Michael Tavoliero: Unifying local governance and education in Alaska

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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: The silver-lead lie, Alaska’s home rule, and the illusion of local control

Michael Tavoliero: It’s time to stop funding failure