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 that 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 35th in 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% increase — 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.
Misdirection efforts and smoke-screens come in a variety of flavors. It appears that the “oh, but rural Alaska” version is being used here. Rural districts and students make up twenty (or less) percent of the educational infrastructure but are being offered up here as the complete reason for the abysmal performance of Alaska students as a whole. Most students reside in relatively suburban areas where operating costs are not extreme. The entire educational delivery system is flawed and fails to deliver even below-average results. I am no expert but the seeds of failure may arise from schools, teachers and administrators trying to solve ALL of a student’s problems. In this environment, the educational component may be the first casualty. Something needs to change and money does not appear to be the problem.
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.
Everything you cited here as to why public education costs too much is exactly why brick and mortar public education is a thing of the past and ought not be artificially propped up. To return to proven pedagogy, one needs to travel back before John Dewey, compulsory education, and above all: the suicidal progressive march through the institutions.
Let public schools fail or prove their worth through direct competition with home schools, charter schools, and online public schools.
You say you want direct competition but home schools, charter schools and online public schools often have discriminatory policies to keep low performing students from attending. Whether it be no bus service, no lunch, no SPED Services, parental volunteer requirements, dismissing students for attendance issues, grade performance, homework completion, etc. So if you want direct competition then you need to make the admittance and retention requirements the same. While there is a lot of room for improvement in the education system breaking it up into the have and have not schools isn’t the answer.
Those policies of no bussing etc. are put in place by the school district, not the charter schools.
Perhaps government brick and mortar schools would see more parent buy-in if they didn’t, through both philosophy and policy, see parents as adversaries, from whom children need to be protected.
All the parents who understand that they are the first and primary people who have a duty and right to educate their children? Those are the parents who eschew the government institutions.
OKAY???
First of all how exactly are home schools “discriminatory”? These are individual parents teaching their OWN children, mostly in their own homes. Many home school parents I knew were homeschooling precisely because their children were performing poorly in their public schools and they had higher expectations for them.
Correspondence schools to my knowledge are just another form of home schooling with a centralized administrative network, but maybe a correspondence school parent can elaborate here.
In essence what you are saying is that competition is unfair unless all schools are exactly like a public school…. I was never a fan of the “one-size-fits-nobody” demand. It disregards individuals in favor of conformity.
AKFF there is a much more elegant solution. Have the money follow the child. Then clearly every school would have the opportunity to attract students. If that practice would be instituted you would soon find how individual schools will specialize to meet the needs of students and actually focus on the outcomes not just butts in the seats, as enrollment will be determined by performance not where you happen to live.
Rick, I agree with you that student attendance is a huge issue. You should consider then that the attendance rate at the ASD overall for example is only 89%( and much worse in other parts of the state), which means that the ASD teacher only teaches 22 students making the total amount spend on each student $31818. That’s an obscene amount of money per student.
What you ignore is the large contingent of administrators and department heads and all their support staff. Those individuals generally do not work in schools, but either create or manage programs or implement federal or other guidelines. Looking at your list, it seems that teaching is really an afterthought. I can tell you from experience that food workers and bus drivers don’t make a whole lot of money, and neither do plumbers and custodians. However their administrative bosses do and there are a lot of them.
So instead of focusing on jobs let’s focus on students by changing the ration of teacher to support personnel to once again have more teachers than all others. Go back to a solid curriculum and stop switching it around every time some egghead college professor has a bright idea. Consolidate school districts by area with one set of administrators. Outsource food service, custodial services, maintenance, snow clearing, eliminating all the administrative hierarchies and consolidate those functions to one office of contracting. Sell off and consolidate real estate, put a hold on any new buildings, allow students to switch schools if their school does not perform to standard. Enforce truancy rules and demand behavior standards from ALL.
You’re right—student attendance is a serious issue, and I fully agree it needs to be addressed. An 89% attendance rate in ASD, with worse numbers in other parts of the state, is unacceptable. If students aren’t in class, learning doesn’t happen—no matter how much money we’re spending. Enforcing truancy policies and setting clear behavior expectations should be foundational to any reform.
You also make a valid point about administrative overhead. There are far too many highly paid department heads who are disconnected from the classroom. Meanwhile, our essential frontline employees—teachers, custodians, food service workers, bus drivers, maintenance staff, and secretaries—do the hard work every day, often for far less pay and even less recognition. These roles are vital to student success and should never be taken for granted.
That’s why we need to get back to a better balance. A responsible school system should operate on a 75/25 split—with 75% of state dollars going directly to schools and students, and no more than 25% spent on administrative or oversight roles. Right now, too many districts are top-heavy, and teaching has started to look like an afterthought instead of the priority.
And when it comes to efficiency, we need to be smart. We tried outsourcing custodial services—and it was an epic failure. The quality of work dropped, response times lagged, and buildings were simply not cared for the same. Why? Because our in-house custodians had something those outside contractors didn’t—buy-in. They’re part of the school community, and they take pride in their work. That kind of ownership and accountability can’t be contracted out.
So yes, let’s consolidate redundant administrative structures, freeze unnecessary construction, assess and repurpose existing real estate, and offer school choice when a building isn’t performing. Let’s get back to a solid, consistent curriculum rather than chasing every new academic trend. Most importantly, let’s put the focus—fiscally and operationally—back on students and those who work with them directly every single day.
That’s how we rebuild a system that works: fewer bureaucrats, more educators and doers.
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!
If you think you can do better look into getting certified to be an educator.
Ah, the old you have to be one to comment on one fallacy. Is the best you union droids can do? If so, no wonder the public schools are such a disaster. But thanks for playing. Cheers –
You make my point!
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.
So if you want it like the private sector, can public schools dismiss students who don’t make the grade? FYI the NEA does not represent the admin staff.
Yes. It used to be called flunking. And there was huge public shame in being flunked, which is why a flunked student busted his or her *ss to make the grade. And please, spare us all the micro-parsing on the NEA. The admin is represented by Anchorage Council of Education (ACE), Local 4425. Who cares, they still allow incompetence and activities that add zero to improving a student’s test score. Alaskans need freedom from parasitic unions.
Misnamed “Alaskans for Freedom” (who is really just another pro-establishment lemming and radical leftist), YES, schools SHOULD dismiss those students who do not “make the grade”! that is EXACTLY what they should do, rather than burdening the entire school system with losers who will never amount to anything, and who only drag down everyone else in your futile and quijotic quest to educate everyone to an equal standard.
Simple answer, Bob… Results aren’t “better” because education-industry officials and their union partners don’t care.
.
They don’t have to care because they’re literally set for life, accountable to no one for what they spend or what they produce, able to get more money and benefits anytime they want.
.
They know they’re insulated from angry voters and state law enforcement.
.
They’re insulated from angry voters and state law enforcement because Alaska’s election systems and grand-jury systems are FUBAR’d. Know what that means, Bob, know the implications?
.
What can you hope to fix in the education industry without first restoring integrity to those two systems? Rebuild your house on a foundation you know is rotten, what do you think’ll happen?
.
Union-half of their union-management team is practically omnipotent, our very own unelected fourth arm of government; notice nobody says NO them?
.
No Alaskan politician has brains or balls to lead a take down of the education-industry racket.
.
So, maybe you have inside scoop, Bob, to work with DOJ and DOE, to take it down on a RICO beef, maybe make a few truckloads of money from a qui tam lawsuit?
.
Take the racket down, fire everyone in it, ask an outfit like the Mississippi folks who brought their education system back from the dead to come and show us how to set up one like theirs, get Native corporations on board.
.
Why not? No politician, education-industry official, or union parasite knows how to do it, or you wouldn’t be writing about it, right?
.
Careful how you do it, Bob… pull that off, you could wind up being governor or senator or something.
.
Really, Bob, parent-taxpayers need Rutgers to tell us this?
That’s a whole lot of heat and almost no light.
Yes, we all agree there are serious problems in public education—attendance, outcomes, administrative bloat, and accountability—but blaming everyone in the system as corrupt, lazy, or part of some grand conspiracy is a lazy cop-out, not a solution.
Teachers, support staff, and even most administrators aren’t “set for life.” Many work long hours in increasingly hostile environments, for modest pay, because they believe in what they do. Are there bad actors? Absolutely. Are there structural inefficiencies? Yes, and we should fix them. But fire everyone and start over? That’s not a plan—that’s a tantrum.
Unions don’t run the government. They advocate for their members—people who clean schools, serve food, drive buses, and teach kids. If you think that’s “omnipotence,” maybe you’ve never had to sit across from a bargaining table or deal with budget cuts.
As for RICO lawsuits, grand juries, and coup-style takeovers of the education system—if that’s your starting point, you’ve already lost the public. Most parents want better schools, not civil war.
Mississippi’s education turnaround? It didn’t happen by nuking the system—it happened through tough reforms, early literacy investment, and bipartisan leadership. That takes actual work, not internet rants.
So if you’ve got real solutions, let’s hear them. But if all you’re offering is fire-and-fury rhetoric, don’t be surprised when people stop listening. Real change takes more than rage—it takes responsibility.
Got your attention, didn’t it?
.
Best way, no fire and brimstone, quietly hoping the thousand-pound gorilla sitting on your face will sit on someone else’s face? How’s that working?
.
Unions don’t “run the government”? Remind again what government does when unions threaten to strike?
.
RICO lawsuits, grand juries, and coup-style takeovers of the education system were never the “starting point” until it became clear even to the densest among us that the system’s broke, can’t be fixed, otherwise smart people like you would have fixed it?
.
What parents don’t want “better schools”, wouldn’t go to war to protect children from mutilation, indoctrination, and functional illiteracy that passes for “education” these days?
.
Mississippi seemed like a reasonable start, they fixed a system even worse than Alaska’s. Here’s another …what would it take to bring over a crew from the top-ranked country, get them to show us how they educate their children, maybe even do it their way for a year or two, see what happens?
.
Pretty clear nobody in Alaska’s education knows how to do their job, why not fire their asses right out the door and bring in acknowledged experts who do, or is that too radical for you?
.
But no, nearly everyone, even the well-meaning, are down in the weeds, mired in minutiae, while another generation of kids are mutilatied, indoctrinated, groomed, and driven into functional illiteracy so bad that even a third-rate college like UAA has to teach them how to read, write, and do sums.
.
So, for what part of this racket, and do tell us what it is if not a damned racket, might you be “responsible”?
.
Mind, we asked a lot of questions, but isn’t it instructive that the best answers some folks can do is go on the defensive, complain about “solutions” when they seem incapable of articulating the problem in the first place.
The next head of ASD should be from Mississippi?
Interesting story at: ‘https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/exclusive-the-mississippi-miracle-is-real-gov-tate-reeves-says-of-soaring-educational-outcomes/ar-AA1DBZ3j …shows they improved a lot in a short period of time.
.
Doesn’t have to be Mississippi. Take a look at ‘https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/education-rankings-by-country … U.S. education ranks 31st in the world.
.
So, what would it take to bring over a crew from the top-ranked country, get them to show us how they educate their children, maybe even do it their way for a year or two, see what happens.
.
What have we got to lose?
You make my point!