Roughly 20% of Alaska’s 60 lawmakers come from public education careers, many as former teachers, professors, lobbyists, or school board members.
When including those tied to education advocacy, tutoring businesses, and NEA-aligned nonprofits, and former work as legislative aides, that influence may reach as high as 35%.
The majority of Alaska lawmakers do not come from the private sector; they’ve never signed the front of a paycheck, only the back. More than half — mostly all the Democrats — are from government careers, which explains why they do not focus on the economy, but only on spending and taxes. They don’t advance bills to support energy or resource development. They only focus on growing government programs and funding schools to the maximum extent possible.
Among the most prominent from the education industry are Reps. Andi Story and Sara Hannan of Juneau, both longtime public education insiders. Hannan is a former teacher and Story is a former school board member, co-founder of Great Alaska Schools and past president of the Alaska Association of School Board.
Rep. Maxine Dibert came to the Legislature straight from the classroom in Fairbanks. Rep. Rebecca Himschoot of Sitka retired from teaching after 24 years in the classroom, then ran for office. Rep. Ted Eischied of Anchorage was a teacher for 25 years. Rep. Ashley Carrick of Fairbanks was a teacher. Rep. Alyse Galvin of Anchorage is a cofounder of Great Alaska Schools. Rep. Andy Josephson taught in the Kuspuk School District in Lower Kalskag for four years.
Sen. Jesse Bjorkman of Nikiski was a teacher and NEA union official. Sen. Gary Stevens of Kodiak is a former professor. Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson was a teacher’s aide in the Anchorage, then an administrator and served on the school board. Then you can add in Republican Sen. Mike Cronk, a former teacher.
There are others who have NEA ties through part-time, substitute, and adjunct work.
The NEA-bloc routinely aligns with NEA-Alaska’s priorities, chief among them being an increased per-student funding without accompanying reforms to make schools more accountable.
NEA-Alaska, through its PACE political fund and lobbying muscle, has helped shape legislative outcomes by backing campaigns and mobilizing grassroots efforts, particularly in urban strongholds like Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks. The override of HB 57 is the clearest sign yet that the NEA’s political investments have paid off.
These legislators show little concern for building the private sector economy and growing a stable job market in Alaska, even as Alaska faces a projected $400–500 million deficit for FY26.
Despite this, the Legislature, in overriding the governor’s veto of House Bill 57, chose to approve a $184+ million annual increase in education spending without identifying a durable funding source. Oil revenues, which once buoyed the state budget, now account for only about 30% of general fund income. The Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve Fund picks up most of the slack, and further draws risk destabilizing the annual dividend Alaskans rely on. Right now, the funding source is a raid on the economic development engine of the state and the higher education fund for scholarships. Later it will be taxes.
Supporters of HB 57 claim the increase is long overdue, pointing out that the Base Student Allocation has been flat since 2017, although the truth is that the Legislature and governor have awarded one-year increases every year for over a decade.
But throwing more money into the system does little good if it isn’t paired with structural reforms, Gov. Mike Dunleavy has argued. Administrative bloat remains a major problem in Alaska’s school districts: Between 2002 and 2020, administrative salaries rose 18%, while teacher pay increased just 1%.
Today, Alaska has approximately five non-teaching staff for every four teachers, an imbalance that diverts resources away from classrooms.
The education lobby’s opposition to any meaningful reforms, such as school choice, voucher programs, or stricter accountability measures proposed by Gov. Dunleavy, undermines the credibility of their funding demands.
HB 57 contains token policy gestures, such as minor adjustments to charter school processes and cell phone policies, but avoids any significant challenge to the NEA’s grip on public education. Voucher proposals and charter school expansions, backed by fiscal conservatives and some parent groups, continue to be stonewalled by the same bloc that pushed HB 57 through.
The override of HB 57 signals that organized special interests, especially those with deep roots in the education industry has, can dictate budget policy regardless of the state’s fiscal outlook. It weakens the executive branch’s ability to impose discipline in budgeting and puts added pressure on the Permanent Fund at a time when global oil markets remain volatile.
Gov. Dunleavy’s veto was a responsible attempt to force broader reforms and long-term sustainability. The Legislature’s override, driven by the NEA’s PACE political apparatus and the legislative bloc of former educators, was a rejection of that restraint.
In the short term, schools may get a funding boost. But in the long run, this decision deepens Alaska’s structural budget imbalance and further insulates an education system that has yet to deliver results commensurate with its cost.
