Michael Tavoliero: Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act would establish parent education accounts and more

1. WOW! This would be transformational!!!
   A great plan…now…do we have some house and senate members bold enough to run with it?
   If not…can we do it by initiative?

2. We don’t want Alaska to become illiterate and uneducated like the Deep South states that also rely on religious books that contain far fetched stories and view technology as bad, though todays public education teaches how to get along, DEI and anti founding fathers instead of reading writing and arithmetic.

   Summarize; Parents are not academic based teachers.

   • Most parents don’t want to/can’t homeschool their kids and choose to send their kids to school. This proposal includes verbiage that schools or programs have to be accredited to receive funds. As far as your religious education smears, currently some of the best performing schools, testing wise, are religious based.

   • Alaska kids need practical, rigorous basics to thrive, not social engineering experiments. The Deep South jab is a distraction—Alaska’s not drowning in Bibles or shunning tech. It’s about funding and focus, not fairy tales. Parents aren’t teachers, but they see the system’s flaws and demand better.

     • You my friend are a product of social engineering.
       I agree with you on system flaws, that’s why we need reform which is what Trump is working on now at the national level., Alaska needs to do the same.

3. My only criticism is with Section 2.2 – per student amount shall be the BSA amount.
   As the author notes, Alaska spends over $19,000 per student on education, but the BSA is currently $6000. There would be a disparity in allocated and dispersed funds for education. Would either need to change the definition of BSA or change it to just “per student allocation”.
   The way funding is currently done for school districts can really only be described as fraud. Districts essentially tell the state they have twice as many students that are actually in school, because of the BSA adjustment formula.

   • Thank you for your insight. There is concern about the validity of Section 2.2, as the current language using “BSA amount” creates a significant discrepancy between the allocated and actual per-student spending. The Base Student Allocation (BSA) serves as a starting point for determining funding, but the actual amount received per student is inflated through a series of multipliers and adjustments that artificially increase district funding beyond the real student population.
     This system enables school districts to report an Average Daily Membership (ADM) figure that does not reflect actual attendance but rather a formulaic calculation designed to maximize state funding. This process, while legally sanctioned, results in funding levels that far exceed what is necessary for direct classroom instruction, allowing administrative overhead to balloon at the expense of student outcomes. The result is an inefficient and opaque system that diverts resources away from teachers and students and instead sustains a bureaucratic model that lacks accountability.
     To address this issue, the terminology in Section 2.2 could be revised from “BSA amount” to “per-student allocation” to ensure clarity and funding alignment with actual enrollment. This would prevent the continued misrepresentation of student counts and force school districts to operate under a transparent, student-centered funding model rather than one that prioritizes institutional self-preservation.
     A shift to direct per-student funding would align spending with real educational needs rather than administrative padding. It would also reduce the ability of districts to game the system by inflating ADM figures, which has led to an education funding structure that can only be described as institutionalized fraud. Ensuring that funding follows actual students rather than manipulated numbers would promote fairness, improve financial efficiency, and create a system that holds education providers accountable for student success rather than rewarding inefficiency.

4. Nice write-up. I will read it when I have time. There will be points I disagree to be sure. Right now a national melee is occurring in real time and MRAK hasn’t commented so I’m trying to think of how it will come out the occupant in the White House was not brazenly braying a glaring lie when he said Ukraine started the war between Russia and the Ukraine.

5. AEA and NEA are in denial. They believe that throwing millions of dollars year after year is making a difference. The data is CLEAR! Increasing the BSA is not the solution to educating our students and it shows in the state testing results! Accountability for all; students, teachers, parents, district and state partners; will help us realize the outcomes we
   want to see! Appropriating more money is the easy, cop-out way that keeps lining the pockets of unions and employing unnecessary people who earn a paycheck but don’t change a damn thing!

6. It is either ignorant or dishonest to say that our schools are some of the highest funded in the nation.

   We do spend quite a lot on education, but that is in part because we also ask our schools to be community centers and power plants, and those additional functions are quite expensive. What other school district in the nation operates a power plant and buys all the diesel to do so? This is the nature of life in the Alaska bush, stuff costs more than it does in Nebraska, even rural Nebraska. If the state wants to build and operate powerplants to serve schools OUTSIDE of ‘Education’ funding, I’d be all for it. But we are constitutionally obligated to operate schools if there are enough students to trigger the requirement, and in the absence of someone to buy power from, that means we also stand up a powerplant. As an AK voter, I’m not sure how I feel about operating community centers in villages around AK – but if we are going to do so, I fully support double-purposing the school rather than building and maintaining a separate facility for elections and whatever other official business we use schools for.

   Plus, those tiny/barely-constitutionally-required schools? No shitake sherlock, running a school with 15 students costs WAY more per pupil than running a school with 1500 students.

   We don’t fund our schools the VERY lowest in the nation, but we are darn close, I think the most recent figure I saw was that controlled for unique AK costs, our effective school funding puts us at 49 out of 50, second LOWEST in the Nation.

   I actually like a lot of your proposal… but your intro leaves me convinced that you’re lazy, dumb, or dishonest when it comes to diagnosing the current state of our schools.

   • It’s a proposal, starting point, costs proportionally for rural and urban will be negotiated. Transportation can change a little or a lot. Teachers will get paid better, parents will be defaulted more responsibility resulting in behavior and academic improvement. The current system is broken! as stated.

7. Great beginnings!
   Sounds like the state is off the hook for transportation and families will be forced to be more active in their children’s education (with taking kids to/from school).
   I wonder if some of the wholesome homeschoolers will go on annual WWII field trips to Hawaii to firsthand learn about Pearl Harbor with their PEA’s?

   A huge part of schools budgets are gobbled up by speech, OT, resource, etc., and related services. This PEA most likely won’t cover all costs for some students meaning we taxpayers won’t be on the hook.

   One question: are we worried about districts lowering teacher qualifications considerably to be competitive in the job market? I could imagine some needy districts having very few qualifications to “win” the hire. It may all shake out on its own…just a thought.

8. This is very comprehensive! thanks for the effort injected here. It’s a plan that can evolve. Pressure on our current lawmakers that insist on throwing money at the current dying system will have to be constant. Let’s call it the “T Plan”. It will soon be referenced that way all throughout our state. T for teacher, T for transition, T for Tavoliero, what does it matter?

9. Good job. Very thorough! Your proposed legislation has my vote. Money follows the student. Not a new concept but one that needs implementation Let the howling begin!

10. Beautiful work, Michael. So many good things here.

    You may still run into issues with the last part of the State Constitution: “No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” Might need an amendment or to expressly designate the funds as a voucher program which would render the State Constitution’s verbiage ineffective?

    Also, can there be something in there to limit the size of administrative bureaucracy? ASD is very bloated with non-teaching admin.

11. Michael, I get it that you’re trying to eliminate most of the admin statewide – and your plan does that, by transferring the administration costs to local communities and cooperatives. That aspect alone kills your good idea, because you give no accountability for the funds or the resulting hodge-podge of education quality. Local districts will be forced to hire even more admin staff to duplicate each other’s efforts. Never underestimate the power and evil of an entrenched bureaucracy.
    Like so many libertarian ideals, this one too suffers from assuming that each person will act for their own and their communities’ benefit based on their inherent goodness – humans are sinners and act for selfish reasons. Most parents have put up with the public schools because they have no time to do otherwise. Homeschool works great if you have dedicated parents, but most just don’t have time and some who try don’t have teaching skills. We also need a cultural change – to one that values education, critical thinking, logic, problem solving, and basic living skills. The current education establishment discourages learning.
    Can your idea be redeemed? I believe so – but it needs some accountability structure. Flesh your idea out more completely please.

    • Hi Richard,

      Your concerns are entirely valid, and I appreciate your willingness to engage in a real discussion about the Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act. Let’s address each point while refining the proposal to include the accountability measures necessary to ensure both efficiency and educational quality.
      1. Addressing the Administration Cost Concern
      Yes, this proposal dramatically reduces statewide administrative overhead, but it does not shift unchecked administrative bloat to local communities. Instead, it empowers local governance structures to decide how much administration is actually necessary—rather than forcing them to comply with a costly, one-size-fits-all bureaucracy dictated by the state.
      Rather than duplicating efforts, the model encourages regional education cooperatives that pool resources to provide shared administrative services (payroll, compliance, special education coordination) while eliminating unnecessary layers of middle management. This is not a chaotic “hodge-podge” but a structured decentralization that gives parents and local communities more say in how their money is spent.
      To address accountability concerns, the bill would require:
      • Annual public financial reports showing how education funds are spent.
      • Statewide auditing standards to ensure fiscal responsibility while preserving local autonomy.
      • A direct funding model for parents, which ties dollars to student enrollment and outcomes rather than bureaucratic overhead.
      2. The Bureaucracy Problem
      You are absolutely right—bureaucracies are inherently self-serving and difficult to dismantle. That’s why any reform must be structurally designed to prevent bureaucratic re-expansion at the local level. The state currently mandates compliance-heavy regulations that force school districts to expand admin just to manage red tape. This bill removes the red tape, eliminating the need for administrative bloat in the first place.
      3. Parental Involvement & Educational Freedom
      Yes, some parents will not have the time or skills to homeschool—but this proposal is not just about homeschooling. It allows for multiple pathways:
      • Public charter schools and microschools that can operate with greater flexibility and parental oversight.
      • Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) that let parents use a portion of their child’s education funding to select private, online, or specialized educational options.
      • Stronger vocational and technical education programs, which are often deprioritized under the current system.
      Parents should not have to accept a failing public system just because they are too busy to challenge it. This reform gives parents options, not mandates—allowing them to stay in traditional public schools if they choose, but finally putting real competitive pressure on schools to improve.
      4. The Need for Cultural Change
      You’re spot on—without a cultural shift that values critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-sufficiency, no policy change will fully succeed. The current system prioritizes standardized test scores and bureaucratic compliance over actual learning. This model shifts the focus toward outcome-based education where students are assessed based on mastery of skills, not arbitrary time-in-seat requirements.
      5. Ensuring Accountability
      You requested a more complete accountability structure—here’s what that looks like:
      • School performance transparency: Every school, public or private, will report standardized academic progress metrics and financial efficiency reports.
      • Direct parental oversight: By allowing education dollars to follow the student, parents will become direct stakeholders in school accountability.
      • State oversight of financial integrity: While administration is localized, the state still audits public funds, preventing fraud and abuse.
      • Education market incentives: Schools that fail to produce strong results will naturally lose students and funding, forcing them to improve or shut down.
      Final Thought
      Your skepticism is warranted, but status quo failure is not an option. The current system is failing Alaskan students, wasting taxpayer dollars, and enriching bureaucrats. If we accept that bureaucracies always win, we accept permanent mediocrity.
      This bill is not a libertarian fantasy—it is an evidence-based approach that empowers communities while maintaining oversight. If we demand the same accountability from local schools that we fail to demand from state bureaucracies, we might just start seeing real improvement.
      Would you be open to discussing what additional accountability measures you think would make this proposal stronger and explain them?

Comments are closed.