By SEN. MIKE CRONK

As a 25-year retired teacher, two-year regional school board member, and current state senator, I feel compelled to write about the education struggle in Alaska.

When I reference the National Education Association-Alaska (NEA-Alaska) below, I’m not focusing on the thousands of teachers and support staff who are members. I’m focusing on the leadership.

NEA Alaska President Tom Klaameyer recently penned an op-ed for the Anchorage Daily News, in which he boldly stated, “to be clear, NEA-Alaska did not oppose the policy language ultimately stripped out of HB 69.”

Oddly, I find myself saying thank you and am grateful that he spoke the truth. Of course, NEA-Alaska did not oppose the language in the committee substitute for HB 69, after all, why would they?

For perhaps the first time in recent memory, they’ve proudly demonstrated their allegiance and displayed the truth: This legislation was built for them, by them, and championed by their legislative allies. The committee substitute introduced in the Senate Education Committee read like a blueprint of NEA-Alaska’s long-standing priorities, crafted not for the benefit of all Alaska students, but for the preservation of control by a single political force.

Let’s walk through what was included, just in case anyone has lingering doubts as to their goals:

First, the bill proposed class size mandates that were framed as a reform but were only designed to apply to the Anchorage School District, where NEA-Alaska’s influence is most concentrated. If this was such powerful policy, should it not apply to all districts in the state? While the concept of reducing class sizes is widely supported (myself included), that was never the true intent.

Instead, this provision served as a strategic tool: Draft a mandate that the Anchorage School District cannot realistically meet, compel it to respond with claims of inadequacy, and ultimately funnel additional funding directly to schools with high NEA membership.

The result? A policy that appears student-centered but delivers minimal benefit to learners while reinforcing the financial and political stronghold of the union.

Second, the bill then talked about so-called “open enrollment” language, celebrated by some as a breakthrough. Well folks, to be honest, districts have been using forms of open enrollment for years. It offered no tangible change to student opportunity but served as a political checkbox to try and garner support from the administration who are seeking to codify existing practices into law and preserve this right and desire of many Alaskan’s families.

Third, the charter school provisions in the committee substitute for HB 69 were an exercise in what is called an illusion, to put it mildly. They were packed with fiscal speak, legal language, deadlines, etc. Despite a significant public appetite for expanding school choice, the bill offered a depth of language that did little to strengthen access, support innovation, or protect the autonomy of charter schools. Again, a big swing and miss.

Fourth, the final, but most discriminatory and damaging aspect of HB 69? A direct attack on Alaska’s correspondence families. Under the original bill, families using state-approved correspondence programs could be denied access to their educational allotment if their child opted out of standardized testing.

Let’s be clear: Alaska statute allows all students to opt out of standardized testing. Yet this bill would punish only one group: correspondence families. Meanwhile, all other public school students in the state exercising the same legal right would face no consequence, no funding loss, and no interference in their educational path. The message couldn’t be clearer, this wasn’t about fairness or accountability. It was about control and working through legal speech to take away their choices.

Laughably, in the same article, NEA-Alaska’s president commented that, “Our dream is to support students robustly in all public-school programs… ensuring they have the resources they need regardless of where they choose to learn.”

This is a chapter pulled right out of the NEA’s playbook, present the magical illusion of support, but advocate from an entirely different angle. Can you picture the parade of buttons, protests, articles and lawsuits that they would wage if a bill like this was directed at brick-and-mortar schools, where the majority of their membership work? Can you begin to hear their battle-cry if the same reporting language the bill tried to levy against correspondence programs was applied to all schools within the state? Again, if the policy attempt was so important in nature and beneficial to Alaska’s children, don’t you think the NEA would have been championing for this to apply to all schools? Of course they did not, because it was never intended to serve that purpose.

The fun certainly did not stop there, as the bill initially included the creation of a biased Education Task Force, one lacking balance and objectivity, stacked with NEA-aligned members, giving the union a long-term mechanism to shape public education policy and direct resources toward institutions it favored. Correspondence schools, charter programs, residential schools and alternative models would likely have been excluded from any meaningful support. This task force would have allowed NEA-Alaska to further entrench its influence, redirecting funding to the schools and systems it deemed worthy, while pushing family-centered programs further to the margins.

So yes, Tom Klaameyer, NEA-Alaska president, we genuinely thank you for confirming in writing exactly what Gov. Mike Dunleavy said: HB 69 is your dream bill, designed not for all Alaskan children, but for one system, one narrative, and one organization to maintain its grip on power. Your support for the Senate Education’s CS for HB 69 reveals the truth correspondence and charter families have known for years: NEA-Alaska’s leadership has no interest in serving all students — only those who fit within a model your organization controls. You demonstrated your priorities in the policies you backed, the families you chose to ignore and the silence you displayed on discriminatory language included within that bill.

To the families across Alaska who choose a different path — whether through homeschooling, correspondence programs, residential, or innovative charter options — know this: Your voice matters, your children matter, and your educational choices deserve equal respect under the law. 

To the families whom children attend brick and mortar schools — you and your children also matter — you are being painted a very blurred picture of what is actually happening and people like myself are the ones standing strong in support of your children also.  We can’t continue to do the “same thing” and expect results.  We must demand for policies (like the Reads by 3 legislation) put in place that directly affect outcomes, give the teachers the support they so need to succeed in the classroom, and also make sure the money is being spent directly related to students.

Let me be extremely clear, unlike NEA-Alaska: I do support all forms of public education within the state and will work on behalf of all of Alaska’s children to support their education. I will continue to fight for a public education system that truly supports all students, not just the ones that NEA Alaska approves of. Remember, I was a public-school teacher, my children attended public schools (brick and mortar, charter, and residential) and my district is comprised of all models of education, each with its own intrinsic value to their community and to each child’s life.

It’s time all Alaskan families that value educational choices and value educating students know the truth about the narrative that is being fought in Juneau. It’s time, we Alaskans, take back the education of every single student in Alaska and begin “rebuilding” the educational system in Alaska that values each and every learner no matter how they are educated.

As a lifelong Alaskan and someone who dedicated his life to educating our children, I will stand strong to do exactly that.

Mike Cronk is a state senator, retired teacher of 25 years, 2 year Regional School Board member who represents Senate District R, which encompasses nearly 1/3 of the state from the Copper River Valley north across the Interior to Arctic Village, down the mighty Yukon River to Holy Cross west to McGrath as well as West Fairbanks.