By BOB GRIFFIN
Alaska was ranked the second most adequately funded school system in the US by a 2024 study from Rutgers University. The rest of the story — the study actually understates how well neighborhood schools are funded in Alaska.
The Rutgers study compared funding adequacy and equity for K-12 systems in 48 states. Here’s a more detailed explanation of the technique the researchers in New Jersey, (who have no reason to make Alaska look good or bad) used to reach their conclusions:
The principal metric used by the Rutgers authors to assess funding adequacy was the level of “fiscal effort” — or how much a state’s overall economy was dedicated educating kids. It’s not surprising that The US spends about double what Poland does per student. The US has a per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) roughly double that of Poland. The same principal applies between different state economies. The study makes the assumption that wealthier states are capable of paying more than poorer states.
The Rutgers study found that Alaska dedicated the equivalent of 4.77% of state GDP to K-12 direct expenditures in 2022 — 35% higher than the US average of 3.53%. Wyoming was slightly higher at 4.83%. Florida was ranked last in the US at 2.78% — despite having some of the best education results in the nation. Alaska had an overall funding adequacy score of 95 out of 100 in the study — including factors for how equitably school resources are distributed to low-income districts. Florida had a score of 12 out of 100.
As detailed as the research from Rutgers was, the study failed to account for the impact of 23,000 Alaskan students who are enrolled in very low-cost correspondence allotment programs.
According to figures from the National Education Association, Alaska spent $2.77 billion on K12 in the 2024-25 school year or $23,570 per student in Average Daily Attendance (ADA). The correspondence school students (who made up about 19% of the statewide ADA), cost the state just $5,364 per student, for a total of just $123 million.
The other 81% of the students in brick-and-mortar schools accounted for the remaining $ 2.65 billion in expenditures. That’s an adjusted per student expenditure of $28,002 per student in ADA, or $700,050 for every 25 students. Not much of that $700K is making it to our educators. The average taxpayer cost, including pay and benefits, of a classroom teacher for those 25 students is around $120,000.
If all 23,000 correspondence students were to somehow return to local neighborhood schools, during the previous school year, it would have triggered an additional $178 million in state formula funding — bringing K12 expenditures to $2.95 billion – 5.37% of our $54.9 billion of our 2024 state GDP.
Alaska has by far the highest percentage of correspondence students in the US — more than triple the US average of 5%. No other state comes close in the cost shifting benefit Alaskan brick-and-mortar students get because the large number of low-cost correspondence students.
With the adjustment for low-cost correspondence programs, there’s only one state who spent more per student than Alaska in 2024-25: Massachusetts. According to the NEA, the Bay State spent $29,296/student. Because Massachusetts has a state per capita GDP more than $15,000 higher than Alaska, they ranked 35thin the US in the Rutger study at 3.18% of a state GDP going to K-12.
Not only is our contribution to K-12 one of the highest in the country, our increase in per student spending has been nearly double the rate of inflation over the last 20 years. Again, using figures from the research team at the NEA, Alaska has increased ADA per student spending from $11,588 during the 2004-05 school year to $23,570 in 2024-25. That’s a 103.4% —without adjusting for exceptional growth of enrollment low-cost correspondence students. The increase in Alaska inflation was 59.7% during that period.
Cost of living in Alaska is not a good justification for our high cost of K-12. According to the most recent data from US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Alaska has the 13th highest cost of living in the US at just 1.7% higher than the US average. The relatively reasonable cost of Alaska housing helps to offset higher costs in other parts of the Alaska economy.
Energy costs for Alaska schools are certainly higher than most states. According to a 2021 ISER study, Alaska schools spent a total $41.4 million on energy costs in 2019. That was 1.67% of the $2.48 billion in K-12 expenditures that year.
With our brick-and-mortar schools expending an average of $700K for every group of 25 kids — our low performance in student outcomes in Alaska is certainly not from a lack of adequate or equitable funding.
Bob Griffin is on the board of Alaska Policy Forum and served on the Alaska Board of Education and Early Development.
Really? Let me spell it out for you “THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE KIDS” Democrats are the most pathetic greedy people on earth
Alaska’s vast geography, rural isolation, and logistical hurdles make delivering education here far more expensive than in most states. Even Griffin admits energy costs are higher, but he glosses over the much broader impacts of rurality—like transportation and staffing—which drive up per-student costs. His claim that Alaska’s cost of living is “just 1.7% higher than the US average” is misleading; costs in remote communities are dramatically higher than in urban areas, and that average masks huge disparities that matter when it comes to school funding.
Multiple independent studies—including those commissioned by our own Legislature—show Alaska’s funding formula creates major inequities across districts, with some schools getting much less per student than others. Griffin ignores this and treats Alaska as if it’s one uniform system, which simply isn’t true.
He also argues that Alaska’s large number of low-cost correspondence (homeschool) students artificially lowers the average per-student cost for traditional schools. But having more correspondence students doesn’t mean brick-and-mortar schools are “overfunded.” If all those students returned to neighborhood schools, costs would rise dramatically, along with the need for more teachers, staff, and facilities. The system isn’t “rolling in cash”—it’s stretched thin trying to serve a diverse student population, including many high-need and at-risk kids.
Griffin’s main argument is that high spending should guarantee high performance, so poor results must mean inefficiency. That’s a simplistic take that ignores the real-world challenges our schools face. In fact, inflation-adjusted per-pupil funding in Alaska has been flat or declining for over a decade, leading to larger classes and cuts to music, art, PE, and even sports—especially in rural districts. The idea that schools are flush with resources just doesn’t match reality.
Ultimately, Griffin cherry-picks data and ignores the complexity of Alaska’s education landscape. He offers no real solutions, just vague calls for “efficiency.” Alaska’s education system has unique, significant challenges that won’t be solved by pretending we’re overfunded or blaming schools for outcomes beyond their control. A real conversation would acknowledge these complexities and focus on both adequate resources and smart reforms. But maybe that message doesn’t fit the narrative he or Must Read Alaska are looking for.
Bob, your article sounds persuasive on the surface — lots of numbers, citations, and impressive spreadsheets — but it leaves out the real-world context that educators and administrators face every day in Alaska. So let’s clarify a few things.
Yes, Alaska spends more per student than many states. No one’s denying that. But saying schools are “rolling in cash” without acknowledging where that money actually goes is either disingenuous or willfully blind.
First, Alaska isn’t Florida or Massachusetts. Our geography, weather, and logistical demands make service delivery extraordinarily expensive. Shipping basic materials to bush schools, keeping buildings heated through Arctic winters, and maintaining staff in high-cost rural hubs are realities that don’t show up in a Rutgers spreadsheet. Comparing Alaska’s per-student costs to a densely populated, highway-connected state is apples to snowmachines.
Second, let’s talk about that $700,000 per 25 students you cite. You say only $120,000 goes to a teacher — but that $700K also covers:
Special education services
Paraprofessionals and aides
Food service workers
Bus drivers and maintenance staff
Building costs, utilities, and transportation
Counselors, nurses, and safety officers
Compliance with unfunded mandates from the same Legislature that loves to slash budgets
Not to mention: in many districts, administration is doing double or triple duty. In some, yes, admin bloat is real. But in others, it’s principals also acting as counselors and HR, because the support staff doesn’t exist.
Third — and maybe most important — student attendance and parental apathy are arguably the biggest drivers of poor academic outcomes in Alaska right now. We can debate spending formulas all day, but if a third of students in some districts are chronically absent, the results will suffer, no matter how good the teacher or how expensive the curriculum.
We’re not afraid of accountability. In fact, many of us have been asking for real, consistent standards — and a return to proven pedagogy — for years. But it’s hard to have an honest conversation about outcomes when the loudest voices ignore context and paint a system of hardworking public servants as if they’re skimming from a slush fund.
Funding isn’t the only problem, but let’s not pretend it’s irrelevant. Reform is essential, yes — but sustainable, targeted investment is too. And none of that happens in an echo chamber of cherry-picked stats and ideological finger-pointing.
Let’s raise the level of the conversation. Alaska’s kids deserve nothing less.
Thanks Bob, This shows that the school “SHARKS” have been EATING the money and not the students..WE need to Teach the ADS, that it isn’t the $$$..They’re ripping off every person and STEALING our PFD.,
Please stop calling people kids.
Because the Alaska Public Education cartel is not really “about the children” – it is about providing good paying jobs with wonderful benefits to, what is largely, a low achieving adult workforce!
Mr. Griffin, you have provided outstanding facts & figures from the NEA web site and from authentic research by Rutgers University. This will be extremely difficult for the progressive legislators to ignore. But they can ignore facts and figures at their own peril.
The Coalition for Education Equity should also take notice of your data before it actually files its law suit. Remember, the CEE is funded by Alaska and local tax dollars. So, in effect, it is using state funds to sue for more state funds.
The answer is three simple letters: NEA. That organization exists not to benefit the student and work to improve the efficacy of their education, but rather to increase pay and benefits for teachers and admin staff. Once teachers and administrators, especially the superintendent, are evaluated and held accountable to student scores that cannot be fudged and adjusted downward, then we’ll have true progress. Be like the private sector: perform or hit the bricks.