrators, offering families a variety of educational models.
Parents are opting for opportunities outside traditional neighborhood schools for several reasons, including dissatisfaction with reading and math proficiency levels among their children, prioritization of particular learning environments and values, and the necessity for flexible educational arrangements.
A 2023 Harvard University study found that Alaska’s public charter schools notably outperformed charter school systems in other states, resulting in significant learning gains in reading and math, particularly for non-white and low-income students.
Given these positive outcomes, one might expect educational leaders to champion the expansion of such successful models.
However, many boards and associations—despite claiming to support local control—oppose the growth of public charter schools, even when these institutions are initiated and managed by educators and families from local communities.
This apparent contradiction raises questions about whether these organizations prioritize student performance or the preservation of their own influence within the traditional system.
Concerns about equity in educational access have surfaced, yet the apparent solution lies in expanding high-performing public school options, ensuring every family can pick a school that suits their child’s unique needs.
The debate intensified in recent years when certain special interest groups argued that Alaska’s correspondence program statutes were unconstitutional, bringing forth a lawsuit that threatened the education choices of nearly 20,000 Alaskan students.
This legal action was perceived as a tactic to restrict public education options and compel students back into neighborhood schools.
Fortunately, in July 2024, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled unanimously that homeschool laws are constitutional, reinforcing the belief that education funding should primarily benefit students rather than special interests.
This ruling was recognized as a significant victory for parental rights and educational freedom.
Meanwhile, some education leaders have started acknowledging that a successful school district requires addressing the needs of parents and students.
These leaders are persistently supporting charter school applications and developing diverse learning models that attract families.
They are adapting to market trends by exploring creative solutions that provide the flexibility families desire, understanding that any educational choice outside their district directly influences funding.
Such proactive approaches demonstrate how school district leaders can increase enrollment and consequently funding through innovation.
Alaska’s educational landscape is compounded by the reality that the state spends over $21,000 per student each year, one of the highest rates in the nation, while facing dismal academic results that remain among the lowest overall.
The latest NAEP data reveals that less than 25% of fourth graders in Alaska are proficient in reading, with fewer than 20% of eighth graders meeting math proficiency standards, solidifying Alaska’s position near the bottom of national educational achievement rankings.
Despite the significant investment in public education, which has increased by nearly $1.5 billion since 2019, critics continue to assert that funding inadequacies are at the root of the educational challenges.
However, the argument for elevating funding does not align with the factual backdrop of Alaska’s budgetary allocations, where the Base Student Allocation saw a substantial increase that is the largest since the funding formula’s inception.
Even amidst these earmarked increases, commentators like the Anchorage Daily News editorial board caution against merely raising the BSA without accompanying structural reforms, noting the tendency of school districts to allocate funds toward administration instead of the classroom.
Ultimately, funding alone is not a remedy for educational deficiencies.
If it were sufficient, ongoing discussions about education would not be necessary, as the problems facing public schools would have been resolved.
The Alaska Supreme Court’s 2005 opinion in Moore v. State highlighted that merely injecting money into an ineffective system fails to fulfill Alaska’s constitutional obligations.
Emphasizing student achievement as the core mission of education in Alaska is crucial; advocates for funding increases without reform overlook this fundamental legal mandate.
The recently enacted Reads Act of 2022 exemplifies how combining strong policy with targeted funding can foster better results.
Focused on reading intervention and early literacy, the Reads Act employs evidence-based strategies, such as phonics-based instruction and early screening for reading difficulties, to combat the alarming proficiency statistics in reading.
However, the passage of such impactful legislation was met with resistance from those who wished to uphold the traditional structure, only clearing through the legislative process by a mere one vote.
Since its implementation, evidence suggests that students in primary grades have outperformed the national growth rate in early literacy outcomes.
The ongoing conversation about education is vital for Alaskans to understand the experiences of educators with over 50 years combined in both rural and urban public schools across the state.
The central message underscores a commitment to improving educational results, rather than merely discussing funding without a focus on strong, learning-centered policy initiatives.
Both educators maintain a strong belief in the potential of Alaska’s teachers; they argue for enhanced pay to attract and retain top talent—an initiative met with pushback from the teachers’ own unions.
As advocates for children, these educators express a heartfelt commitment to ensuring all Alaskan students have access to quality education.
They emphasize the need for reforms supported by a significant majority of Alaskans who agree that the current system is failing to deliver the education children deserve.
The success of states like Mississippi, which achieves stronger academic outcomes despite facing greater poverty levels, serves as evidence that Alaska can similarly improve its educational performance.
Detractors of educational reforms have voiced disproportionate resistance, indicating a reluctance to accept necessary changes.
The legislative decision to partially veto the BSA increase was made with careful consideration, addressing the implications of fluctuating oil prices on funding availability.
This partial veto represented a modest reduction in the district’s overall budget, a figure claimed by the district’s finance director to be manageable through attrition or utilizing excess reserve funds.
Regardless of claims from local school districts, the realities remain: class sizes will remain reasonable, teachers will continue to educate, and school activities will persist as normal.
It is essential to realize that while the legislature governs overall education funding, local districts possess autonomy over how they allocate those resources.
Disparities exist among districts regarding the efficacy of financial decision-making, with some making better choices than others.
In light of uncertain state revenue, there is a compelling case against granting unrestricted funding to a system where over 65% of rural and urban students fail to meet grade-level expectations.
Instead of approving a blank check for the status quo, future funding increases should be tied to consequential reforms that prioritize student achievement over mere appropriations.
To school boards, unions, and administrators willing to engage in meaningful reform, the channels for partnership remain open.
To those skeptical of proposed changes, the challenge persists: can you present Alaskans with data to support your stance rather than relying solely on rhetoric?
If resistance to improvement continues, families may exercise their right to withdraw their children from the failing school system, seeking better options elsewhere.
Despite being told by opposition forces that the fight for education reform is futile, advocates assert that their mission is only just beginning.
Alaska’s students deserve substantially better than a system that currently provides inadequate educational opportunities.
Ensuring a brighter future characterized by enlightened learning and success for every child in the state is the common goal of reform advocates.
The journey toward transformative educational outcomes is a path worth following, reflecting a commitment to preparedness and achievement for generations to come.
image source from：gov
