Friday, January 2, 2026
Home Blog Page 1386

Did PBS find cause of Alaska students’ poor test scores? Climate change?

HOT WEATHER MAKING USA STUPIDER

If we’re to believe PBS science reporting, then climate change may be to blame for Alaska’s students performing worse than ever.

That would explain then why, with the Arctic warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, Alaska’s students have fallen further behind in their scoring on the standardized PEAKS test they took last spring.

Students in Alaska did no better on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2017. Only 32 percent of students in Alaska performed at or above the national NAEP Proficient level in math.



[See more about Alaska’s NAEP math trends here]

PBS’s science headline reports, “The hotter the planet grows, the less children are learning.” They’ve got science to prove it, as well as anecdotal evidence from a teacher or two.

Of course, it makes sense. Everyone feels more sluggish when the temperatures soar, which is why offices are kept at a more ideal temperature range of 68-74 degrees.

But a Cornell Study showed that 77-degree offices actually reduced errors and are better for business.

What’s an eager science believer to believe?

PBS reports that for every 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in outdoor temperature over a year, there’s a 1 percent reduction in student learning.

Denver High School French teacher Tiffany Choi says the current heat wave in Denver is making the students sleepy.

“Today was a little bit hot, so I noticed kids were very sleepy and they were having to get up to drink water quite often. If you are dehydrated, and you have to keep going to the water fountain, that can take away from their classroom experience,” Choi told the reporter.

The heat wave in Colorado led to the following PBS reportage:

“The connection between lost learning and a greater number of hot days is one more example of how climate change is already affecting our lives — and it’s an alarm bell for what we stand to lose in the future. Humans still have time to allay the worst consequences of continued global warming. But unless significant changes occur in the next decade — which seem more and more unlikely — the world will be locked into an inescapable period of heat waves unlike our species has ever seen.”

The report cited further proof: “Hotter Southern counties — like in Florida and Texas — showed lower test scores than counties in the North, even after controlling for other socioeconomic factors like family income, county economic status or local pollution.”

“Aside from glimpsing what this limbo period will be mean for young students and their ability to learn, the study adds to hefty debate around how developed nations will be influenced by global warming. The prominent theory is low-income countries will bear the brunt of consequences, but this study and others point toward nuanced calamities for places like the U.S.,” says the PBS report.

In other spurious correlation news, Great Alaska Schools, the organization that advocates for more money for schools, last year blamed funding for the low test scores:

“I think that (the numbers) tell us that our schools are struggling to keep up with the low funding that they’ve received from the Legislature over the past few years,” Aaron Poe of Great Alaska Schools told a reporter. “There really have been some pretty significant cuts over the past few years and I think we’re starting to see some of that now with these low test scores.”

[Read: Are Alaska’s schools and educational desert?]

Must Read Alaska’s crack research team ran the numbers on state education rankings and temperature and found that Alaska, with the lowest average temperatures in the United States also ranks 47th out of 50 for education achievement, according to U.S. News and World Report:

While on the other hand, Alaska, with its low educational ranking, would do well in a Zombie Apocalypse, according to our research team, which provided this stunning analysis:

Listicle: How Alaska healthcare costs compare with other states

13

People living in Alaska spend the most on healthcare in the country, and more than double what people in Hawaii spend, according a report on the website  The Senior List.

Using data from the Healthcare Cost Institute the study tells Alaskans who are on private insurance what they already know too well: The cost of medical care in the 49th state can be budget crushing.

Here’s how the 50 states and D.C. compare for health care spending:

1. Alaska – $7,469
2. West Virginia – $6,813
3. South Dakota – $6,733
4. New Hampshire – $6,720
5. Wyoming – $6,695
6. New Jersey – $6,402
7. Wisconsin – $6,355
8. New York – $6,335
9. South Carolina – $6,233
10. Connecticut – $6,232
11. North Dakota – $6,131
12. Vermont – $6,103
13 Texas – $6,057
14. Indiana – $6,043
15. Maine – $5,993
16. Minnesota – $5,988
17. Ohio – $5,975
18. Delaware – $5,805
19. Nebraska – $5,772
20. Pennsylvania – $5,696
21. Georgia – $5,668
22. Florida – $5,615
23. Louisiana – $5,577
24. Kentucky – $5,566
25. North Carolina – $5,532
26. Rhode Island – $5,508
27. Washington, D.C. – $5,488
28. Colorado – $5,487
29. Illinois – $5,478
30. California – $5,466
31. Idaho – $5,458
32. Virginia – $5,455
33. Oklahoma – $5,427
34. Massachusetts – $5,426
35. New Mexico – $5,408
36. Mississippi – $5,385
37. Iowa – $5,364
38. Washington – $5,348
39. Montana – $5,336
40. Tennessee – $5.306
41. Missouri – $5,184
42. Oregon – $5,112
43. Alabama – $5,031
44. Nevada – $5,028
45. Arizona – $4,962
46. Michigan – $4,961
47. Maryland – $4,919
48. Kansas – $4,887
49. Arkansas – $4,608
50. Utah – $4,499
51. Hawaii – $3,626

From the Healthcare Cost Institute, a breakdown of average prices for common services shows what those services cost in 2013 through 2017 in every state and D.C. (this table is not particularly readable on a smart phone.) The 2017 Health Care Cost and Utilization Report shows that spending per privately insured person grew by 4.2 percent, the second year in a row of spending growth over four percent. Price increases were the primary driver. The report covers the period 2013 through 2017 and includes claims data from four national insurance companies: Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente, and UnitedHealthcare.​ 

Download the data files here.

Annual Average Price by State by Service Category
Inpatient Outpatient Professional Services Prescription Drugs
State 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
AK 22,959.98 26,428.35 30,499.98 33,385.15 31,319.86 685.27 652.24 699.91 739.22 732.18 214.7 213.83 228.57 236.42 238.66 86.31 101.78 112.06 116.9 112.83
AL 13,317.90 14,701.49 14,961.42 16,675.18 16,206.03 394.95 416.3 423.8 433.72 459.44 84.67 85.93 86.99 93.76 95.56 76.94 80.53 85.85 93.33 96.5
AR 12,218.49 12,811.20 13,478.52 14,414.34 14,996.46 361.54 377.18 376.5 383.98 396.64 85.07 86.59 90.55 93.98 95.7 71.96 78.66 84.37 92.04 94.59
AZ 15,627.47 15,583.64 17,130.65 18,303.41 19,013.65 613.98 674.5 683.41 715.37 769.22 89.04 90.86 92.67 101.36 106.05 86.59 92.2 99.33 104.41 106.43
CA 26,316.75 27,314.91 28,826.98 30,345.91 32,010.27 711.8 782.82 818.03 838.9 892.7 99.24 103.37 106.43 111.68 118.61 74.79 80.56 89.59 92.9 91.78
CO 18,528.69 19,187.43 20,639.93 20,857.25 22,121.56 635.14 661.89 682 698.08 738.5 100.14 103.12 107.21 113.04 117.81 93.8 99.34 107.02 112.94 113.67
CT 17,265.71 18,583.23 19,686.15 21,022.89 22,306.06 328.4 352.43 373.04 379.84 406.39 113.03 115.93 120.34 125.16 130.64 102.59 111.39 121.16 127.48 129.38
DC 14,681.01 14,604.64 18,325.86 16,653.51 18,347.22 528.26 569.59 566.78 584.7 615.81 92.45 96.22 99.91 104.7 105.21 116.99 131.62 150.26 162.36 171.34
DE 18,912.75 18,903.41 21,917.02 23,402.56 21,783.13 564.01 602.74 613.44 648.17 605.08 94.68 96.64 100.01 105.26 109.28 92.82 100.58 110.95 108.23 113.13
FL 16,326.69 17,210.71 18,128.91 19,210.90 20,230.51 594.68 633.91 673.17 699.89 743 91.89 94.96 99.21 104.24 108.94 98.61 104.38 111.44 113.71 112.87
GA 15,414.04 16,135.84 16,661.19 18,249.91 19,173.94 557.02 605.74 641.92 670.64 698.68 97.65 100.28 104.05 110.36 114.57 90.56 94.95 102.85 109.16 110.29
HI 18,373.60 20,638.76 18,618.15 32,559.01 25,545.72 539.52 527.28 559.32 560.69 637.37 87.63 80.06 84.78 94.24 101.77 89.66 94.14 109.66 107.9 91.9
IA 13,147.20 14,324.85 15,021.71 15,116.14 16,623.28 381.37 397.53 403.84 422.73 456.95 106.89 111.54 113.74 118 120.85 73.09 75.84 81.47 88 88.46
ID 16,953.81 18,565.74 19,259.38 20,388.83 21,835.34 463.17 501.98 504.57 508.96 526.99 125.1 125.8 129.38 132.34 134.38 85.27 88.4 95.7 107.04 104.5
IL 16,240.67 17,069.28 17,312.40 17,634.44 18,470.22 447.33 467.29 460.95 446.93 447.15 103.25 105.22 107.46 111.74 115.34 87.42 93.68 103.11 109.32 111.5
IN 19,339.21 20,664.45 21,293.61 21,683.81 23,405.69 555.21 572.94 586.53 605.52 610.35 99.22 102.24 105.79 111.99 117.62 78.52 84.15 88.61 95.52 96.69
KS 15,237.92 15,065.86 15,731.48 16,310.24 17,261.83 466.98 477.91 480.58 477.62 498.89 95.95 97.42 99.11 98.75 101.76 81.45 85.2 91.62 96.59 98.9
KY 14,646.74 15,633.02 15,363.01 16,512.22 16,623.89 500.06 539.6 493.56 488.44 511.33 79.24 80.99 88.6 93.52 98.63 74.8 80.3 85.78 90.62 93.7
LA 14,025.16 14,577.48 14,791.49 15,219.48 16,306.23 361.34 364.13 354.87 348.98 369.71 96.6 99.17 103.7 108.64 110.37 82.34 87.32 96.16 97 97.1
MA 14,643.16 15,868.33 16,083.55 16,321.31 17,514.18 255.68 270.43 275.95 280.68 290.28 113.94 118.03 123.03 129.45 137.49 83.71 95.02 101.72 111.57 116.24
MD 13,402.95 13,718.46 14,439.37 14,761.70 15,803.54 505.46 528.83 522.57 525.27 551.95 85.74 88.44 90.74 95.91 100.52 92.05 99.39 108.68 113.08 116.54
ME 19,690.95 21,651.54 22,953.96 25,059.05 25,937.33 362.27 395.58 419.7 437.64 473.98 106.55 110.18 113.73 117.09 122.74 77.86 85.2 92.23 100.31 100.95
MI 15,537.36 15,971.32 16,669.98 16,426.95 17,205.09 378.91 388.28 399.6 417.04 433.96 91.94 94.37 99.79 102.89 107.53 79.8 85.18 92.21 98.34 100.34
MN 16,206.54 17,764.22 17,923.36 19,217.63 20,650.79 459.38 493.4 534.63 567.18 579.56 128.97 133.53 137.58 143.52 149.68 80.81 85.64 88.88 96.37 103.67
MO 13,296.87 14,817.76 15,354.25 16,676.67 16,752.89 357.98 372.7 406.63 404.06 432.1 93.32 96.23 99.03 102.85 105.19 81.4 86.25 92.73 99.13 104.08
MS 13,555.23 14,226.21 13,911.80 14,869.19 15,567.06 441.99 463.11 478.91 483.37 528.08 93.86 94.95 96.44 102.23 104.49 81.22 88.08 89.56 96.16 95.14
MT 19,196.40 18,116.93 22,752.93 22,605.30 20,881.81 456.71 487.73 455.7 454.55 489 134.46 140.07 146.04 146.14 150.03 78.56 85.79 85.25 96.09 93.73
NC 16,624.83 17,213.67 17,874.64 18,232.06 18,146.54 617.26 661.07 675.34 686.85 674.57 97.03 101.16 105.06 110.16 112.5 86.89 90.28 99.53 105.39 107.83
ND 16,217.38 16,632.17 15,947.47 21,385.48 18,209.48 498.05 501.76 563.49 567.31 606.86 125.29 126.81 129.73 138.57 149.28 66.41 69.44 82.97 94.93 97.99
NE 16,063.98 16,671.29 17,548.52 18,176.55 19,613.33 481.54 494.38 504.63 527.74 543.27 106.57 110.49 111.09 111.33 118.72 82.5 87.58 95.57 102.06 100.24
NH 18,493.43 20,125.19 20,799.95 22,460.02 23,050.47 374.19 390.74 401.29 406.98 431.89 132.27 137.44 143.23 153.88 158.93 88.99 94.47 100.38 110.8 113.71
NJ 16,581.95 17,869.63 18,872.45 20,339.46 21,047.91 528.28 532.44 535.2 540.39 570.77 99.57 102.84 106.21 109.32 112.96 113.16 123.58 135.73 140.14 142.58
NM 16,464.69 16,864.53 17,663.26 21,606.93 19,582.68 457.99 497.28 502.99 511.71 460.16 107.85 109.22 113.07 122.13 128.58 77.58 81.91 94.24 102.28 100.97
NV 15,851.71 18,314.09 18,975.94 19,234.93 19,280.72 667.84 756.22 772.67 780.69 831.45 94.38 96.34 99.65 105.88 109.69 88.26 95.15 106.98 112.62 114.76
NY 16,816.23 18,491.09 20,086.75 21,559.39 23,626.52 327.32 341.86 358.96 379.68 424.08 100.33 102.15 105.88 109.73 112.46 109.92 121.39 134.25 139.92 146.17
OH 16,254.70 17,159.54 18,972.70 19,661.49 20,400.51 374.61 403.19 412.96 426.06 454.66 94.93 97.14 101.44 109.25 114.35 82.61 87 93.91 99.99 102.98
OK 14,918.45 15,235.60 15,464.19 17,692.77 18,484.44 515.93 535.93 541.55 547.68 569.91 87.96 87.48 90.88 97.72 98.52 83.77 87.69 94.27 101.1 100.07
OR 19,290.51 20,985.82 20,780.72 21,711.66 23,143.93 403.95 414.44 422.01 429.83 476.62 124.92 127.01 130.28 134.83 137.17 78.67 84.48 94.77 101.88 105.21
PA 16,391.48 17,685.91 17,617.06 18,358.58 19,209.29 364.71 384.3 392.4 405.3 442.42 96.86 100.9 102 108.64 111.16 88.35 96.69 107.29 112.89 115.36
RI 16,437.85 16,637.23 16,642.52 18,194.35 18,321.84 225.91 236.37 242.79 241.94 245.46 90.79 94.5 97.83 106.17 111.38 81.23 86.2 92.29 99.18 101.14
SC 20,960.00 21,927.58 21,958.32 22,639.70 24,511.86 633.18 682.97 712.9 726.3 755.82 97.39 100.19 104.7 110.42 111.94 82.59 87.2 94.39 99.42 103.21
SD 19,169.67 19,033.45 22,857.72 24,504.71 26,427.02 759.02 811.61 848.91 892.4 901.72 128.65 130.28 133.26 134.02 142.48 76.92 74.69 79.91 88.12 100.38
TN 14,424.44 15,327.48 16,303.30 16,571.26 16,989.40 479.07 496.14 512.41 526.83 560.22 84.59 88 92.27 96.88 99.32 79.25 84.58 90.03 95.55 97.94
TX 17,728.30 18,227.91 19,122.97 20,158.58 20,739.80 621.79 636.43 650.24 654.37 686.9 97.21 99.81 104.26 109.88 111.1 95.48 106.56 114.83 118.24 114.14
US 17,272.41 18,257.71 19,092.44 20,067.02 20,942.52 472.51 497.09 510.86 522.4 548.52 99.45 102.45 106.09 111.41 115.42 86.94 93.38 101.73 107.23 108.68
UT 12,606.55 14,511.45 15,037.71 16,025.00 16,027.28 494.65 543.45 568.84 562.68 575.38 92.8 95.1 97.56 104.92 110.07 84.11 87.29 91.96 98.79 100.43
VA 16,712.10 17,285.57 18,649.21 18,886.24 20,208.52 554.56 574.03 585.86 588.75 618.86 92.64 96.36 99.47 103.32 106.2 89.05 94.29 101.39 106.49 108.98
VT 19,759.22 18,940.26 16,812.99 20,703.73 22,420.89 392.07 382.48 411.52 421.73 457.28 156.62 152.69 152.54 169.12 182.39 83.06 89.56 96.09 108.35 99.33
WA 19,498.36 21,687.56 22,031.76 22,276.32 24,244.99 501.64 552.43 562.63 586.65 620.86 104.17 107.75 111.3 114.46 116.37 87.8 94.76 104.45 111.57 118.44
WI 17,262.43 18,827.27 18,714.82 20,167.23 20,758.27 472.6 487.54 506.35 521.43 537.72 155.63 160.47 167.37 176.68 183.81 73.38 77.27 86.23 94.76 99.44
WV 18,513.20 20,317.18 21,043.50 22,408.65 23,944.81 458.83 474.06 476.99 505.77 559.26 98.66 98.75 100.31 108.14 116 74.57 76.84 83.92 90.86 90.83
WY 20,792.48 21,370.45 24,331.18 24,574.78 22,711.73 537.22 578.01 583.77 638.1 628.67 176.64 190.05 198.89 191.26 192.89 79.55 86.81 91.27 103.91 108.29

More state budget cuts coming — will Alaskans be ready?

6

By WIN GRUENING
SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR

Gov. Michael Dunleavy’s quest to balance the state budget reached its first milestone.   On Aug. 19, Dunleavy achieved what very few thought was possible – almost $680 million in hard cuts in finalizing Alaska’s FY 2020 budget.

While this was unprecedented, it only constituted the first step in the primary goal he advocated during his gubernatorial campaign – a sustainable budget.

After all the legislative special sessions, public hearings, and political fights in 2019, it’s hard to imagine going through a contentious budget battle again next year.

However, it appears that we will.  Judging from much of the reaction around the state, not many believe it.

Win Gruening

Alaskans’ debate on the size of the Permanent Fund Dividend has dominated the discussion in the hope that it could, by itself, resolve all of Alaska’s budget issues.  In some ways, though, it was a diversion.  Even with the currently reduced PFD of approximately $1,600, Alaska must deal with a $730 million budget deficit next year.

Granted, final decisions on the current cuts and PFD amount were not determined until recently.

But hoping to forestall the inevitable by mounting a recall effort – or thinking that ratcheting up taxes on the oil industry will save us – is wishful thinking.

Suffering from denial, many school districts and municipalities have been reluctant to take the necessary measures to prepare for the continuing pressure on their budgets.

The mistake some local governmental entities will make is to assume that Alaskans will accept higher property taxes, sales taxes or debt before considering further cuts or less onerous revenue measures.

Let’s face it, we Alaskans have been living beyond our means for many years and our local governments, school districts, and, to a degree, even some non-profits have escaped serious scrutiny of their overhead, adherence to mission, and efficiencies.

As a local taxpayer, wouldn’t you want to make sure unnecessary or wasteful operations or practices were identified, curtailed or eliminated before you agreed to a hike in taxes? Or will you just assume that local programs and services are all operating at peak efficiency?

Before committing to new projects or services, wouldn’t you want to know that funding will be prioritized to meet basic needs of public safety and health and required standards of maintenance of public facilities?

The discussions surrounding these questions need to happen sooner rather than later.

Education will remain the elephant in the room.

K-12 school construction debt reimbursement was reduced by half this year.  Looking ahead, the other half will be on the chopping block along with possible changes to the base student allocation and the confusing formulas used to calculate state funding for school districts.

Before begging for more money from their local assemblies, will school districts agree to consider all options – including consolidating or closing facilities and cutting back on non-essential programs?

At the University of Alaska, the second phase of their 3-year budget reduction plan will kick in next year – further impacting local economies where campuses are located.

The University has no choice but to explore boosting other revenues. Obviously, tuition will need to be reviewed.  But before local communities are asked to help support our university system, what other outside sources of income are available?

By all accounts, university alumni fundraising is lagging – as is private support for their athletic programs. Alumni participation rates and average giving are significantly below that of other public universities.

All non-profits would be wise to take a long, hard look at their operations to verify that their expenses and services are truly directed at their core mission and can be justified in this budget environment.

Grants from the Rasmuson Foundation and other grant providers will be under even greater demand.  The departure from the oil patch of British Petroleum, whose philanthropy has provided millions of dollars in charitable contributions within Alaska each year will strain non-profit budgets even further.  As individuals, we’ll all need to dig deeper to help maintain needed social services.

Alaskans have been rescued in the past by rising oil prices.

But that won’t happen this time.  This time it’s real.  Believe it.

Win Gruening retired as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in 2012. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1970. He is active in community affairs as a 30-plus year member of Juneau Downtown Rotary Club and has been involved in various local and statewide organizations.

Breaking: UAF study says government wrong on World Trade Center collapse

121

ALASKA-LED TEAM VINDICATES  911 ‘TRUTHERS’

(Editor’s note: In response to reader comments, the photo illustrating this story was replaced to show Building 7. It’s an image from the ae911truth.org website.)

The leading program in Alaska for engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and an organization called “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” have created a partnership in an investigative study of what brought down Building 7 of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

The release of the draft report on Sept. 3 triggered a two-month public comment process.

[Read the report at this UAF link]

The draft report concludes that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of the several national private engineering firms and the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The study concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 was instead a “global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.” According to the study’s authors:

“The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. First, we simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred. Second, we supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Third, we simulated a number of scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.”

The study had three objectives:

  • Examining the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on Sept. 11, 2001,
  • Ruling out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse, and
  • Identifying types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.

The UAF research team simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred.

The team then “supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).”

Then, the team simulated a number of scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.

The research team is currently organizing and uploading all of its data into a format that can be readily downloaded and used. We expect to post the data sometime between Sept. 16-30, 2019.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth was started by San Francisco architect Richard Gage, who postulates the government has been hiding evidence of a controlled demolition of the third Trade Tower building that collapsed during the 911 attack.

There will be a two-month public comment period from September 3 to November 1, 2019, with the final report to be released later this year.

“During this period, we welcome any and all members of the public to submit constructive comments intended to further the analyses and presentation of findings contained in the report.

Reviewers outside of the University of Alaska Fairbanks and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth will also review the report during this period. Commenters are asked to send their comments in an attached PDF or Word document to [email protected].”

The government study came to different conclusions, explained in this NIST video:

 

Republican governors take notice of recall

13

Republican Governors Association Executive Director Dave Rexrode released a statement today in response to the recall effort launched against Alaska Governor Michael Dunleavy:

“Since taking office, Governor Dunleavy has served as the People’s Governor, fighting for a better future for all Alaskans and taking on the special interests. Under his leadership unemployment is at its lowest level in years and he continues to work to attract jobs and economic development to the state. The RGA stands behind Governor Dunleavy against this recall effort by partisan special interests seeking to halt Alaska’s tremendous progress.”

Although no group has formed to defend Dunleavy against the recall effort, the statement from the RGA is an indication that the recall effort has gained national attention.

The Alaska Republican Party also issued a statement, but with a sharper edge:

“Republicans respect the election process; elections are how we choose our leaders in America. Gov. Dunleavy is trying grow the economic pie in Alaska by responsibly dealing with the current budget situation. It appears that Democrats are upset because their various special interest groups could lose influence.
“The Alaska Republican Party supports Gov. Dunleavy, who won with 51.44 percent of the vote in a four-way race in November. The recall efforts started in February, when he had only been in office for less than 12 weeks. We find this recall a cynical attempt to undo the expressed will of the people.”

Dunleavy, won with 145,631 votes to Mark Begich’s 125,739 votes, incumbent Bill Walker’s 5,757 votes, and Libertarian Willian Toien’s 5,402 votes.

Alaska Democrats got involved with the recall caper today; many of the marchers from the CIRI Native corporation building were usual-suspect Democrats and experienced protesters, and the Alaska Democratic Party had its boots on the ground at the event, issuing several supportive Facebook posts and photos of the event.

Attorney General issues statement on recall process

23

The Alaska Attorney General has just issued the following statement on the application submitted today by a group seeking to recall Gov. Michael Dunleavy:

“Following the routine practice for recall applications, the Department of Law today received a request from the Division of Elections to conduct a legal review of the recall application for the recall of Governor Michael Dunleavy. The department will focus on whether the recall application includes sufficient grounds for recall under AS 15.45.510. The grounds for recall are (1) lack of fitness, (2) incompetence, (3) neglect of duties, and (4) corruption. The department will complete its review within 60 days,” said Attorney General Kevin Clarkson.

“I see no need to treat this application any differently than other election applications. I am here to provide legal advice and defend and uphold the state and federal constitutions. The Department of Law will advise the Division of Elections in the same manner it would any other recall. And 60 days will give us adequate time to do a thorough legal review and provide our legal recommendation to the director,” Clarkson said.

Several people, including members of the previous administration, started the effort to recall the governor shortly after he submitted his budget in mid-February. They have now delivered over 49,000 signatures to the Division of Elections in a request for a formal petition, which would require more than 78,000 signatures.

Dunleavy do-over group submits 49,000 signatures

10

IRONY: LAST RECALL WAS TURNED DOWN BY WHO?

The election do-over group known as Recall Dunleavy submitted 49,000+ signatures on its application for a petition today — far more than the 28,501 needed to advance to the next step in a gubernatorial recall election.

The group dropped off the boxes of the application and signatures with the Division of Elections on Gambell Street in Anchorage midday on Thursday after staging a “made for the 5 o’clock news hour” rally and procession from the CIRI building one block away. The CIRI Native corporation has taken a leading role in trying to recall the governor.

Now that the anti-Dunleavy side has gone through the first step, the process continues with a review from the Department of Law.

IRONY LIVES HERE

Ironically, the last time a review was made on a recall by the Department of Law, it ruled against the merits of the recall of former Rep. Lindsey Holmes, who had switched parties after the election.

That opinion was written by Libby Bakalar, who was then an Assistant Attorney General and is now one of the most vocal supporters of the Recall Dunleavy group. She expresses herself frequently on Twitter, such as this epic rant:

Bakalar, in a 17-page decision in 2013, wrote:

“The application’s statement of grounds for recall does not satisfy the legal standard for recall required by AS 15.45.510, in that the alleged facts, taken as true, are insufficient to state a claim for lack of fitness—the sole statutory ground for recall stated in the summary. Therefore, the application is not substantially in the form required by AS 15.45.550(1). We recommend the application be denied because Representative Holmes’s conduct in changing political parties is lawful and constitutionally protected.”

[Read the Lindsey Holmes decision, 2013]

The recall group intends to make the case that because Gov. Dunleavy delayed appointing a judge to a seat within a 45-day time limit set in statute, he broke the law by not appointing until the 72nd day. The courts will ultimately decide if Dunleavy’s actions were unlawful or merely deliberative work protected by a strong governor form of government outlined in the Alaska Constitution.

On March 21, Dunleavy issued a press release stating, “Governor Announces Four New Judges, Declines to Fill Vacant Seat Without Additional Information from Judicial Council.” He then conferred with the council and a month later appointed Kristen Stohler to the second vacancy on the Palmer Superior Court. The replacement occurred before there was an actual vacancy on the court, as Judge Vanessa White was retiring at the end of April.

That set of actions is what the recall group considers its strongest case, hoping that judges on the Alaska Supreme Court will take a special interest in sending Gov. Dunleavy a message or helping him find other work.

The recall group is operating with none of the rules that govern campaigning. They don’t reveal the source of their funding, and are not required to by law, even though they are engaged in a campaign to unseat a sitting governor.

[Read: The Wild, Wild West of recall campaigns in Alaska]

The Recall Dunleavy group is asking for a speedy approval of its application and has indicated it will sue the state if it doesn’t get the approval by October. Its legal counsel includes Scott Kendall, the former chief of staff for the disgraced Gov. Bill Walker, who quit his campaign just days before the General Election rather than face the wrath of voters in 2018.

The Department of Law is expected to release a statement about its process by Friday. released this statement on Thursday.

[Read: Republican Governors Association takes note of recall effort]

PEAKS Test results for Districts L-Y: One is 98+ percent below proficiency in math

19

PART II: ARE ALASKA SCHOOLS AN ‘EDUCATION DESERT’?

PEAKS achievement testing scores have been released by the Alaska Department of Education. See Part 1, with scores from Districts A-K at this link.

The scores from Districts L-Y:

Lake and Peninsula Borough School Districts: 85.96% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 87.71% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Lower Kuskokwim School District: 94.18% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 87.71% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Lower Yukon School District: 97.09% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 98.58% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District: 54.46% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 58.79% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Mount Edgecumbe School: 78.38% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 70.27% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Nenana School District: 53.72% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 76.02% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Nome Public Schools: 79.00% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 79.70% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

North Slope Borough School District: 87.59% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 84.69% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Northwest Arctic Borough School District: 89.96% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 88.85% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Pelican City School District: 75 percent below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 75% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Petersburg Borough School District: 29.96% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 43.22% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Pribilof School District: 70.73% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 87.80% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

St. Mary’s School District: 86.11% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 78.70% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Sitka School District: 44.32% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 53.34% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Skagway School District: 13.85% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 21.54% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Southeast Island School District: 48.18% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 67.27% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Southwest Region School District: 94.36% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 90.77% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Tanana City School District: 76.67% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 90.00% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Unalaska City School District: 45.95%  below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 50.90% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Valdez School District: 47.65% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 54.55% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Wrangell School District: 50.68% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 43.84% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Yakutat School District: 51.28% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 72.50%non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Yukon Flats School District: 85.48% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 92.62% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Yukon-Koyukuk School District: 68.81% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 80.21% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Yupit School District: 95% or more below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 95% or more non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Are Alaska schools an ‘education desert’?

36

PEAKS TEST RESULTS FOR DISTRICTS A THROUGH K

Thirty-nine percent of Alaska students scored at a “proficient level” in English language arts, while 35.7 percent scored at a proficient level in mathematics, and 44.6 percent scored at a proficient level in science on the latest Performance Evaluation for Alaska’s Schools assessment and Alaska Science Assessment.

The shocking numbers reveal how many students are non-proficient in Alaska schools. See the A-K districts scores below and  link to the L-Y districts’ scores here.

About 76,400 students participated in the spring 2019 PEAKS and science assessment, which gauges school improvement efforts across the state. The test was adopted in 2012, and was first administered in 2017.

Students score on a scale that is divided into four levels of achievement: advanced, proficient, below proficient, and far below proficient.

There were some good news items in the report:

  • The 2017 grade 4 student class achieved growth over three years in English language arts proficiency.
    In Grade 4, they scored 38.8 percent proficient. By Grade 6 they had improved to 45.5 percent proficient.
  • Also, Grade 9 students in 2019 achieved a 5.2 percent increase in math proficiency than Grade 9 students tested in 2018. This was the second year the Grade 9 math PEAKS assessment emphasized Algebra 1 concepts.
  • Those who are English learners improved slightly in both English language arts and math proficiency, improving in English language arts by nearly a percent year over year, up to 9.9 percent proficient.
  • Eighth-graders who took the science test in 2017 scored 46.9 percent proficient. For the same class, when they took the 10th grade science test, they improved to 53.6 percent proficient.

Here are the Spring PEAKS results for Districts A-K:

Alaska Gateway School District: 85.96% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 87.71% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Aleutian Region School District: 58.33% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 75.00% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Aleutian East School District: 8.03% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 68.03% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Anchorage School District: 57.78% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 60.56% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Annette Island School District: 71.52% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 73.94% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Bering Strait School District: 93.33%  below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 91.07% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Bristol Bay Borough School District: 79.25% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 74.55% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Chatham Strait School District: 62.50% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 67.82% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Chugach School District: 61.08% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 83.13% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Copper River School District: 54.42% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 61.50% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Cordova School District: 47.24% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 53.99% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Craig School District: 59.09% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 70.35% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Delta / Greely School District: 48.58% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 44.55% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Denali Borough School District: 44.39% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 58.25% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Dillingham School District: 69.04% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 68.62% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Fairbanks North Star Borough School District: 58.16% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 60.70% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Galena School District: 41.04% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 66.29% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Haines Borough School District: 35.43% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 55.56% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Hoonah School District: 79.37% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 77.42% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Hydaburg School District: 81.40% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 88.37% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Iditarod School District: 87.50% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 91.51% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Juneau School District: 53.72% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 59.12% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Kake School District: 47.27% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 65.45% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Kashunamiut School District: 98.24% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 97.66% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Kenai Peninsula School District: 52.32% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 50.07% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District: 53.56% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 56.27% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Klawock City School District: 76.79% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 83.93% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Kodiak Island Borough School District: 59.26% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 59.93% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

Kuspuk School District: 90.16% below proficient to far-below proficient in English; 89.12% non proficient to far-below proficient in math.

[L-Y districts linked here]

STANDARD TESTS, COMMON CORE

Education Week reports that there’s a steady erosion in the number of states using the PARCC or Smarter Balanced Common Core aligned tests, with five fewer this year than in 2018. Alaska is the only state using the PEAKS test.

Common Core was all the educational rage a decade ago, when 45 states were planning to use it by implementing the PARCC or Smarter Balanced assessments. Today, only 16 states are using those tests.

[See Education Week‘s fourth survey of state tests since 2014.]

Like Alaska, 31 other states use “non-Common Core consortium” tests. The number of states that require students to take college admissions tests or pass an exit exam to graduate is unchanged from 2017.