By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO
Taking Back Alaska Series
Alaska’s education system is in crisis. But this is not merely a crisis of funding or staffing. It is a crisis of structure, accountability, and purpose. The Anchorage School District’s recent warnings about layoffs, federal grant freezes, and unstable budgeting reflect a deeper failure that cannot be solved with temporary appropriations or political theatrics.
We need structural reform rooted in the very framework our state constitution provides. The framers of Alaska’s Constitution envisioned a model of efficient, locally accountable governance that minimizes administrative duplication and consolidates public services under general-purpose governments. That vision has been abandoned.
The status quo is unsustainable and self-destruction. The Anchorage School District (ASD) operates with a budget exceeding $770 million and employs over 6,000 staff. Yet fewer than 30% of students are proficient in core subjects like math and English. This is not due to lack of funding. It is due to misalignment between spending and student outcomes. Centralized bureaucracy, rigid employment structures, and a compliance-driven culture have created a system that protects itself at the expense of the students it serves.
Meanwhile, the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) enforces one-size-fits-all mandates across a state with unmatched geographic, cultural, and economic diversity. Rural districts suffer the most, burdened by inflexible policies and high costs with few results.
A constitutional alternative led by parent-centered reform focuses on students’ futures, not the preservation of outdated bureaucracies or centralized control that burden families and educators alike. It is time to return to the constitutional blueprint laid out in Article X of the Alaska Constitution. That blueprint did not mandate permanent school districts. In fact, it envisioned their gradual absorption into boroughs to streamline governance. The goal was not to dismantle education, but to make it more responsive, more accountable, and more equitable.
I propose abolishing DEED and dissolving Alaska’s current network of school districts. In their place, we should institute Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), enabling parents to direct public funds to the education services that best meet their children’s needs. This includes public, private, religious, charter, vocational, and online programs.
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makinaffirm that states offering educational funding cannot discriminate against religious options. With ESAs, Alaska can honor constitutional public-purpose funding (Article IX, Section 6), while unleashing innovation and flexibility desperately needed in a state as complex as ours.
Borough governments, not DEED, would retain a minimal administrative role—overseeing budgeting and ensuring transparency, while parents, teachers, and communities regain control over education delivery.
No matter how you peel this onion, the real crisis in Alaska is cranialrectalinversion; a chronic case of heads buried so far in antiquated policies and structural stagnation that clear vision is no longer possible. It’s like a twisted retelling of Sisyphus meets Groundhog Day: the state keeps pushing the same bloated, underperforming education system up the hill, expecting different results, only to watch it roll back down in the form of dismal student outcomes, teacher burnout, and bureaucratic bloat. The lesson? No matter how noble the intent, doing the same thing over and over while ignoring constitutional solutions isn’t reform. It’s delusion dressed in a policy memo.
Superintendent Jharrett Bryantt’s warning letter portrays Alaska’s education funding issues because of external forces and legislative unpredictability. Yet it conveniently ignores the internal stagnation plaguing our education system. For decades, districts like ASD have clung to obsolete policies and procedural and administrative gut that prevent adaptation, innovation, and student-centered reform. Layer upon layer of outdated mandates, inflexible staffing formulas, and centralized procurement chains create systems so rigid they crumble under even minor fiscal pressure.
If public education truly operated in the interest of students, reform would have come long ago. Instead, leadership continues to double down on defunct structures, seeking more money to sustain inefficiency rather than reimagining how education is better delivered. Families are not just victims of budget cuts. They are victims of an education bureaucracy unwilling to evolve.
Moreover, Superintendent Bryantt’s letter makes no mention of one of the most consequential shifts in national education policy currently being proposed, namely, the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education and redirecting its funds through block grants directly to the states. President Donald Trump and others have advocated this model as a way to reduce federal overreach and empower state and local education systems. For Alaska, this would mean increased flexibility, reduced bureaucracy, and more locally responsive education funding. The omission of this potential policy shift in the superintendent’s letter is telling and symptomatic of a leadership class more concerned with preserving the status quo than exploring bold alternatives.
In the spirit of open dialogue, we welcome and address the concerns of those who may question this approach, recognizing that thoughtful critique strengthens meaningful reform.
Objection 1: This is just privatization by another name.
No. It is parental empowerment. ESAs don’t replace public education; they fund students directly, allowing them to access the best education possible, whether in a public or private setting. Public schools that deliver value will still thrive—but now they must compete for students based on performance, not political protection.
Objection 2: This removes accountability.
In fact, it enhances accountability. Who is more accountable than parents overseeing their child’s education? Under the current system, unelected bureaucrats and remote administrators answer to no one. ESAs realign authority to those who care the most: families.
Objection 3: It disadvantages rural students.
The opposite is true. Under ESAs, rural families can access digital learning, satellite programs, tutors, and vocational training tailored to their community’s needs, not a one-size-fits-all model crafted by government functionaries.
Objection 4: It undermines unions and educators.
It changes their role. Teachers become free agents who can start microschools, teach independently, or join schools that align with their values. Great educators will have more opportunities, not less.
A New Educational Compact
It’s time to end the cycle of bureaucratic self-preservation. We can no longer protect a system that produces underperformance, wastes resources, and erodes community trust. Let’s replace it with a model that places students at the center, parents in control, and teachers in empowered roles.
Anchorage and Alaska have a choice: continue with structural dysfunction or embrace a bold realignment with our constitutional foundations. The moment demands leadership. Let’s build the education system our children deserve.
Same song and third verse. Let’s have something else to talk about.
Hi DK, When the same song keeps playing, maybe it’s because the audience still isn’t listening. The persistent failures in our education system, declining student performance, unchecked administrative bloat, the steady out-migration of our youth, the heartbreak of watching others fall into cycles of social dependency and constitutional non-compliance, are not tired refrains to be dismissed. They are the warning sirens of a system in collapse. To wave them away is to turn our backs on the very future of Alaska. And to remain silent or condescending in the face of constitutional noncompliance is to become complicit in the slow erosion of opportunity, accountability, and hope for the next generation. If you’re tired of hearing about it, imagine how tired our children are of living through it only to discover the potential dead ends later in life. I’d love to talk about something new. But until the core structural problems are addressed, not just patched over, we will keep returning to this same verse, because the consequences are real and ongoing for Alaska’s children. If the current tune sounds repetitive, it’s because the silence from those in power has gone on far too long.
Once again Mike makes it clear he knows nothing about what transpires in the district.
It is do unfortunate that you pander to so many who go on at such length about matters they don’t understand or wish to misrepresent. Do better.
Hi Mac, It’s unfortunate that, rather than engage in a meaningful discussion about the structural failures of Alaska’s education system, some resort to deflection and condescension. The purpose of my response to Superintendent Bryantt’s letter was not to attack individuals, but to challenge a system that continues to fail Alaska’s children, academically, financially, and constitutionally. Rather than dismissing community voices with platitudes or pictorial mockery, we should be asking hard questions about why student outcomes remain stagnant despite massive spending, bloated administration, and decades of promises. If pointing out the disconnect between resources and results is “pandering,” then perhaps we need more people willing to pander to facts, not feelings. This is not about personalities. It is about the future of our children and the credibility of our public institutions. Rather than take offense at critical examination, I invite you, and anyone else concerned with real reform, to roll up your sleeves and join a constructive conversation about how we can build a system that truly delivers on the promise of education for every Alaskan student.
….. says an obvious school bureaucracy member.
Not to sound negative on any purpose yet have to comment on item # 2 and #3. Parents in the first and rural in the second.
Parents: The (50%)30 percent that are succeeding if you research, come from homes where parents oversee the children as “Mayberry” parents, always on top of what the child is accomplishing, participating with the activities. Never far behind the level of education being taught.
Hence, the remainder of the students,(Of course there are exceptions to what I write)are adrift, parents are not themselves qualified to know what to look for or take an interest in. These represent the failing and struggling children. These parents depend on the teachers to be responsible for the level of learning. Not a good look, teachers are human, with rare exception will the failing or struggling student find that “Extra help” on a substaining basis which leads in many cases, dumping the child off to “Special Ed” to rid the problem to another layer of educator. again, not a good look.
Another aside, is the successful parents bock at any divination of funds or assets to the struggling students as they perceive denial of those resources to “Their” child, children.
Rural: Come on, the Native population suffers greatly for being left behind. more so when the failing students are being taught by “Newby” teachers who dread the bush and desire to only gain enough experience and time to apply for a civilized urban district. Same with administrators. All to often Superintendent applications are in the main if Alaska, from Bush educators.
I trust I am not being too harsh, as I agree with the intent of Michael’s offering. I admire this intent and his perseverance in addressing the ills of the failed education foundation.
Cheers, Johnson-Recalled school board member, one of five additional recalled members for attempting to address what Michael is bringing to the light.
Thank you, Al, for your thoughtful and honest reflection. You touch on a painful but vital truth, one that too often goes unspoken: our education system, both urban and rural, is failing many of Alaska’s children not from lack of funding, but from a breakdown in shared responsibility and cultural alignment. You’re right to highlight the difference that parental engagement makes. The students who succeed, often in that 30%, usually come from homes where education is a priority, not just in rhetoric, but in practice. Their parents stay informed, show up, and invest their time in learning alongside their children. But for too many others, that engagement is absent; sometimes because parents don’t know how to help, and sometimes because the system has made them feel that their involvement doesn’t matter. It’s not about blame. It’s about recognizing that we’ve built a system where those who need the most support are least likely to receive it, and where overwhelmed teachers, despite their best efforts, can’t substitute for an entire missing social framework. As for rural Alaska, your point is deeply felt. The revolving door of new teachers in the bush, many of whom view rural posts as temporary stepping stones, undermines community trust and continuity. And when leadership itself often emerges from this transitory pattern, it’s no wonder the deepest needs go unmet. The people of rural Alaska deserve seasoned, committed educators, not stopgap solutions Your final note strikes a powerful chord. When parents of successful students resist redistributing resources toward struggling peers, it fractures the very idea of public education as a common good. If we hoard opportunity for our own children while denying it to others, we’re not building a just society. We’re just deepening division. You’ve seen this up close, and your experience as a recalled board member gives your words the weight of hard-earned truth. Thank you for standing with those of us still fighting to make these issues impossible to ignore. Alaska’s future depends on this shared resolve.
Michael, you may have identified the heart of the problem unwittingly with your reference “….. a breakdown in shared responsibility and cultural alignment.” The reason bureaucracies fail is because of “shared responsibility.” Individuals are never held accountable for their results. Imagine teacher’s earnings being 100% determined by student academic achievement scores. The best teachers would make serious money while sandbaggers would be washed out. Of course, the NEA would never allow such a common sense solution— paying teachers for results.
Yes… the teachers as a whole have hidden from accountability. Therein lies the problem.
Hi Lew, I think you are right on. Some are great, some are okay, but many are lost in the system.
Darlene
They are not “lost in the system.” They are hiding in it. Hiding from responsibility.
The word of the day: cranialrectalinversion, a little-known sociology practice of complacency.
Until we start managing the public school system for the children, instead of managing it as a taxpayer subsidized jobs program for adults, we will continue to have dismal education outcomes!