Lon Garrison
Previous Executive Director
AASB
The Anchorage Daily News recently published an op-ed by myself, Lon Garrison (AASB), Dr. Lisa Parady (ACSA), and Caroline Storm (CEE) that pushes back against a misleading narrative in Alaska’s public education policy discussions: the false choice between raising the Base Student Allocation (BSA) and preserving the Permanent Fund dividend. Instead, it calls for a broader discussion on Alaska’s overall fiscal priorities and the Legislature’s constitutional obligations.
It’s an important issue that bears repeating. Here’s the full article as published in ADN:
Public debates often get reduced to simplistic, headline-friendly narratives. In Alaska, one of the most persistent false choices is the idea that increasing public education funding — by raising the Base Student Allocation, or BSA —must come at the expense of the Permanent Fund dividend (PFD). This framing suggests that policymakers and the public must choose between supporting schools and supporting individual Alaskans.
But that’s not the real debate. The real debate is about Alaska’s budget priorities as a whole, and whether we are willing to have an honest conversation about the broader set of choices that shape our fiscal future.
Framing the budget as a fight between education funding and the PFD ignores the full range of spending and revenue decisions policymakers make every year. Consider these factors:
- State operating costs and inflation: The state adjusts its own operations for inflation while leaving schools, local governments and other programs to struggle with static funding. This is a policy choice, not an inevitability. If state government expenses are inflation-proofed, shouldn’t essential services like education be given the same consideration?
- Capital budget and deferred maintenance: Alaska’s infrastructure backlog is massive. A “bare-bones” capital budget might allocate $300 million for projects, but the actual needs are far greater. How much funding gets allocated to roads, bridges and other critical projects is a choice — just like funding education is.
- Oil tax credits and industry subsidies: A recent ADN article noted that Alaska will spend $800 million on oil tax credits this year and $400 million next. Yet, there is no heated debate over whether these subsidies should be reduced in favor of a larger PFD or more school funding. Why is this spending largely off-limits for discussion while education funding is pitted against direct payments to Alaskans?
- Revenue shortfalls and future planning: Some argue that Alaska doesn’t have a revenue problem, just a spending problem. But the state consistently faces budget deficits, and our long-term fiscal stability depends on addressing structural issues — whether through new revenue sources, revised tax structures or better long-term planning. We can’t just keep rearranging pieces of an ever-shrinking pie.
It’s time to move past the false narrative that pits the BSA against the PFD. The real question is: What kind of Alaska do we want to build? Do we want a state that invests in long-term infrastructure, public education, and economic stability? Or do we want to continue lurching from one budget crisis to the next, forced into artificial choices that limit our future?
Alaskans deserve a real conversation about our state’s fiscal future — one that includes all the choices on the table, not just the most politically convenient ones.
Lon Garrison is the Executive Director of the Association of Alaska School Boards. Lisa Parady is the Executive Director of the Alaska Council of School Administrators. Caroline Storm is the Executive Director of the Coalition for Education Equity.