By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO
Alaska’s current education system stands in sharp contrast to the unified, accountable governance envisioned by the Framers of the 1955 Constitutional Convention. Article X was designed to eliminate redundant special-purpose districts, especially school districts, by integrating them into borough governments. The goal was clear: reduce administrative duplication, empower local control, and ensure equitable public services. Today, that vision has been lost.
The state now supports dozens of independent school districts, each duplicating costly administrative functions without delivering improved outcomes. Rural and remote communities suffer most, facing high per-student costs, limited access to specialized instruction, and chronic teacher turnover. The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) worsens the problem by enforcing a one-size-fits-all model that ignores the state’s vast geographic and cultural diversity.
Boroughs are left funding school districts they cannot oversee, undermining accountability and strategic planning. The Framers never intended school districts to be permanent or autonomous; they expected boroughs to take on educational responsibilities to promote efficiency, equity, and transparency.
Reform is further blocked by public education unions and entrenched special interests that resist change to protect political influence. These groups oppose consolidation and accountability, prioritize bureaucracy over outcomes, and dominate school boards and legislative policy, preserving a broken status quo.
Adding to the system’s inflexibility is Alaska’s “Mini-Blaine Amendment,” which prohibits public funds from supporting religious or private schools. While Article IX, Section 6 permits spending for any legitimate public purpose, the Mini-Blaine restriction hinders modern innovations like Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). Originally rooted in 19th-century anti-Catholic bias, it now obstructs parental choice and customized education options.
However, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings (Espinoza and Carson) affirm that once states fund education, they cannot exclude religious providers. These decisions create a clear path for Alaska to adopt ESAs, empowering families to direct education funding toward services that best meet their children’s needs, especially vital in underserved rural areas.
Until Alaska reforms its education system to reflect its constitutional foundations, it will continue to sacrifice fiscal responsibility, democratic governance, and student success to preserve a system designed to serve institutions, not children.
I. A Unified System of Local Government
At the heart of Article X lies a mandate: “maximum local self-government with a minimum of local government units.” The Framers designed boroughs to serve as broad-based, general-purpose governments, capable of assuming key responsibilities like education, roads, and planning. Their goal was to eliminate the duplicative jurisdictions and unaccountable authorities that plagued other states.
School districts, road boards, and similar entities were to be temporary mechanisms, used only until borough governments matured. In time, these special-purpose bodies were expected to be absorbed into the broader borough framework, streamlining services and ensuring public accountability through elected assemblies.
During the 1955-1956 Alaska Constitutional Convention, the delegates clearly intended to eliminate duplicative and overlapping local government structures and favored general-purpose boroughs over special-purpose districts, particularly school districts.
Key Supporting Evidence from the 1955 Convention:
- Delegates’ Intent to Avoid Duplication:
The delegates sought to avoid the “crazy quilt” of overlapping jurisdictions seen elsewhere by creating the borough system—designed to simplify governance and prevent a maze of redundant taxing authorities. - Integration of School Districts into Boroughs:
The delegates saw the absorption of school districts by boroughs as essential to a unified system, reducing duplication while allowing flexible, locally accountable governance suited to Alaska’s unique geography. Boroughs would assume functions like education, previously handled by separate districts. - Challenges of Implementation Without Timetable:
While the constitution did not specify a timetable for borough creation, the delegates were aware this would create a transitional period during which school districts, public utility districts and other special service districts would continue to operate. However, they anticipated that these would eventually be replaced or absorbed as the borough system matured.
The delegates’ intent was not only to favor general-purpose over special-purpose governance but also to reduce administrative duplication, particularly in the realm of education. The records of the 1955–1956 Alaska Constitutional Convention accurately reflect this vision. While some delegates favored maintaining independent school districts, the prevailing and adopted constitutional model supported integration into boroughs, a foundational component of Alaska’s unique local government structure.
II. Education: A State Duty, Locally Delivered
Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution assigns the responsibility for public education to the State. However, this did not imply permanent separation from local government. Rather, the Framers envisioned a transitional period during which school districts would serve as administrative tools until boroughs were able to assume educational governance.
The Convention records make clear: school districts were not meant to be autonomous, permanent structures. Once capable, boroughs were expected to administer education directly by aligning with the overall goal of unified, locally accountable government.
III. A System in Constitutional Tension
Despite this intent, Alaska’s current system maintains structurally independent school districts, even within organized boroughs. These districts possess:
- Independent elections and governance;
- Budgetary and policy autonomy;
- Tax-levying or tax-requesting authority;
- Little or no integration with borough operations.
As a result, residents in organized boroughs must navigate two separate local governments: one for education, and another for all other services. This fragmentation directly contradicts Article X’s call for unified governance and minimal tax-levying jurisdictions.
Furthermore, it raises a constitutional question: does this dual structure, particularly within organized boroughs, violate the Framers’ intent and the Constitution’s structural mandates?
IV. The Constitutional Conflict
This question is not theoretical. It is foundational. It hinges on whether the Legislature has exceeded its discretion under Article VII by embedding education within a permanent parallel structure outside the borough system.
Legal precedent supports the Framers’ original design:
- In Mobil Oil Corp. v. Local Boundary Commission, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the principle of consolidated local governance through the borough system. The Court explicitly affirmed the Framers’ intent behind Article X of the Alaska Constitution, recognizing that boroughs were designed to unify and streamline local government functions. The decision stands as a clear judicial endorsement of the borough model as the constitutional foundation for local governance in Alaska.
- In State v. A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary, the Court held that all exercises of public power must conform to constitutional structure, even if functionally sound. The A.L.I.V.E. decision is a powerful affirmation that constitutional form is not optional, even when the substance or function of a governmental action seems justified. The legislature cannot circumvent Article II’s procedures, and no branch of government may lawfully claim power except through the constitutional structure.
Today’s structure undermines both constitutional design and democratic accountability. The existence of independent school districts in organized boroughs fragments power, duplicates governance, and weakens public oversight.
V. A Constitutional Remedy Is Due
Alaska’s Framers sought to create a system where education and other local services were delivered by unified, locally accountable borough governments, not scattered among autonomous special-purpose districts. While temporary flexibility was allowed, permanent fragmentation was explicitly rejected.
The current system, particularly within organized boroughs, fails to realize this vision. It may comply functionally with the State’s duty to provide public education under Article VII, but it fails structurally under Article X’s mandate for unified local governance.
To restore constitutional integrity, Alaska must:
- Transition education governance into borough structures;
- Eliminate overlapping authorities where feasible;
- Ensure that the delivery of education remains accountable to locally elected governments.
A constitutional challenge is not only possible, it is necessary to fulfill the promise of Alaska’s founding vision.
MICHAEL TAVOLIERO:
Maybe I just need more coffee, but could you provide real-time examples of how the school district within a borough is fragmented?
Thanks.
Besides the political realities, there is a duplicative administration. We see this in the MOA and ASD, Matanuska-Susitna Borough vs. Mat-Su Borough School District (MSBSD), Kenai Peninsula Borough vs. Kenai Peninsula Borough School District (KPBSD), and Fairbanks North Star Borough vs. FNSB School District, as examples, where boroughs and school districts maintain separate HR, legal, IT, and finance staff. There is an accountability gap between borough assemblies raising taxes; school boards spend the money. Voters struggle to assign responsibility. Policy misalignment between borough-level planning (e.g., economic development, land use) often isn’t coordinated with educational strategy and relies on borough credit yet school districts spend and spend, very much like a 17-year-old with Dad’s credit card (MOA & ASD are excellent examples). By highlighting how reform measures are consistently blocked during elections, often by special interests, you can see how the current model perpetuates fragmentation at the expense of voters, taxpayers, and students, especially when you consider school board elections are every 3 years. Alaska’s three-year school board election cycle contributes to chronic instability in educational governance, resulting in low voter turnout and additional administrative costs. Long-term planning and the fueling of politicized campaigns, often driven by unions and special interests, undermines consistent accountability. In rural areas, the impact is even more severe, where high staff turnover and fragile community trust are compounded student focus and outcome improvement. This instability is further complicated by the fact that school districts are unable to exempt themselves from the Alaska Public Employment Relations Act (PERA). This limits local flexibility in negotiating labor contracts and adapting to changing fiscal or educational needs, tying the hands of districts regardless of community priorities or budget constraints. Rather than fostering responsive governance, this rigid framework creates confusion, policy reversals, and a system unable to deliver sustained improvement for students. Public education unions often negotiate directly with school boards, shielding contracts from borough oversight even when boroughs fund them. It is also the antithesis of the Framers’ intent. These examples demonstrate a constitutional misalignment: boroughs were intended to unify services and governance, but today’s system preserves functionally independent school districts within borough boundaries. The result is fragmented authority, blurred accountability, duplicated costs, and diminished public control, especially when and where reform is most needed. But the most important point is our children’s future. We witness their future’s erosion by the politicization of school districts adhering to principles and policies which have little bearing on performance and outcome. Do you like it black or with cream and sugar?
On the surface after a couple of reads, remain confused. We are an organized Borough (Ketchikan) with the two separate bodies. Currently and likely for the foreseeable future, both the School Board and the Assembly are favoring a more liberal slant to governance and education. (Study policy to the point of the second coming over addressing academic improvement) and (what more arts can be created for local funds distributed for entertainment._)
Please, I’m not against or for this change,Too old! It is a result of economics of the times for most of Alaska. private enterprise stagnation vs continued governmental growth.
Combining the two bodies will be beneficial to the community liberals allowing control of the single body vs; the chance voters will override them for at least one of the bodies to provide challenge where appropriate.
Cheers
This writer has been there, served on both Assembly and School Board.
Hi Al,
I do miss Southeast. As the former city manager of Saxman, you don’t need to remind of the incumbent changes to the Left, we are seeing in Southeast. Abolishing the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) and dismantling the bureaucratic web of school districts would free Alaska’s education system from a costly, top-heavy structure that has failed to deliver results. Despite massive per-student spending, academic outcomes remain some of the worst in the nation. Centralized mandates and disconnected school boards have proven incapable of responding to the diverse needs of Alaskan communities, especially rural and Indigenous ones. It’s time to restore both fiscal sanity and local empowerment. Replacing this bureaucracy with a parent-centered model, anchored by Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), would establish true accountability by making families the decision-makers. With direct control over public education funds, parents could choose the schools, services, tutors, or programs best suited to their children. Boroughs could retain limited administrative and reporting roles, but the real leadership would come from the ground up, families investing in outcomes, not administrators managing systems. Of course, this will not happen overnight once instituted, the transition will take a little time, but with persistence, parent involvement behavior will prevail over bureaucracy every time. When funding follows the child, not the system, it aligns incentives toward excellence and innovation. Parents, not distant agencies or entrenched unions, become the architects of their community’s educational future. And that’s what real local self-government looks like.
Great ideas, Michael but obviously most people in AK like the education system as it is. After working very hard to try to elect conservative legislators we had a split, and Republicans well known for their union leaders walked across the isle. Then you had Republicans in the minority override the Governor on the education bill he vetoed! So, we can write all the great articles we want but until true conservatives get out and vote in numbers it will never happen!
Sadly, you are right…but never quit! I’ll keep writing until we as Alaskans begin to realize and understand there is so much more to Alaska than its bureaucracy.
Michael Tavoliero’s call to consolidate Alaska’s independent school districts under borough governments raises some serious concerns—not just about feasibility, but about who gets to make decisions in public education and who gets left out.
While there’s value in streamlining services and reducing redundancy, we should be cautious about proposals that take control away from the people most directly affected by education policy: local families, educators, and school employees. Replacing school boards with borough assemblies may sound efficient on paper, but it risks sidelining the very communities that live with the outcomes every day. A distant borough government may not understand or prioritize the needs of an isolated village school or a unique regional program.
Tavoliero frames public education unions and local school boards as obstacles to progress—but these are elected representatives and working professionals advocating for students, fair funding, and accountable staffing. Stripping them of their influence isn’t reform—it’s disenfranchisement.
The Alaska Constitution does emphasize local self-governance. But local school boards are self-governance. They’re a direct line from the classroom to the ballot box. Moving those decisions into borough governments or state-mandated structures removes that connection and places more power in the hands of general-purpose governments that may not prioritize or even fully understand public education.
And while the Mini-Blaine Amendment may have historical baggage, it also protects public resources from being diverted to private and religious institutions—ensuring public oversight and equity in how taxpayer dollars are spent. Repealing it to pursue education vouchers or “Education Savings Accounts” risks creating a two-tiered system, further draining resources from already underfunded rural and special needs schools.
If Alaska truly wants to improve educational outcomes, we should start by listening to the people who use and work within the system every day, not centralizing power away from them. Fix what needs fixing—yes—but do it with the people, not around them.
Thank you, Rick, for your thoughtful response. You’ve raised important concerns about local representation, educational equity, and the role of school boards. These are concerns I respect deeply. However, my proposal isn’t about stripping communities of their voice; it’s about realigning Alaska’s educational governance with the constitutional vision our framers outlined, one of streamlined, accountable, and equitable local government. Article X of the Alaska Constitution was explicit: general-purpose boroughs were meant to unify services, including education, to avoid the inefficiencies and fragmentation we now face. The current system, with dozens of independent districts duplicating administrative structures, is neither efficient nor equitable, particularly for the state and rural students who consistently face higher costs, fewer resources, and lower outcomes. Borough governance doesn’t mean silencing local voices. It means placing educational oversight within a broader, democratically elected framework that can coordinate funding, planning, and accountability more effectively. As it stands, boroughs are required to fund school districts they have no authority over, a disconnect that undermines both fiscal responsibility and public trust. More to the point, if you have read my columns, I believe both the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) as well as all 54 school districts, should be abolished in favor of a centralized state funding agency (much much smaller), which deposits education funds into parents’ Education Savings Accounts (ESA). Neither DEED nor the 54 school districts educate Alaska’s children. Frankly the connection between parents, students and teachers is broken. The methodology I am endorsing is the most economical and productive method to repair the disaster known as Alaska education. Despite spending among the highest per-student amounts in the nation, Alaska consistently ranks near the bottom in academic proficiency. On average, only about 32% of Alaska’s students are proficient or advanced in core subjects like English language arts and math, with slightly better outcomes in science at 37%. National assessments reflect an even more troubling picture. Alaska ranked 49th in 4th-grade reading and math, and 46th in 8th-grade math on the NAEP. These low proficiency rates persist across urban and rural areas, suggesting a systemic failure rather than isolated underperformance. At the same time, Alaska’s per-pupil spending was approximately $20,191 in 2022, roughly 29% above the national average. In some reports, that figure approaches $22,000, with funding drawn from state, local, and federal sources. This mismatch between investment and outcome highlights inefficiencies in the current education structure and underscores the urgent need for reform. High costs with low returns not only burden taxpayers but also shortchange Alaska’s students and communities. Also don’t forget the out-migration of youth from our state. Why is that happening? Regarding education unions and boards: I do not question their dedication, but we must also be honest about the resistance to reform that protects institutional interests over student outcomes. A system that cannot adapt, or even discuss adaptation, because of political entrenchment is one that puts itself above the needs of families and learners. And is frankly, self-destructive. On the issue of the Mini-Blaine Amendment, I agree that public funds must be spent with care and oversight. But recent Supreme Court rulings have made clear that states cannot discriminate against religious options if they fund private education generally. Additionally, the Mini-Blaine amendments were discriminatory and evolved into not just discriminating against Catholics but all religious and private organizations. This is not just sophomoric, but designed to limit public education from achieving its goals of empowering students to reach their full potential and contribute to a stronger, more equitable society. Besides, public resources are already being used, directly and indirectly, to support religious or private entities, often with judicial or legislative approval. The critical issue is not whether public support exists, but under what conditions it remains constitutional, equitable, and transparent. Education Savings Accounts, when designed with strong accountability, do not dismantle public education, they empower parents, especially in areas where the system is failing or inaccessible. We are seeing this today with education, health care and welfare. This isn’t about centralizing power. It’s about rethinking how we deliver on the promise of education in a way that is fair, sustainable, and consistent with both our constitutional principles and the needs of Alaska’s diverse communities. Let’s not preserve structures for their own sake; let’s build a system that works for every student.
Rick, again. No, you can’t take our union’ ‘ bought and paid I for Power!! Away,you miserable peasants,not if you know what’s good for you! Us union bosses will tell you what you will be allowed to do with the tax money that is right fully ours! like control of your children’s futures!!