By BOB GRIFFIN
Alaska was ranked second in the nation in K-12 education funding adequacy by a recent Rutgers University study with a score of 95 out a possible 100 for funding adequacy.
Under that backdrop, any large increases in K-12 funding should also be accompanied by at least some modest education reforms — like expanding authorizers for public charter schools. Major increases in K-12 spending without education reforms have not worked in the past for Alaska. Between 2003 and 2023, state education spending increased 90.6% per student while inflation was 64.7%. And Alaska student NAEP test scores in every category declined significantly during that 20-year period.
One result of the poor support is thousands of parents on waiting lists for Alaska’s most innovative and successful public charter school models. Programs lack capacity to meet public demand because local districts in Alaska have sole authority to dictate the terms of public charter school programs — like enrollment limits. When districts have no competition from other potential authorizers, they’re not very motivated to be attentive to the desires of charter applicants. They can compel applicants to accept undesirable terms, like inability to expand to meet public demand.
Alaska is one of only five states which leaves the power of approval and expansion of public charter schools solely in the hands of local school districts — which may be hostile to public charter schools. In other states, a university, the state department of education, specialized public or private entities are among the different types of authorizers. In Ohio, parents have five different charter authorities they can go through to “shop around” for a public charter school approval.
There’s a myth that public charter schools authorized by local school districts somehow disrupt the concept of “local control.” Public charter schools are actually the ultimate in local control. Though the programs can be authorized by many different entities, the schools themselves are very much controlled by the parents and staff in the individual programs. It’s hard for control to get much more “local” than that.
There’s also a myth that public charter schools are a partisan Republican issue. In Washington D.C., where 76% of voters identify as members of the Democratic Party, 48% of children are in public charter schools. The rapid growth of charter schools in D.C. has a direct correlation to a rapid rise in student NAEP scores to the point that the average D.C. student outperforms the average Alaska student in every NAEP category, for both low-income and upper/middle-income kids. That’s true even considering that almost double the percentage of D.C. children are in poverty than are Alaskan children.
A final myth is that public charter schools rob resources from neighborhood public schools. This is certainly not the case in Alaska, where per student spending in charter schools is significantly lower than traditional neighborhood schools. As more kids move to public charter programs, neighborhood schools are relieved of the burden of the variable cost of educating the kids who move, leaving more funding per student for the children who stay in their neighborhood schools.
Finding education that fits your child’s learning style shouldn’t be reliant on winning a lottery. We should adopt the policy of multiple charter authorizers — already available in most states. That will allow our very successful, locally controlled, public charter schools to grow to meet the capacity demands of parents, while increasing per student dollars available for parents who choose their local neighborhood schools.
Bob Griffin was a member State Board of Education and Early Development and senior education research fellow for the Alaska Policy Forum, writing on his own behalf.
Bob Griffin: Alaska Reads Act is up for the challenge shown by national reading assessment scores
