By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO

Critics of Alaska’s education system argue that its entrenched, top‑down bureaucratic management has created a stagnant structure that not only drives up costs but also stifles innovation and accountability.

They point to the widening gap between escalating per-student expenses and persistently mediocre academic outcomes as stark evidence that the current model is failing the state’s youth and undermining Alaska’s long‑term economic competitiveness. 

This failing system not only diminishes the quality of education but also burdens society with higher crime rates, increased welfare dependency, and a general erosion of civic vitality.

In response, a multi‑pronged plan of action for the Alaska Department of Law is suggested. 

Alaska must draw on established legal precedents—such as the Supreme Court decisions in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin—to challenge policies that discriminate against religious or alternative educational models, thereby opening the door for more localized and diverse educational options. 

These cases set a clear precedent that state policies cannot unjustly exclude certain types of schools from public benefits, and they provide a potential framework for reforming an education system steeped in outdated, one-size-fits-all approaches.

This also includes Alexander, et al. v. Acting Commissioner Heidi Teshner (July 2024), in which the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the state’s school correspondence program as both statutorily and constitutionally sound, ensuring that geographic isolation does not deny students a rigorous education. 

These cases demonstrate that state governments can act as self-regulators when confronted with statutory provisions that conflict with constitutional mandates. But can state governments also act as self-regulators when their constitutional mandates run afoul of US constitutional requirements? This is answered below.

The Alaska Department of Law must adopt a robust legal strategy to establish standing by demonstrating that the Department of Education’s reliance on archaic, top‑down policies promulgated by the state constitution’s Article VII, Section 1, and Article IX, Section 6, directly impairs the state’s capacity to enforce education law, and protect constitutional rights, such as the Free Exercise Clause. 

This could involve presenting concrete evidence—such as increased litigation, overwhelming administrative burdens, and budgetary distortions—that directly link the failing system to measurable harms affecting public safety and fiscal sustainability. For example, statistical data showing correlations between poor educational outcomes and higher crime rates or welfare dependency would help substantiate the claim that the current model inflicts a unique and quantifiable injury on the state, beyond the general grievances shared by its citizens.

Ultimately, if these legal and administrative reforms are not enacted, Alaska risks sacrificing not only the academic and economic future of its youth but also the very foundation of its civic society. The goal must be to create an education system that nurtures an informed and innovative citizenry—one capable of propelling Alaska into a prosperous future. 

Alaska has failed to achieve this goal. Now is the time to correct it.

Only by dismantling the outdated, top-heavy bureaucratic structures and replacing them with truly democratic, locally accountable systems can our state break free from the corrupt grip of self-serving politicians and the special interests they serve. Without this fundamental change, our educational policies will remain hostage to a cycle of inefficiency and neglect, where decisions are driven not by the public good but by the greed of those who prioritize their own power and profits over the future of our children.

The next approach may be simpler but certainly extremely unpopular.

Reduce the size of the Alaska Department of Education.

Reducing the Alaska Department of Education to an office operation responsible for issuing 53 checks—one for each school district—offers several potential benefits and features. 

This streamlined approach could result in significant cost savings by eliminating layers of bureaucracy and administrative overhead. With fewer employees and a centralized process, oversight could improve, reducing the likelihood of misallocated funds and inefficiencies. Additionally, a leaner department may promote quicker decision-making and a more agile response to budgetary needs across districts.

The implications for democratic legitimacy are stellar. Bottom-up control of education will bring a new sense of discipline to Alaska’s education system. Streamlining operations can increase transparency and accountability by cutting through bureaucratic layers, making state funding more directly observable by local stakeholders. This could empower communities to more easily track and influence the allocation of resources, thereby reinforcing the democratic principle of government responsiveness.

While critics warn that consolidating education management into a single office might diminish local autonomy, this very centralization will amplify local control over education funding. By reducing the sprawling bureaucracy of the Alaska Department of Education to one streamlined office responsible for only the distribution of funds to all 53 school districts, the process becomes more transparent and accountable, thereby empowering local communities.

With fewer administrative layers, individual districts and their stakeholders can more directly monitor and influence funding decisions, ensuring that resources are allocated equitably and according to local priorities. 

What about meeting state education standards and teacher certifications? Why not include that in the domain of local district responsibilities, or even more innovative, allow individual schools to succeed or fail within districts by the implementation of their own standards which of course meet constitutional requirements.

Educators and administrators are on the ground level. They indeed have a much better understanding of education than someone in the complex bureaucratic universe of the Alaska Department of Education.

In this model, the single office concept acts as a responsive intermediary, cutting through bureaucratic inertia and making it easier for communities to assert their voice in the education process—potentially strengthening democratic legitimacy rather than eroding it, which is the current failing model.

However, such a reduction is not without challenges. Critics can contend centralized state funded education must have a bureaucracy as a single office concept may struggle with the complexity and diversity of requirements across 53 districts, each with its own unique financial and operational demands. 

However, each district brings the ability to resolve subject matter issues through either statewide experience through organization of the 53 districts or from experiences of the lower 48. There really isn’t anything cryptic or complex about educating children in a well-monitored local environment.

Claiming that overburdening staff will cause errors, delay fund distribution, or lead to a loss of specialized expertise that undermines our ability to tackle complex educational challenges statewide is a logical fallacy—a convenient excuse to perpetuate a system that is already failing.

Finally, ensuring robust communication and accountability between a centralized office and a diverse array of local entities presents significant logistical challenges. However, as the organization is streamlined, these challenges can be mitigated through a careful balance between cost savings and the provision of tailored, district-specific support, ensuring that neither the quality of education nor effective financial management is compromised.

Michael Tavoliero is an Alaskan and senior writer for Must Read Alaska.