As Alaska prepares for a special legislative session focused on the Governor’s call for us to address the subject of “education reform,” it’s time to ask a simple but critical question: what exactly is this reform—and for whose benefit? If you want to jump straight to the model legislation that I believe is the Governor’s playbook, check it out here at the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools.

In this post, I start with my support for strong, community-based neighborhood schools, and then take a deep dive in to the reforms passed by the Legislature in HB 57, many of which align with the Governor’s stated priorities. But I also explore how Governor Dunleavy’s broader education agenda appears to reflect national charter school model legislation that could significantly reshape public education in Alaska.

Spoiler Alert: I am expecting the bill we will be given by the Governor to consider during the special session will be taking us to towards a national model of non-profit quasi-privatized charter school management with reduced local oversight and new corporate-style education structure that employs non-union teachers while prioritizing growth and flexibility over community accountability. If that’s the plan, Alaskans deserve to know.

First a note and disclosed bias that I support community-based local public schools. 

I have to admit that over time I’ve come to value a local neighborhood school and how it connects local community and families that live near each other and teaches children to be part of a community. Academic achievement is certainly critical, and I expect every school to be above average (J), but it’s not all that matters. In fact our AK Stars assessments tell us that our students are making great progress and any of us around our students know that they are doing amazing work, taught by teachers we love, and will go on to academic and professional success. 

Despite the Governor’s rhetoric, we know the truth – that our schools and teachers are doing an exceptional job of teaching even when faced with the barriers and obstacles they face from a Governor and Commissioner who seems to be committed to do all they can to make the job of teaching our kids more difficult and less rewarding.

That said, my kids attended a combination of public schools including neighborhood, school-in-a-school out-of-zone, an optional school, and a charter school where my wife is a librarian – we’ve done it all; and learned from it. More on our personal journey in the future.

For now, I want to examine what the special session may offer and what I believe the Governor is trying to accomplish with his call for us to work on “education reforms.”

As I’ll show below, I believe he is moving the state towards a national model legislation framework from the National Association of Public Charter Schools that transfers school management to Charter School Organizations that run independent from school districts, with the freedom to have non-union teachers, and outsource property ownership and management.

So, lets get in to the details!

The Governor’s Special Session proclamation specifies two subjects of work for the legislature including “Education Reform” and “The creation of a Department of Agriculture”. The following outlines some of the possible “reform” topics. I will address the Department of Agriculture in a future post. 

The key point for Alaskans to learn about is how the education policy “reforms” the governor is requesting are part of a national movement to shift public education away from local community schools run by locally controlled school boards to a non-union charter school model run by independent organizations or “Charter School Management Organizations” or “CMO”. Understanding the broad model legislation for CMO may help clarify where the Governor is trying to move public education and help us have a transparent debate about the changes.

Not covered in this post are the approaches used to work around constitutional restrictions on the use of public funding for private and religious organizations. There are strategies that create a shell whereby public funds are spent in compliance with the constitution but then used for “service delivery” contracts with a non-profit CMO organization, that then contracts with private for-profit property managers.  There is money being made by the CMO staff, and profits from the property managers.

Its important to note first that the call for this session comes following the legislature overriding the Governor’s veto of HB 57 which provided for a number of reforms. That bill’s veto was overridden and now is law; however, the Governor later vetoed full funding in HB 53, the operating budget, for the Basic Student Allocation or “BSA” specified in HB57. That veto-override effort will be one of topics of the special session that must be completed in the first five days. My focus below however is to summarize the policy issues contained in HB 57 that are now enacted and then outline the policy “reforms” the Governor proposed in the bills he had introduced in the last session that have not passed that offer some hints at what the special session will be asked to consider. 

Starting with what was enacted by the legislature, vetoed by the Governor, and then overridden by the Legislature in a 46/14 vote, what policies changes or “reforms” did HB 57 create?

• Class Size Limits: Max average of 23 (PreK–6) and 30 (7–12) students per class.
• Charter Schools: Faster appeals (45 days), longer contracts (up to 10 years), simplified renewals, and clear termination rules.
• Base Student Allocation: Increased from $5,960 to $6,660.
• Reading Incentive Grants: $450+ per K–6 student for proficiency or improvement in reading.
• Vocational/Technical Funding: Increased multiplier (1.023); districts must spend extra funds on eligible programs.
• Student Transportation: New per-student funding amounts set by district.
• Device Policy: Districts must regulate personal device use during school hours, with some exceptions.
• Graduate Tracking: Long-term tracking (20 years) of high school graduates’ education, work, and residency outcomes.
• New Tax Revenue Use: (Conditional) Digitized business tax to fund reading and vocational programs.
• Education Task Force: Legislative group to review funding, absenteeism, open enrollment, and school infrastructure.

For comparison, during the session the Governor had introduced two bills for the legislature to consider, HB 76 and HB 204. These bills were not passed, but as I’ll show, some of the policy proposals were incorporated into HB 57 by the legislature.

What were the policy proposals in the Governor’s first education bill, HB 76?

• Open Enrollment: Allows students to attend public schools outside their home district, with capacity and reporting rules.
• Mobile Device Ban: Districts must restrict personal device use during school hours, with limited exceptions.
• Reading Incentive Grants: $450 per K–6 student for reading proficiency or improvement.
• Charter School Applications: State Board can directly approve new charter schools statewide.
• Transportation Funding: Sets new per-student transportation rates by district.
• Bond Debt Reimbursement: Extends moratorium to 2030; reduces future reimbursement rates.
• Vocational Education Funding: Increased funding factor (1.04); requires improvement plans and reports.
• Correspondence Schools: Fully funded at 100% of ADM (was 90%).
• Teacher Bonuses: $5K–$15K bonuses based on district location, for retention and recruitment.
• Legislative Report: Requires report on school funding, duplication, and new performance metrics.

What were the policy proposals in HB 204 made by the Governor?

• Open Enrollment Expansion: Students may apply to attend any public school statewide, with guaranteed enrollment if space is available.
• Charter School Reforms: Faster appeal timelines (45 days) and Caps district administrative overhead at 4%.
• Correspondence Programs: Funded at 100% of ADM (not 90% as before).
• Base Student Allocation Increase: Raises BSA from $5,960 to $6,520.
• Special Education Services: Must be provided to students attending schools outside their district under open enrollment.
• Reading Proficiency Grants: At least $450 per K–6 student for meeting or improving reading proficiency.
• Mobile Device Policies: Requires districts to regulate non-school-issued device use during school hours, with some exceptions.

Comparing what was passed by the Legislature in HB 57 and what was proposed in HB 76 and HB204, here is a list of those items that are addressed by HB 57 and not likely to be a focus of the session and some items we can expect to see.

These items were proposed in HB 76 and/or HB 204 and are included in HB 57:

• Reading Proficiency Incentive Grants – Included in HB 57 ($450 per eligible K–6 student).
• Base Student Allocation (BSA) Increase – Raised to $6,660 in HB 57 (HB 204 proposed $6,520; HB 76 left the amount unchanged or “flat funded”).
• Expanded Charter School Support
  • HB 57:
    • Allows longer charter contracts (up to 10 years).
    • Streamlined appeals (45-day timeline).
    • Clarifies renewal and termination rules.
    • Improves funding transparency and renewal processes.
  • Similar reforms were proposed in HB 76 and HB 204.
• Student Transportation Funding – HB 57 set per-student transportation amounts by district (also in HB 76 and HB 204).

• Wireless Device Policies – HB 57 requires school district policies for device use, including exceptions for emergencies and medical needs (similar language in HB 76 and HB 204).
• Legislative Reporting on Accountability & Funding Reform – HB 76 required the House and Senate Education Committees to define new accountability metrics. HB57 created a task force to study issues, but this will not start until after the special session!

The following reforms proposed in HB 76 or HB 204 by the Governor were not passed in HB 57 and may return in the 2025 special session:

• Statewide Open Enrollment (Public School Choice) Would guarantee cross-district enrollment if capacity allows.
• Direct State Authorization of Charter Schools – HB 204 and HB 76 allow the State Board of Education (and possibly the University of Alaska) to authorize charter schools independently of local boards.
• Full Funding for Correspondence Programs – HB 204 and HB 76 proposed restoring 100% ADM funding (instead of 90%).
• Vocational/Technical Instruction Funding – HB 57 increased the multiplier to 1.023. HB 76 proposed 1.04 and added mandatory planning/reporting.
• Teacher Bonuses and Retention Incentives – HB 76 proposed $5K–$15K retention bonuses by district tier. HB57 provided a BSA increase to fund district and their teacher contracts.

The Governor and Commissioner Bishop have shared their concerns about public school outcomes several times including:

• January 11^th (Opinion: Alaska’s charter schools are leading the nation. It’s time to expand their reach, by Gov Dunleavy)
• March 7^th (Dunleavy education bills would restrict sex ed, offer teacher bonuses),
• March 21^st  (The US Department of Education failed, by Gov Dunleavy),
• March 29^th (Alaska families want and deserve education reform, by Gov Dunleavy), and
• May 9^th (Opinion: Why Alaska education funding and policy need to go hand in hand, by Commissioner Bishop)
• May 16^th (The fight for Alaska’s future begins in the classroom, by Gov Dunleavy),

Additionally there are some critical assessments of the Governor’s plans that offer perspectives on his priorities including May 19^th (The Dunleavy Decline: a legacy that’s left Alaska’s students behind, Alaska Beacon).

Based on these articles the following priorities surface repeatedly in the Governor’s remarks:

• Alaska ranks near the bottom nationally in student performance, especially in reading and math based on NAEP scores. (Note that that the AK Stars and Alaska assessments demonstrate our students are making significant progress despite starting further behind.)
• BSA funding needs to be paired with reforms, not just increases.
• Overregulation and bureaucracy, particularly from the U.S. Department of Education, are seen as barriers to local innovation and flexibility.
• Opposition from education “special interests” including the teacher unions are blocking reform efforts like teacher bonuses and charter school expansion.
• Public confidence is eroding, with more families opting out of traditional schools for charters or correspondence programs.

Based on these articles, Governor Dunleavy’s Education policy priorities include:

1. Expand School Choice

• Support for statewide open enrollment, allowing students to attend any public school regardless of district boundaries. (Interestingly this has little impact or value except for the larger population centers on the rail belt including Anchorage and the MatSu area.  For CMO charter school advocates, open enrollment policies are crucial because they empower parents to choose the best public school for their child, which can include CMO charter schools, while reducing the control of school boards.)
• Major expansion of public charter schools:
  • Easier authorization, including state-level approval.
  • Removal of enrollment caps and district-imposed barriers.
  • Emphasis on models that serve Alaska Native and rural communities, trades-focused schools, and bilingual/culturally relevant education.

2. Support for Homeschool and Correspondence Programs

• Maintain and grow flexible, parent-driven education options.
• Defend use of correspondence allotments, despite legal challenges and concerns over oversight.

3. Focus on Core Skills and Accountability

• Emphasize reading, writing, and math as non-negotiable foundations.
• Back early literacy reforms like the Alaska Reads Act.
• Promote performance-based measures, not spending-based metrics.

4. Parental Rights and Local Control

• Push for greater parental authority in curriculum, school choice, and oversight of local districts.
• Argues that parents and local communities, not federal agencies or national unions, are best suited to guide education policy.

5. Teacher Incentives (Not Across-the-Board Raises)

• Support for targeted teacher recruitment and retention bonuses, particularly in rural or hard-to-staff areas.
• Opposes linking these incentives to broader union-negotiated salary hikes.

6. Link Funding to Reform

• Advocates that education funding increases should be tied to policy changes that improve outcomes, expand choice, and increase transparency.

Based on the above, where might the Governor be trying to take our public education system?

Like many Alaskans, I was surprised and frustrated to see Governor Dunleavy veto over $50 million in school funding after a bipartisan majority in the Legislature passed HB 57—an education funding bill that included many of the governor’s stated priorities and compromised with funding reduced about 2% from last year, adjusted for inflation. (Raised by the price of a pizza in actual dollars.)

And then the legislature followed up by overriding the veto of hb57 sending a clear message that the representatives of Alaskans in the legislature supported the policy changes and flat funding in hb57. But still the Governor vetoed the funding and the school maintence. What more did he want?

“Charter schools” he hs told us repeatedly. But what does that mean when he just vetoed the funding that pays for our 30 public charter schools?

Lawmakers stepped up. Yet the governor vetoed much of the resulting funding anyway citing falling oil revenues—but only after previously tying funding to the adoption of his policy demands.

It left me asking: What’s really going on here?

In trying to understand this pattern—three years of vetoes, repeated efforts to bypass district oversight, and policy proposals aimed at restructuring how public education is delivered—I came across the National Alliance of Charter Schools and their model charter school legislation being advanced in other states, and that ranks Alaska 43^rd, near the bottom in their estimation. That’s when things started to come into focus. (I encourage you to spend some time studying the model legislation, it opened my eyes to what the Governor is really saying and doing when he promotes Alaskan charter schools for their success, but then cuts their funding! Its not more of the charter schools we have that he wants for Alaska!)

States like Arizona, Colorado, and Texas have recently expanded the role of Charter Management Organizations (CMOs). These are nonprofit or private entities, similar to for profit Education Management Organizations that contract with the state to operate public charter schools, often outside of local school district control. Advocates argue that CMOs offer flexibility, can scale innovative practices more efficiently, and are often more agile in staffing and curriculum decisions. (That’s lingo for “non-union” in case it’s not obvious.)  These models also allow for partnerships with philanthropic groups and can open new facilities faster than traditional districts, in creative real estate deals.

What are the key elements of the “model legislation” that I believe are framing the Governors “policy” priorities? They include:

Based on the attached 2022 Model Law from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and Governor Dunleavy’s public statements, legislative proposals, and priorities (HB 204, HB 76, commentary), here’s a comparison and a prediction for his likely next education bill during the special session:

1. Charter School Expansion & Access

• Model Law: Recommends no caps on the number of charter schools, more authorizers, and easier pathways to creation.  (Note, there is no consideration to the impact on reducing the population in community public schools and closing schools… competition is good…)
• Governor: Proposes expanding charter school access, removing barriers, allowing state-level authorization.

2. Non-District Authorizers

• Model Law: Strongly supports having non-district authorizers, such as independent boards or universities.
• Governor: Advocates allowing the State Board of Education and University of Alaska to authorize charters, bypassing local boards.

3. Clear Renewal and Revocation Process

• Model Law: Requires due process protection and transparent appeals.
• Governor: Proposed a robust appeals process for charter renewal and termination decisions in HB 204.

4. Charter Autonomy

• Model Law: Calls for fiscal/legal autonomy, independent governance, and exemption from most district rules.  Note in particular, “Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption, whereby charter schools are exempt from any outside collective bargaining agreements…”
• Model Law: Multi-school Charter Contract and/or Multi-charter School Contract Boards Allowed, whereby an independent charter school board may oversee multiple schools linked under a single charter contract or may hold multiple charter contracts.
• Governor: Supports fiscal transparency, independent boards, and 4% cap on district overhead charges for charter schools, and has been strong opponent of the teacher unions and take steps to limit the influence and power of public unions in Alaska.

As an aside, a particular motivation for the changes is nothing new, money! 

“…And because many state legislatures have exempted charter schools from regulations and oversight designed to guard against profiteering, the charter school marketplace is thriving.   One of the largest opportunities for profit is in real estate. The purchase, development, and financing of facilities for charter schools has become a lucrative industry, buoyed by public financing and the preferential credit lines and interest rates that come from the semi-public status of charter schools. Today, while public messaging may tout the alleged popularity of charter schools and supposedly long waiting lists for charter seats, many believe that the profitability of the market—not parent demand—is driving charter school growth…. Real Estate and Charter Schools: A Growing Industrial Complex, November 2023.

5. Funding Equity

• Model Law: Emphasizes equitable operational and capital funding.
• Governor: Seeks equal per-student funding for charter and correspondence students; supports directing state aid to charters for facilities. (Note this aligns with a separate national movement for Charter School property management organizations that profit and leverage control over school property lease back programs including Grow Schools, Building Hope, and Charter School Property Solutions; complemented by DOE credit programs, and DOE CMO Grants.

Its useful to also consider areas where the Governor’s priorities diverge or are not yet fully aligned with the Model Legislation

1. Authorizer Accountability and Funding

• Model Law: Calls for detailed oversight, funding mechanisms, and sanctions for low-performing charger school authorizers. (Shifts control to the high performing CMOs and away from School Districts managing providers. Here is a School Choice advocacy page making the case for CMO vs District management of Charter Schools.
• Governor: Focuses more on breaking district control than on building capacity or accountability for authorizers. These mechanisms are not present in HB 204 or HB 76.

2. Collective Bargaining Exemptions

• Model Law: Supports automatic exemptions from district CBAs for charters.
• Governor: Has not explicitly proposed this; may avoid this battle to reduce resistance from teacher organizations.

3. Virtual Charter School Regulation (Online)

• Model Law: Calls for clear rules on enrollment, funding, and accountability for virtual schools.
• Governor: Supports correspondence and homeschool models and has not supported efforts for student testing and accountability or proposed new accountability measures or oversight reforms. Due to the Governor’s strong support from homeschool parents, this may be a policy area the Governor continues to avoid proposing to not create opposition to the charter school policies from the existing homeschool and correspondence program families.

4. Special Education Clarity

• Model Law: Requires clear delineation of special education responsibilities and funding.
• Governor: HB 204 provides some clarification but lacks a robust framework for how services and funding are guaranteed in cross-district or charter settings.

---

Likely Contents of the Governor’s Next Education Reform Bill (Special Session)

Based on gaps in HB 57 and his prior proposals and statements, the next bill is likely to include:

1. Statewide Open Enrollment

• Guarantee families the ability to enroll their children in any public school, regardless of district boundaries.
• Require districts to publish enrollment capacity, waitlists, and denial justifications.

2. Charter School Authorization Reform

• Enable direct state authorization of charter schools.
• Remove district veto authority.

3. Expanded Charter Capacity

• Eliminate enrollment caps and streamline approval for high-demand schools.

4. Full Funding for Correspondence Students

• Establish 100% ADM funding for correspondence programs.
• Defend parental choice in curriculum and purchasing (pending litigation).

5. Teacher Incentives (Not Across-the-Board Raises)

• Propose targeted lump-sum bonuses for teachers in hard-to-staff areas or high-performing schools.

6. Facilities Support for Charters

• Create mechanisms for charter access to capital funding and school buildings. (See notes above about the property management angle of why charters are popular.)

Concluding Thoughts:

The districts I’ve researched in Arizona, Colorado, and other states with shiny new buildings, small class sizes and great test results are attractive and there is no reason for parents to not be motivated to want them for their children. Here are some of the larger CMO managed schools with links to check.

Top Charter Management Organizations

CMO (Charter Management Organization)

KIPP Foundation

Imagine Schools

Harmony Public Schools

IDEA Public Schools

Uncommon Schools

Aspire Public Schools

Responsive Education Solutions

Uplift Education

BASIS Charter Schools

Concept Schools

Source: National Alliance of Public Charter Schools.

More data can also be found at National Center for Education Statistics – Charter Schools.

But there are tradeoffs. In states that have moved heavily toward CMO models, questions have been raised about local accountability, transparency, and how public dollars are managed when education operations are outsourced to third parties. These transitions haven’t always led to better student outcomes—especially for underserved communities—and have sometimes resulted in controversial closures, real estate deals shifting public assets and dollars to private investors, and administrative fragmentation.

In Alaska, we currently have more than 30 charter schools, most of them community-driven and operating within districts. They are not CMOs. They are public schools, staffed by Alaskans and overseen by publicly elected school boards. And yet, those schools are now facing the same funding shortfalls as every other public school under this year’s vetoes. The governor has not proposed support to help them grow or succeed, while he holds them up to encourage us to support charter schools. It looks like a bait-and-switch play to me.

Instead, his policy approach appears more aligned with a broader push toward a statewide charter system based on the CMO model. HB 76, in particular, included language that could lay the groundwork for more independently authorized charter schools that operate outside district oversight—exactly the kind of structure used to implement CMOs in other states.

If this is the direction the governor and his administration want to take, the public deserves to be informed and engaged in the conversation.

Innovation and transitioning to improved education delivery models is not inherently bad – its why our state already supports and offers a charter school program. However there are lessons we can learn from other states about what works—and what doesn’t. But such a shift should be done transparently, with full community participation and a clear understanding of how it will affect local control, school funding, student outcomes, and constitutional protections; rather than through a veiled set of vague “policy” changes that avoid a discussion about the impact and intent of the changes while continuing to attack public schools and undermine community and parent confidence. 

This attack is driving families out of Alaska and convincing those who are considering a more to Alaska to stay away.

We need to have an open, statewide dialogue about the future of public education in Alaska. That conversation must include parents, educators, communities, and students. HB 57 starts that dialog, but the a governor vetoed the bill. Thankfully the legislature overrode the veto and upheld a bill that establishes a task force on education. However it will not solve the present funding crisis brought on by the Governor when he vetoed a balanced budget and a decade of flat funding.

Our state’s education system must be built to serve Alaskans, not modeled after outside agendas. It’s time for leadership that brings us together around solutions, not one that drives us apart through surprise vetoes and withheld support. And now, an effort to bribe us with restoring the vetoed funds in exchange for caving in on hidden policy proposals in a special session is simply a move that seems born out of desperation to get the job done and prepare our state for CMO’s to enter the Alaska education market with our high costs that must be attractive to the CMO advocates.  

I believe in strengthening our community base schools and stopping this CMO movement.  But I’m supportive of learning from what is working and strengthening our education systems.  Let’s invest in what works, support the schools we already have, and ensure any changes to our system are made in the open, with a shared vision for what Alaska’s children need to succeed.

Ky

Updates

Must Read AK July 17, 2025 – Michael Tavoliero: Alaska’s real education crisis is a broken system, not a broken budget. This commentary argues for “Education Savings Accounts” and allowing parents to to use the funds where ever they want and eliminating oversight of education. This seems to follow the recently passed Texas Senate Bill 2 Voucher funding program.

7/21/25 ASD Lead Plaintiff challenging Trump administration over funding being withheld.

7/28 Must Read Alaska – Governor’s message about the special session.

7/28 https://gov.alaska.gov/governor-dunleavy-releases-agenda-for-special-session/

7/28 What is state-tribal state education compacting? 34th legislature bills from the governor Hb59 and SB66.

7/31 – From Rep Gray’s FB feed – “BONUS EPISODE: Open Enrollment is one of Governor Dunleavy’s education priorities, allowing any Alaska student to enroll in any Alaska school.

In this short bonus episode of @East Anchorage Book Club podcast, Senate Rules Chair Sen. Wielechowski and House Education Co-Chair Rep. Himschoot discuss consequences of this proposal and how it could affect districts across the state, in advance of the special #akleg session starting 10 am Saturday, August 2.”

Listen: (And get hooked on the East Anchorage Book Club!) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-problems-with-open-enrollment-sen-bill-wielechowski/id1592614366?i=1000720081512