David Boyle: Anchorage School Board activates parent ire and places bets on more state funding

By DAVID BOYLE

Over the past six months the Anchorage School Board has wrestled with a large budget deficit—estimated at $107 million.  Solutions have ranged from closing schools and using its unrestricted fund balance, to shutting down classroom programs.

Like all Alaskans, our schools have been suffering from rapid inflation over the past four years.

Alaska schools are also suffering from the loss of thousands of students over the last few years.  

To counter the loss of students and state funding, the education establishment wants to increase the per student funding known as the base student allocation. 

The ASD administration has recommended that seven schools be closed. In the end, only two have been scheduled for closure due to parent blowback. And these two schools will not be closed; they will actually be repurposed into charter schools. There will be minimal savings from “closing” these two schools.

However, there is a source of money in the district—the unrestricted fund balance.

State law requires school districts to have a minimum of 5% of its operating budget in its unrestricted fund balance, its piggy bank, for emergencies.  

As of June 30, 2024, the district had $121,624,513 in its piggy bank. This is 18.5% of its operating budget, far exceeding the state minimum of 5%. The district plans to use $50 million of this unrestricted fund balance to help fill the budget hole.

The administration has done a good job of identifying reductions in its operating costs. It recommended that counselors, assistant principals, nurses, and librarians be reduced. These reductions do not directly affect the classroom.

The district has started its budget discussion by only looking at the FY25 adopted budget. But that FY25 budget was increased dramatically from the FY24 budget.

To get a more accurate picture, one must look at the differences in budgeting from year-to-year.  

Here is a chart showing the budgeted “certificated” staff (those with teaching credentials) for FY22 through FY25: 

There was a significant increase in classroom teachers between FY24 and FY25: 136 full time equivalents.

Note that the district compares the number of classroom teachers from FY25 to FY26, a reduction of 305.62 FTEs. But if one compares the number of classroom teachers between FY24 to FY26 there is only a reduction of 169 FTEs.

The other very interesting category is the number of “Other Certificated” positions. These are credentialed teachers who are not working in the classroom. The budget does not specify where these positions are or what their function is.

The Special Service Teacher category lists those positions that are special education. A slight increase in SPED (special education) teachers is projected for FY26. 

The district has been digging a budget hole for several years. It dug the hole even deeper when it funded 400 teacher positions with federal Covid dollars. It used one-time money for recurring salaries and benefits. The Department of Education and Early Development instructed districts not to use these Covid funds to pay for recurring costs because it would be unsustainable.

The Anchorage School District disregarded that instruction.  

Anytime the district talks about cutting teachers it is talking about cutting vacant positions — positions that are also funded.

There is a huge difference between laying off employees and cutting vacant positions. The district says it has about 200 vacant positions with additional employees retiring or moving.  So, how many actual teachers will be laid off?

Maybe none.

The district has also lost students this year.  The newly released student count shows the ASD has 41,598 students. It has lost an additional 420 students since the last school year.

And since FY16 the district has lost 6,358 students.  

Considering the loss of more than 6,000 students and cutting only vacant positions, it doesn’t make sense that the pupil/teacher ratio would be adversely impacted.  Unless that is, the district is counting the reduced vacant teacher positions in that ratio’s denominator.  That truly is misleading the public but resonates with the legislature.    

And misleading and activating the public may be just the purpose of cutting language immersion programs, middle school sports, gymnastics, swimming, the Ignite program for gifted students, and high school hockey.  Get the public’s attention and support for these programs and cry “flat funding” and “inflation” to the Legislature.

Board members Lessens and Jacobs offered an amendment that would restore all the reductions if the legislature increases the Base Student Allocation by $1,000, a cost to the State of more than $250 million. That would bring another $71 million to the district.

The $71 million would restore the pupil/teacher ratio back to the FY16 ratio. But would more students be proficient at reading and math?Here is a chart showing the pupil/teacher ratio restored to the FY16 level:

Interestingly enough, that chart almost aligns with the teachers’ union going-in position on contract negotiations on pupil/teacher ratios shown here:

It appears that the district doesn’t need the entire $1,000 BSA increase to maintain its current education programs and pupil/teacher ratio. 

Just to maintain the current classroom instruction and the FY25 pupil/teacher ratio, the district would only need a BSA increase of approximately $650, not the $1,000 it lobbies for.

This $650 BSA increase would not pay for these items which are not essential to classroom instruction:

1. Return the district to the 2016 pupil/teacher ratio (142 FTE).
2. Add the hold back teachers (those held in reserve) (16 FTE). 
3. No new elementary counselors (2.5 FTE).
4. Library assistants (7.87 FTE).
5. Principals (5 FTE).
6. Elementary Nurses (13 FTE)
7. Counselors (3.5 FTE)

Removing these FTEs does not adversely affect classroom instruction, where student learning occurs.  And the district would provide the same programs it does in this academic year.  Plus, the pupil/teacher ratio would also be the same as the current academic year.

Adding approximately $650 to the BSA for inflation purposes will allow the district to provide the same level of service to students while reducing some current unnecessary overhead (Items 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 above).

Besides, the district will still have its Diversity, Equity & Inclusion office!  

The educational system that ASD has established is failing our kids. More and more parents are taking their children out of these failing schools because they are concerned that their children are not learning, but instead are being indoctrinated.  

Programs are being maintained that do nothing to support our children learning to read and do math.   

More money will not solve the problem of a lower student population. 

More money directed at overhead support will not ensure students can read at grade level.

The Alaska Legislature may have to increase funding, but it should be outside the funding formula and earmarked for specific funding items.

David Boyle is the education writer at Must Read Alaska.

David Boyle: An unvarnished look at the Anchorage School District’s actual spending increases