By BOB GRIFFIN

Gov. Mike Dunleavy mentioned a recent Rutgers study that found that Alaska has the second most adequately funded school system in the US during his March 15 press conference. It’s probably worthy of discussing that study in greater detail, since very few in the media seem curious enough to ask a follow-up question on the subject. 

The study, that was a combined effort from Rutgers University in New Jersey and The University of Miami, didn’t look at how much states were spending but at how adequately different state school systems were funded, based on 125 different factors including cost of living difference between states and the wealth of a state. Here’s an excerpt from the study’s executive summary: 

“Good school finance systems compensate for factors states cannot control (e.g., student poverty, labor costs) using levers that they can control (e.g., driving funding to districts that need it most). We have devised a framework that evaluates states based largely on how well they accomplish this balance. We assess each state’s funding while accounting directly for the students and communities served by its public schools.

“This is important because how much a given district or state spends on its schools, by itself, is a rather blunt measure of how well those schools are funded. For example, high-poverty districts require more resources to achieve a given outcome goal—e.g., a particular average score on a standardized test—than do more affluent districts. In other words, education costs vary depending on student populations, labor markets, and other factors. That is a fundamental principle of school finance.” 

In the study, states were ranked and were assigned a score on a scale of 1 to 100 for funding adequacy. Alaska scored 95 out of 100, slightly behind Wyoming (97 points) and ahead of New Hampshire (86 points), Maine (85 points) and New York (83points). 

The least adequately funded states were Florida with a score of 12 out of 100. Next were North Carolina (13 points) and Nevada (14 points). 

It’s interesting that despite being dead last in funding adequacy, Florida produces some of the best student outcomes in the US: In 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores Florida was #1 in the US for both reading and math scores for low-income 4^th grade kids. Florida was also 3^rd in 4^th  grade reading and 7^th in 4^th grade math for kids from upper/middle income families. Alaska was 51^st, 48^th, 50^th and 49^th respectively in the same categories. 

But who cares about 4^th grade scores? What really matters is the quality of the high school graduates a system produces, right?  Probably the best indicator of the quality of kids graduating a system is the percentage of students who graduate who have passed and Advanced Placement (AP) test with a score of 3 or higher. In 2022, 28.8% of Florida high school graduates passed at least one AP test with a 3 or higher – the 3^rd highest rate in the nation. Alaska was 45^th in the US in that statistic, with just 11.9%.   

One limitation of the Rutgers study is that only includes state and local funding of K-12. Alaska is #1 by a wide margin in the amount of federal funding we receive at $3,343 per student. That’s 85% above the US average of $1,808 and 16% above the #2 state (North Dakota).  Florida was 28^th in the nation in per student funding from the federal government at $1,681, despite having a much higher poverty rate and much higher percentage of students who speak English less the “very well” than Alaska.

According to the Rutgers study, Alaskans generously commit a larger part of our overall economy to K12 education than the vast majority of states — on a state and local basis. That’s from researchers in New Jesey and Florida who have no agenda to make Alaska look good or bad in this regard. 

Some will say that the governor cherry picked that particular study. I don’t think so. I’ve searched for nationwide adequacy studies that come to a different conclusion than Rutgers — and I can’t find any. 

Anchorage School District did pay for a local adequacy funding study from a well-known firm that charges hundreds  of thousands or even millions of dollars to conduct adequacy studies. I’m wondering how much repeat business that firm would get if they didn’t come to the conclusions the clients were looking for before the study was launched.

We’re far overdue to figure out how we refocus our generous contributions to K12 into acceptable outcomes for our kids. Record increases in state K12 funding, without meaningful reform, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Insanity.

Bob Griffin is a member of the Alaska State Board of Education, and is writing on his own behalf.