Lon Garrison, Executive Director
Over the past five years, I have had the opportunity to reflect regularly through these Commentary articles on the state of public education in Alaska. The topics have varied—funding, facilities, workforce, student outcomes, governance—but as I revisited those writings recently, a consistent pattern emerged. Regardless of the issue, the underlying challenge is the same: Alaska does not approach public education as a long-term investment. Instead, we operate in a cycle of short-term spending driven by what we believe we can afford in the moment.
That distinction—spending versus investing—is not semantic. It is structural, philosophical, and ultimately determinative of outcomes.
In Alaska, education funding decisions are often shaped by immediate fiscal pressures and competing priorities. Chief among these is the ongoing tension around the use of Permanent Fund earnings and the political imperative to fund the Permanent Fund Dividend. In that environment, education is too often treated as a discretionary expense rather than a foundational investment. The result is a reactive system—one that adjusts year to year, session to session—rather than a deliberate, sustained strategy.
Contrast this with many of the world’s highest-performing education systems. Countries such as Singapore, Estonia, and Finland do not treat education funding as an annual debate about affordability. Instead, they operate from a shared understanding that education is core national infrastructure—essential to economic vitality, civic stability, and long-term prosperity. Funding is structured to be predictable, stable, and aligned with long-term goals. There is political debate, certainly, but not about whether to invest—only how best to do so.
Within the United States, we see similar patterns. States like Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Wyoming—each in very different ways—have built more durable funding systems. Whether through court rulings, statutory commitments, or consistent policy frameworks, these states have moved closer to treating education as a long-term obligation. Not coincidentally, they tend to outperform Alaska on key measures such as student achievement, graduation rates, and postsecondary transitions.
Alaska’s experience tells a different story. Over time, our student achievement outcomes have lagged behind national averages, particularly as measured by NAEP. Graduation rates, while improving, have often trailed leading states. Postsecondary attainment—especially in four-year programs—remains a significant challenge. At the same time, Alaska continues to rank relatively high in nominal per-pupil spending, which has fueled a misleading narrative that funding levels should already be sufficient.
This is where the work of Anchorage education researcher Mike Bronson is particularly instructive. Bronson’s analysis consistently shows that when Alaska’s education funding is adjusted for inflation, the state has experienced a significant erosion in real purchasing power over time. In other words, while nominal funding may appear stable or even increasing, the actual capacity of districts to deliver services has declined.
Bronson also identifies a troubling correlation: as real funding has stagnated or declined, student outcomes have followed a similar trajectory. This is not a simplistic argument that more money automatically produces better results. Rather, it is a recognition that insufficient and unstable funding undermines the conditions necessary for success—qualified educators, manageable class sizes, student supports, early interventions, and consistent programming.
Perhaps just as important, Bronson highlights the impact of volatility. One-time appropriations, short-term fixes, and inconsistent policy signals make it extraordinarily difficult for school districts to plan, staff, and sustain improvement efforts. Predictability matters. Stability matters. And both are hallmarks of systems that treat education as an investment.
This brings us to the work of the 34th Alaska Legislature. It is important to acknowledge the fortitude and accomplishment demonstrated in passing a $700 increase to the Base Student Allocation for FY2026 and sustaining a veto override. That was a significant action, and it reflected a recognition of the challenges facing our schools. However, when placed in context, that increase addressed only a portion—approximately 35 to 40 percent—of the inflationary gap that has accumulated over time. Moreover, when combined with the minimal increase in FY2025, the net effect underscores just how far behind we have fallen.
Now, in the final session of the 34th Legislature, we find ourselves once again confronting a projected deficit. As has too often been the case, education bears a substantial share of that burden. There has been no meaningful movement toward increasing the BSA this year, and the political will to do more appears limited. Much of the available capital—both fiscal and political—was expended in the previous session.
To be clear, there may still be targeted investments: energy relief, transportation funding, literacy grants tied to the Alaska Reads Act, and, critically, capital funding for school maintenance. These are important and necessary. But they do not represent a coherent, long-term strategy for funding the core operations of our schools. They are, once again, examples of spending what we can, when we can.
AASB’s Legislative Priorities and the beliefs and resolutions contained in Where We Stand 2026 are grounded in a different vision—one that calls for adequate, sustainable, and predictable investment in public education. Our members—locally elected school boards across Alaska—understand that student achievement and well-being depend on more than short-term fixes. They require a stable foundation.
The forthcoming work of the Task Force on Education Funding presents a critical opportunity. It is not simply a chance to examine formulas or mechanisms, though that work is essential. It is an opportunity to engage Alaskans in a broader conversation about what we value and how we invest in our future. It is a moment to shift from a mindset of affordability to one of intentional investment.
Over the past five years, I have had the privilege of carrying forward this message on behalf of AASB’s membership and Board of Directors. It is a message rooted in the belief that public education is not just another line item in the budget—it is the foundation upon which Alaska’s future is built.
The question before us is not whether we can afford to invest in education. It is whether we can afford not to.
The future of Alaska depends on how we answer that question.
Note: Chat GPT5.3 and Google Gemini were used to research and help compose this article.
Data referenced in this commentary are drawn from state, national, and international education research sources, including the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development, NCES, OECD, and analyses of Alaska education funding trends by Anchorage researcher Mike Bronson.
References
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education. (2025). Alaska Higher Education Almanac. Retrieved from https://acpe.alaska.gov
Alaska Department of Education & Early Development. Foundation Program Reports (FY2010–FY2026). Retrieved from https://education.alaska.gov/schoolfinance/foundationfunding
Association of Alaska School Boards. (2026). Where We Stand 2026. Retrieved from https://www.boardpolicyonline.com/?b=aasb_resolutions
Association of Alaska School Boards. (2026). Legislative Priorities. Retrieved from https://aasb.org/legislative-priorities/
Association of Alaska School Boards. Conditions for Learning Framework. Retrieved from https://aasb.org/conditions-for-learning/
Baker, B. D., Di Carlo, M., & Weber, M. The Adequacy and Fairness of State School Finance Systems. Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from https://www.shankerinstitute.org/resources
Bronson, M. (various years). Analyses of Alaska education funding and inflation-adjusted trends. Anchorage, AK.
Education Law Center. (2025). Making the Grade 2025: School Funding Fairness Report. Retrieved from https://edlawcenter.org/research/making-the-grade/
Hanushek, E. A. The Economics of Schooling: Production and Efficiency in Public Schools.
Jackson, C. K., Johnson, R. C., & Persico, C. (2016). The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes. American Economic Review.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Education Reform Act of 1993. Retrieved from https://www.doe.mass.edu
National Center for Education Statistics. The Nation’s Report Card (NAEP). Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov
National Center for Education Statistics. Public High School Graduation Rates. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). PISA Results. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Education at a Glance. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/content/oecd/
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/cpi/
Washington State Supreme Court. (2012). McCleary v. State of Washington.
World Bank. Education Overview. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/search?q=education
