Lon Garrison, Executive Director
Alaska’s correspondence schools are an important part of our public education system. Today, they serve just shy of 24,000 students—roughly 17–18% of Alaska’s total public school enrollment. That scale alone requires careful consideration, particularly as policymakers evaluate proposed modifications such as those in Senate Bill 277. an omnibus bill for education from the Senate Education Committee.
My interest in exploring the evolution of correspondence education in Alaska is grounded in a desire to better understand where these programs began, what purpose they were originally designed to serve, and how that compares to the role they now play within our public education system. By developing a clearer understanding of that evolution, we are better positioned to thoughtfully evaluate current policy proposals and their potential impacts.
The Association of Alaska School Boards represents 52 of the 53 school districts in our state. Within that membership are districts that operate large, statewide correspondence programs enrolling thousands of students, as well as districts with fewer than 100 correspondence students. This diversity of experience highlights a fundamental reality: policy decisions in this area do not affect a single segment of the system—they affect all of us. As Executive Director, it is essential for me and for our members to understand both the magnitude of correspondence education and the potential effects policy changes may have on students enrolled in these programs as well as those attending neighborhood, village, and charter schools. We cannot afford to turn against ourselves.
Alaska’s correspondence school system began in 1939, well before statehood. At that time, it was not conceived as a matter of school choice but rather as a practical solution to a fundamental challenge: how to provide public education to students living in remote, inaccessible areas. Geography, low population density, and limited infrastructure made it impossible to build and staff schools in every community. Correspondence education, delivered through mailed lessons and supported by certified teachers, allowed the state to meet its constitutional obligation to provide an education to all children. It was a centralized, state-run system designed to ensure access, not to offer alternatives.
My family experienced the statewide Alyeska Central School program offered by the state of Alaska when we lived at remote salmon hatcheries here in Southeast Alaska during the 1990’s. This is the same program that began in 1939! I can attest that it was highly structured, relatively demanding, and required regular assessments. It was also delivered exclusively by mail at the time, which, for us, could be unreliable depending on float-plane or boat schedules.
For decades, this model remained relatively consistent. It was structured, standardized, and rooted in the principle that the state was responsible for delivering education, even under the most difficult conditions. Over time, however, the system began to evolve. As broader homeschooling movements gained traction nationally and families sought greater flexibility in how their children were educated, Alaska’s correspondence programs began to serve not only remote students, but also families seeking alternatives within the public system. It is important to note that homeschooling and correspondence education are not the same. Homeschooling, in its pure form, operates outside the public system, with parents assuming full responsibility for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Correspondence schools, on the other hand, are public schools. Students are enrolled in a district, supported by certified teachers, and guided by Individual Learning Plans. While parents may serve as the primary instructors, the program itself remains part of the public education system. A homeschool student may choose to enroll in a correspondence program, but doing so places that student within the public system.
The transition from a system rooted in access to one that increasingly reflects school choice accelerated in the 1990s and early 2000s, as school districts began developing their own correspondence programs and students were allowed to enroll across district boundaries. The most significant shift occurred in 2014, when the legislature authorized student allotments. This policy change allowed families to access public funds to purchase curriculum, materials, and educational services aligned with their child’s Individual Learning Plan. This marked a fundamental transformation. What had been a system designed to deliver a consistent, state-directed education became one that provides families with substantial flexibility and control over how education is delivered.
With that flexibility has come a new set of challenges, particularly in the areas of assessment and accountability. The original correspondence system operated under a more uniform structure with clearer expectations for curriculum and participation in assessments. Today’s individualized model, while responsive to family needs, makes it difficult to ensure consistency across programs. Participation in statewide assessments among correspondence students is significantly lower than among students in brick-and-mortar schools, limiting our ability to make meaningful comparisons about student achievement. Without consistent assessment data, it becomes increasingly difficult to answer basic questions about how students are performing and which practices are most effective. These are not abstract concerns; they are central to the responsibility of school boards to ensure that every student receives a high-quality public education.
Another challenge lies in the lack of longitudinal data. We do not currently have a comprehensive statewide system that tracks how students move between correspondence programs and traditional schools over time. We cannot readily answer how many students begin in correspondence programs and later return to in-person schools, or at what points those transitions occur. What we do know, based on available research, is that graduation rates for correspondence students are significantly lower than those of students in traditional public schools, with some studies showing that fewer than two-thirds of correspondence high school students graduate within four to five years (Educação Domiciliar). While this data must be interpreted carefully, it raises important questions about student outcomes and the supports necessary to ensure success.
The growth of correspondence programs has also introduced structural challenges within Alaska’s school funding system. When students enroll in programs operated by districts outside their home community, the associated funding follows the student. This can create financial strain for local districts experiencing enrollment declines, while districts operating large statewide programs have seen substantial growth. Research has noted that correspondence programs have increasingly drawn students from urban areas, reflecting a shift away from their original purpose of serving remote communities (Educação Domiciliar). This dynamic has changed the landscape of public education in Alaska and requires thoughtful consideration to ensure that the system remains equitable and sustainable for all districts.
It is clear that the purpose of correspondence education in Alaska has fundamentally changed. What began as a mechanism to ensure access to public education has evolved into a widely utilized school choice option. That evolution is not inherently positive or negative, but it does require us to reassess how these programs are structured, funded, and evaluated. As policymakers at both the state and local levels, we need more complete and reliable data to inform our decisions. We must ensure that accountability systems reflect the realities of today’s correspondence model, and that funding mechanisms do not unintentionally disadvantage some districts while benefiting others.
The recent introduction of Senate Bill 277 has drawn scrutiny, particularly around how correspondence students are initially counted, as well as concerns about funding and administrative complexity. The concern is understandable. This means discussion, debate, and ultimately collaboration need to happen. Most importantly, we must remember that these are all public school students. In a time of limited resources and increasing division, it is critical that we do not allow differences in educational delivery models to create fractures within our system. Division will only weaken our collective ability to serve students. Whether a student is enrolled in a correspondence program or attending a neighborhood school, we share a common responsibility to provide a high-quality education. Together, we have a duty of care for every child in Alaska, and we must approach these conversations with that shared responsibility firmly in mind.
Sources Used
- Wilkens, C.P. & Kalenda, P.J. (2019). Correspondence Schools in Alaska: Enrollment and Cohort Graduation Rates, 2010–2017. (Educação Domiciliar)
- Alaska Legislative Research Services (2025). Enrollment and Graduation Rates for Correspondence School Students. (Alaska State Legislature)
- ERIC Education Research Database – Correspondence Schools in Alaska (historical context and enrollment trends). (ERIC)
- Alaska Department of Education & Early Development – State Report Card and Accountability Data. (Alaska Department of Education)
Note: Chat GPT5.3 and Google Gemini were used to research and help compose this article.
