Alaska
When America (briefly) considered trading part of Alaska for Greenland
Part of a continuing weekly series on Alaska history by local historian David Reamer. Have a question about Anchorage or Alaska history or an idea for a future article? Go to the form at the bottom of this story.
One of the many longstanding misconceptions about Alaska is that it is an island, not metaphorically but literally. For decades, many Lower 48 classrooms featured maps that inserted Alaska off to the side, the territory and then state within a little box. So, more than a few people interpreted that to mean Alaska was an island. In 2021, Shutterfly used this tragicomic misunderstanding as the basis for a commercial.
Every good Alaskan knows their home state is about 2.5 times the size of Texas, a fact always worth remembering. Yet, as vast as Alaska is, it still would not be the largest island in the world, if it were an island. In total area, at around 836,000 square miles, Greenland is the record holder, roughly 25% larger than Alaska. And those two territories — Alaska and Greenland — have another, more historically relevant connection. In the 1940s, State Department officials considered trading part of Alaska for part of Greenland.
Alaska and Greenland first crossed paths within the expansionist mind of Secretary of State William Seward. In 1867, the same year he negotiated the purchase of Alaska from Russia, he also initiated discussions with Denmark to purchase the Caribbean islands of St. Thomas and St. John. Former Treasury Secretary Robert J. Walker suggested the talks expand to include Greenland and Iceland.
In 1823, President James Monroe declared an end to further European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere, where the United States would instead be the dominant power. This was the Monroe Doctrine, which would become a pillar of American foreign policy, paradoxically denouncing the imperialism of the elder countries in favor of the imperialism by the newer America. The push west across the continent and the various interventions into other North and South American nations, to varying degrees, philosophically derive from the Monroe Doctrine.
In tune with the political attitudes of the time, outright purchases were then an acceptable method of territorial expansion, including the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, 1819 Adams-Onís Treaty (Florida), 1854 Gadsden Purchase (southern Arizona and New Mexico), and on through the 1867 Alaska Purchase. Relevant to this reading, President Andrew Jackson’s administration was the first to suggest buying Greenland, back in 1832.
Seward was a fervent Monroe Doctrine adherent and, therefore, an avid expansionist. Among other beliefs, he envisioned a world where Canada and Mexico were merged into the union. As for good old Alaska, negotiations wrapped up at the end of March 1867. The purchase treaty passed Congress and was signed by President Andrew Johnson on May 28, 1867. The territory was formally transferred in an Oct. 18, 1867 ceremony at Sitka.
So, long story short, Seward was quite willing to consider buying Greenland and Iceland. Both islands were then Danish colonies. Greenland is now an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Iceland became fully independent in 1944. Seward authorized Walker to research the idea, which resulted in an 1868 State Department study, “A Report on the Resources of Iceland and Greenland.”
Combined with the purchase of Alaska, Greenland’s primary appeal was as a geopolitical tool to influence the eventual acquisition of Canada. The report makes this point explicitly: “Now, the acquisition of Greenland will flank British America for thousands of miles on the north and west and greatly increase her inducements, peacefully and cheerfully, to become a part of the American Union.” With both Greenland and Canada, as previously with Alaska as well as most subsequent proposals, the desires of the actual residents were worth something between a backward glance and a blank, empty gaze. That is to say, they and their wishes mattered not at all to decision makers in Washington.
Seward eventually finalized a deal for St. Thomas and St. John. At $7,500,000, it had a higher price tag than Alaska, and the island residents even voted overwhelmingly in favor of the transition. However, the treaty was not ratified on the American side, caught as it was amid some particularly nasty political infighting. With his own reputation under assault, Seward abandoned his dreams for Greenland.
In the early 1900s, Danish officials considered selling Greenland to the U.S., an idea that evolved into a more formal swap proposal detailed in a 1910 letter from the American ambassador to Denmark, Maurice Egan, to the State Department. In order, Denmark would give Greenland to the United States in exchange for a southern group of the Philippines, including Mindanao and Palawan. Denmark would then trade those islands to Germany for regions of the northernmost German state, Schleswig-Holstein, which had historically been part of Denmark. In this, Egan was simply a messenger. He described the offer as an “audacious suggestion,” and the entire pitch died an instant death.
In 1916, Denmark agreed to sell the entire Danish West Indies, including St. Thomas and St. John, to the United States for $25 million in gold. After the official transfer in 1917, those islands are now collectively called the U.S. Virgin Islands. The proclamation for the purchase coincidentally included a declaration in which the United States officially recognized Danish authority over Greenland, that “the United States of America will not object to the Danish Government extending its political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland.” This passage represented an exception to the Monroe Doctrine and can be interpreted as America formally ceding its interest in Greenland, for the nonexistent impact that it had, even in the near future, let alone more recently.
Arctic adventurer Robert E. Peary explored Greenland extensively in the 1890s. He was also a Monroe Doctrine hardliner and attempted to influence the proceedings through the media. In a New York Times article, he stated, “Geographically, Greenland belongs to North America and the Western Hemisphere, over which we have formally claimed a sphere of influence by our Monroe Doctrine. Its possession by us will be in line with the Monroe Doctrine, and will eliminate one more possible source of future complications for us from European possession of territory in the Western Hemisphere.” Essentially, no one at the time was sufficiently impressed by his argument.

On April 9, 1940, Nazi Germany invaded Denmark, more as a step toward Norway than for any regard for Denmark’s minimal strategic importance. From an imperial perspective, that left Greenland unattended. Exactly one year later, Denmark and the United States signed the Agreement Relating to the Defense of Greenland. As a defense of Greenland was, to a great extent, a defense of America and its interests, the pact allowed Americans to build, maintain, and operate whatever military, meteorological, or logistical installations on the island as deemed necessary for the war effort.
In an important detail, the agreement also declared, “The Government of the United States of America reiterates its recognition of and respect for the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark over Greenland.” Article IX notes, “The Government of the United States of America will respect all legitimate interests in Greenland as well as all the laws, regulations and customs pertaining to the native population and the internal administration of Greenland.”
That said, once the war concluded, the idea of buying Greenland outright arose again. Sen. Owen Brewster of Maine declared American ownership of Greenland “a military necessity” in a Nov. 10, 1945 Collier’s magazine article straightforwardly titled “Should Greenland Be American?” Within the government, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drove the interest, seeking to at least maintain, if not expand, the American military presence in Greenland. In April 1946, State Department official John Hickerson attended a Joint Chiefs planning committee and reported, “practically every member … said our real objective as regards to Greenland should be to acquire it by purchase from Denmark.”
Reading the mood, the State Department released a study that May: “Proposals with Respect to Greenland.” The report ran through the military and political context, then considered various approaches with which to ensure a continued American presence in Greenland. Purchasing the island outright was only one of the possibilities considered.
Most of the documentation for this episode comes from letters, memos and this report. These sorts of sources can make for dry reading, but there is joy in the interagency frictions that frequently reveal themselves in the text. For example, the above report notes, “The purchase of Greenland appears to be the solution preferred by the Planning and Strategy Committee of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, although the Secretary of State has not been formally advised of this view by the Joint Chiefs of Staff themselves.” In a State Department report written by a State Department employee, the disdain for the Joint Chiefs is barely hidden between the lines.
Enter Alaska once more. As the report notes, a straight purchase would gain Denmark only money against an immeasurable loss of national pride and international prestige. Therefore, its authors considered alternatives, primarily a trade, territory for territory. In exchange for zones of military interest, America would swap juicy swaths of Alaska, Arctic land for Arctic land. Specifically, America would offer oil-rich stretches of the North Slope.
In the interest of accuracy, the following is the direct quote from the report. “In view of probable strong Danish opposition to the sale of Greenland, it has been suggested that as an alternative we seek to acquire only those areas of the island of value to us from a military viewpoint and, in return, cede to Denmark an equivalent amount of territory in the Point Barrow district of Alaska. The Danes would be permitted to develop any mineral resources found there, including petroleum, with the proviso that all oil produced be sold to this country.”
Contrary to some recent accounts of these discussions, American diplomats were well aware of the potential mineral wealth beneath the North Slope, as evidenced by the direct reference to petroleum. President Warren Harding established the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4, now the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, all the way back in 1923. In 1944, the Navy began a large-scale exploration of the region, including numerous wells, to locate and estimate the oil and natural gas reservoirs. While no one, including the State Department diplomats, then knew the extent of the northern Alaska oil reserves, they were certainly aware that they were offering something of value for something of value.
As an aside, the report also claimed, “No criticism has been leveled at our treatment of the indigenous population of Alaska.” Again, no one went around asking Alaska Natives for their thoughts on any of this.
Alas for any Danish immigrants or descendants living in northern Alaska, the Point Barrow swap was deemed a non-starter. As the unnamed author(s) declared, this proposal “may also be discarded since the difficulties of negotiating an agreement of this type would be as great if not greater than those for cession of the island, while our military and related interests would better be served if we owned Greenland in its entirety.”
After its discussion on Alaska, the calculation of a monetary offer for Greenland is one of the report’s more fascinating passages. First, it described Denmark as a “weak state” due to its occupation during World War II. Second, there was the $25 million paid for the Danish West Indies. It concluded, “Assuming the potential defense value of Greenland to us is greater than that of the Danish West Indies in 1916, it is felt that $100,000,000 in gold would not be too large a price to offer.” Thus, by one old estimation, Greenland is worth four U.S. Virgin Islands.
On Dec. 14, 1946, Secretary of State James Byrnes made the $100 million offer to Danish Foreign Minister Gustav Rasmussen, who was initially flummoxed by the surprising bid. Byrnes optimistically reported, “Our needs … seemed to come as a shock to Rasmussen, but he did not reject my suggestions flatly and said that he would study a memorandum which I gave him.” Given time to recover, Rasmussen called the proposal “absurd” and told the American ambassador to Denmark that “while we owe much to America, I do not feel that we owe them the whole island of Greenland.” As the news spread about Denmark, opposition to an outright sale crossed all political divides.
Negotiations between the two countries from there focused on extending the existing military partnership. On April 27, 1951, a new Defense of Greenland pact was signed, allowing the American military presence in Greenland to expand, with “exclusive jurisdiction over those defense areas,” except over Danish nationals. Danish sovereignty over Greenland was again confirmed. The agreement was amended in 2004 to recognize Greenland’s increased autonomy via its Home Rule government.
Various officials — always American, never Danish — occasionally brought up the idea of buying Greenland. It was the sort of idea that came up in random meetings every few months or so. In 1959, the State Department’s Northern European Affairs officer William M. Kerrigan offered the most scathing indictment of such proposals. He wrote, “The final point as I recall was that any overt action in the direction of attempted purchase of Greenland could be extremely dangerous for the retention of our activities there, and could hardly improve our status, since we are permitted to do almost anything, literally, that we want to in Greenland.”
• • •
Key sources:
Dyer, Brainerd. “Robert T. Walker on Acquiring Greenland and Iceland.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 27, no. 2 (1940): 263-266.
Egan, Maurice Francis. Letter to Assistant Secretary of State. September 20, 1910.
“Greenland-Alaska Land Swap Is History.” Anchorage Times. May 3, 1991, A1, A14.
Hubbard, Charles J. “Should Greenland Be American?” Collier’s. November 10, 1945.
Jacobsen, Marc, and Sara Olsvig. “From Peary to Pompeo: The History of United States’ Securitizations of Greenland.” In Greenland in Arctic Security, edited by Marc Jacobsen, Ole Waever, and Ulrik Pram Gad. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2024.
Kerrigan, William M. Memorandum to Robert M. Brandin. August 7, 1959, United States Department of State.
Peary, Robert E. “Greenland as an American Naval Base.” New York Times. September 11, 1916, 8.
Peirce, Benjamin Mills. A Report on the Resources of Iceland and Greenland. Washington, D.C.: United States State Department, 1868.
Kiffer, Dave. “Alaska for Greenland?” SitNews. August 20, 2019.
Alaska
Did I Find a Cure for Male Loneliness? No, But I Found a Way to Embrace Solitude in the Wild.
Published July 9, 2026 03:00AM
On the longest solo trip of my life, I stepped off a two-seat float plane onto the rocky shore of Upper Twin Lake in Alaska’s Lake Clark National Park.
I had taken four flights from New Jersey to Alaska to write about the iconic cabin handbuilt by Richard “Dick” Proenneke, the self-taught naturalist whose 30-year solo life in the wilderness was captured in the beloved PBS documentary Alone in the Wilderness. Proenneke never married, never had children, and spent nearly three decades completely alone, save for the birds he fed by hand and bears that occasionally clawed at his logs.
“He must have been lonely out here,” a fellow traveler said during the park ranger’s tour of the cabin.
On that chilly June morning last year, I found myself wondering the same thing. I was just coming to a different conclusion.
Park officials told me the cabin has seen a recent uptick in visitors, which they attribute to Proenneke’s newfound popularity on social media, and to a direct flight to the property by an outback flying service. I visited the cabin as a member of a tour group led by two guides. My group included a doctor, a retired attorney, a veterinarian, and a handful of National Parks superfans. Still, I stuck mostly to myself, spending the trip deep in my own thoughts. In Alaska, I wound up pondering a life like Proenneke’s, sans the means or skills to make it happen.
According to podcasters, writers, polls, therapists, influencers, and anyone else with a mouth or keyboard, there’s a male loneliness epidemic eroding the dated fabric of masculinity, like the snake of patriarchy eating its own tail.
Remedies for this epidemic are everywhere in the media, with new ones popping up weekly. The New York Times wondered if pickleball held the answers; others have suggested buying a personal watercraft, joining a mosh pit, or taking off your shirt at a college football game, or watching a horror-comedy starring Paul Rudd. In recent months, brunch, AI-powered companion dolls, and Jack Black have been mentioned as cures.
Outside wondered whether “outdoor friendships,” volunteering, or getting a pet could work.
These cures may seem unrelated and even, perhaps, a little silly. However, the common theme between them seems to be social interaction, choosing community over individualism, a bowling league or running club over your PlayStation.
Some entrepreneurs have even launched businesses to combat male loneliness. A deep-dive earlier this year in the New Yorker revealed how fathers are paying men to turn their sons into “alphas,” while others are joining men-only retreats to be screamed at. Men are taking reams of peptides, smashing their cheekbones with hammers, and getting chin implants in an effort to chase some warped standard of masculinity.
Most of these solutions seem alien to the introverts of society, myself included. I’m not sure I’ve ever been lonely, per se, or even bored, unless I’m stuck in small talk. I’ve never loved team sports or double dates either. In school, hearing a teacher say “let’s break into groups” made me groan.
During my trip to Alaska, I realized that Proenneke enjoyed solitude but not loneliness. The former feels intentional and rewarding, as opposed to the latter, which causes anxiety and depression. He wasn’t a misanthrope. He welcomed visitors and was thoughtful enough to whittle a variety of walking sticks to match their height.
Monroe Robinson, author of The Handcrafted Life of Dick Proenneke, spent nearly 20 years living at the cabin and maintaining it for the National Park Service. Robinson knew Proenneke, who died in 2003, at the age of 86. “He liked when people came to visit,” Robinson told me later in a call, “and he also liked when they left.”
I can relate.
My aversions to crowds and clubs have been a source of personal confusion over the years. I’m not a misanthrope, either. As a reporter, I crave deeply personal interactions with others and get invested in the people I write about to a fault. Part of me always thought loneliness was a good way to avoid heartbreak. I’ve loved deeply anyhow, and lost people in my life to suicide and divorce.
In June of 2024, I learned my then-wife was deeply unhappy in our marriage. I had a real breakdown. The ensuing algorithms of online divorce content can be toxic for men, a slippery slope greased by manosphere grifters. Well-intentioned friends and family will often just take your side during a breakup, too, and there’s not much growth in that. So I tried to avoid that noise, choosing to walk inside myself, to find a “vast inner solitude” as the poet Rainer Marie Rilke advised.
I wanted to confront my own bullshit.
I spent a few dozen nights sleeping in tents for the rest of that year, mostly in the Northeast. Sometimes I slept in single-digit temperatures. I’d reserved a tent site for my wedding anniversary, a campground where I’d wanted to renew my vows. But after my marriage began to crumble, I took my young daughter, instead of canceling. I put her in a hiking backpack to slog my way up a few summits. I kept on punishing myself too, on trail runs and difficult hikes, hoping exhaustion would tamp down the urge to beg my ex and anyone who knew her for answers. Bad cell service helped with that.
(I also found a great therapist, thankfully.)
On a long-planned family vacation to Southwest Colorado in August of 2024 that I couldn’t afford and couldn’t cancel, the San Juan Mountains loomed everywhere I went. I saw them from the window of my cabin, the dirt roads I drove along with my kids, and the hammock where I finished The Snow Leopard, in which author Peter Matthiessen joins an expedition to find the mythic beast in Nepal after the death of his wife.
The mountains felt timeless and unavoidable there, and they spoke to me, a perfect epilogue to the book’s zen message.
“Accept what’s happening” they said.
And so I accepted that my marriage was over.
In May of 2025, the divorce was finalized. A few weeks later, I was in Alaska as a freelancer, pinching myself as my plane touched down on the icy, blue lake.
Robinson, when I asked, said “feeling lonely was not a thing” for Proenneke. He was too active, too busy trying to survive. Proenneke left society, yes, but he didn’t withdraw from life. In the long winters, when no sun hit Proenneke’s sod roof, when no planes landed on the frozen lake, he would spend months penning thoughtful letters to close friends, family, and his growing legion of fans.

Proenneke cared about his cabin’s appearance too, about beauty, and that matters. He built a stone fireplace, an extra bunk for guests, and hand-carved a much-beloved Dutch door. Windows would be an inconvenient luxury in a trapper’s cabin in Alaska, but Prokenneke fashioned one that offered a grand view of the lake anyway.
While I was contemplating Proenneke’s contentment in Alaska, I was also watching contentment in action with the two young guides in charge of us there. For a moment or two, I envied both of them, the same way I envied Proenneke. Guide Dom Gawel, who is in his mid-20s, was the quieter of the two, and he led a few of us on some longer hikes while others stayed behind at camp. Later, I asked Dom about loneliness. He thought young men feel lost today “because they are comparing themselves to others in a negative way through social media” and “disconnected from nature.”
Luckily, there’s nothing close to a signal at Lake Clark National Park, no texts you feel compelled to answer, no influencers to interact with. That’s not easy to do in the United States.
I also found kinship with Dr. Adam Bolour, my kayak partner at Twin Lakes and roommate at Port Alsworth, a tiny Alaskan village on Lake Clark where we slept on our final night. We talked about fatherhood, relationships, and nature. He was traveling solo too, from California, and while he was upbeat and talkative with everyone, I watched him steal away to read some Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Self-Reliance by the lakeshore. I did the same with Proenekke’s book there.
I emailed to ask about male loneliness, when I got back to New Jersey.
“I cherish solo trips, whether I’m married, feeling alone, feeling super connected with someone or a big group,” he wrote. “It’s just great to get away and convene with silence and space.”

My revelations in Colorado and, later, at Proenneke’s cabin, helped me realize I must connect deeply with myself in the outdoors from time to time. Nature can’t just be an emergency room for me, either. It’s long-term maintenance for my physical and mental health, whether it’s trail running, floating in a swimming hole, or staring at mountains. It’s more than a hobby. The version of me who returns from those trips is a better father and, hopefully, a better partner someday.
Unlike Matthiessen, who spent months away from his young, grieving son in search of a snow leopard, or Proenneke, who spent 30 years away from almost everyone, I couldn’t and wouldn’t want to pull myself away from my children and responsibilities to that extreme. I have been guilty of that in the past. I’ll make do with a vow to see mountains like the San Juans as much as possible, even if it’s just a few days to convene with solitude, as Adam does. And if I can’t get to the Sawtooths or Switzerland, I’ll cut myself a break and keep exploring Pennsylvania or the Catskills.
A few months after I got back from Alaska, I tackled Pennsylvania’s Black Forest Trail. It’s the state’s most difficult hike, a 43-mile loop with a mind-boggling 8,500 feet of elevation gain. I was craving solitude, again, and found the trail emptier than the Alaskan backcountry. I saw as many rattlesnakes as people on that trip.
On my final night of the hike, after pushing hard for about 18 miles, I took off my boots and socks and stretched out on a shady vista as the sun began to sink. Two hikers came in, a father and son, after their own long day. They hoped to camp there too and asked if I minded. I said it was fine and then, a few minutes later, reached for my socks and boots.
I shouldered my heavy pack, wished them a deep sleep, and pushed on to find solitude, that little bit of loneliness all the world says is a problem.
Jason Nark is a reporter who covers the outdoors for the Philadelphia Inquirer and and a freelance writer whose work has appeared in The New York Times, Outside, The Alpinist, Adventure Journal, National Geographic, Dwell, and other outlets.
Alaska
Outmigration, inflation, choice schools: Alaska school closures likely to continue without changes
A dozen Alaska schools closed their doors in May, the most closures in a single year in the last two decades, according to the state education department.
Clusters of school closures in urban areas of the state had been uncommon until recently, but are part of a larger trend as public school enrollment declines nationwide. School district officials have framed closures as a means to bridge multimillion-dollar deficits, but some research suggests districts don’t realize meaningful savings. Closures can also have negative impacts on students and families.
According to data from the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, 60 schools closed between 1999 and fall 2025. Another 12 schools closed this year, part of the 28 total that have closed in the last three years alone.
Four districts closed schools this year, and each of the state’s largest five districts have closed schools in the last three years. In interviews, school district superintendents said closures are caused by insufficient and unpredictable state funding, demographic changes and, to varying degrees, the proliferation of school choice.
Superintendents, lawmakers and Alaska Education Commissioner Deena Bishop agreed that closures are likely to continue unless something changes.
State legislators last year passed the first permanent increase to state formula funding for schools since 2017, but school officials said state funding remains inadequate. This year, lawmakers approved one-time energy relief payments for districts totaling at least $29 million — with up to $115 million in additional funding contingent on unexpected oil revenue — and an education package that directs spending for specific programs as opposed to the per-student formula.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Superintendent Randy Trani said Alaska districts no longer have enough funding to provide all the choices families want while maintaining the expected access to neighborhood public schools.
“There is a general funding problem for K-12 education where we just have not kept up with inflation, and simultaneously districts are being asked to provide more choices, and choices cost money,” Trani said. “We’re all dealing with this more and more choice thing, and we’re all dealing with less and less funding.”
Alaska school districts offer 34 correspondence programs. In the last 25 years, 10,000 Alaska students have moved from neighborhood public schools to correspondence programs, typically taking their per-student funding with them.
Bishop, the state education commissioner, said that’s evidence that families want additional choices beyond neighborhood public schools.
“There will be continued school closures, and I believe there will be continued choice programs to pull people back or to give people what they want,” Bishop said.
Contributing to the enrollment decline, Alaska has had more than a decade of sustained outmigration as the birth rate continues to decline nationwide.
School finance officials have identified class size increases and school closures as the most direct ways to cut expenses for districts facing budget shortfalls, but families have pushed back against large class sizes that can be harmful for student learning.
Closures combine schools under one building to provide more opportunities for students. State law allows a three-year grace period where districts still receive some funding for the closed school under the “hold harmless” provision, incentivizing closures for some districts.
Neighborhood schools, and choice
The Mat-Su school board voted to close Glacier View School after enrollment dipped near the 10-student limit. Trani said several dozen other school-aged children live in the area who don’t attend Glacier View. He said the factors driving closures in the Mat-Su are the same ones that districts in Anchorage and on the Kenai Peninsula are facing.
“Funding, birth rate, and then movement, offering more choices, which we can’t afford to do anymore,” Trani said. “If those three trends don’t change, or if some combination of them doesn’t change, then school closures are going to be on the docket every year going forward.”
Students who attended Glacier View School can choose from a variety of homeschool or correspondence programs next year, or drive more than 50 miles to and from Sutton or Palmer for class each day.
Trani said his district didn’t have many other options to reduce the budget after they cut one-eighth of staff members last year. In a survey asking residents to rank district budget priorities, community members indicated they would not support a four-day school week or cuts to sports programs, but would want to preserve class sizes, Trani said.
Along with Glacier View, Larson and Meadow Lakes elementary schools also closed in the district.
In Anchorage, families have also pushed back against proposed cuts to sports, teachers and school nurses. The Anchorage School Board responded with a fast-tracked plan to close three schools, which spawned a lawsuit from Campbell STEM Elementary School parents.
After the April municipal election, several Anchorage voters said they didn’t approve the district’s school bond and special education tax levy because of their distrust in the district stemming from the closure decisions.
According to the most recent data available from Alaska’s education department, about 12% of neighborhood public school students statewide switched to correspondence schools in the 2020-21 school year, a time marked by upheaval from the COVID-19 pandemic. Of those nearly 9,600 students who left brick-and-mortar school buildings, only about 5,800 had returned in 2021-22.
While a smaller percentage of neighborhood public school students in the 2021-22 school year switched to correspondence schools — 3% — the number of students who returned the following year, 850, continued to lag far behind the number of students who had left, nearly 2,100.
The Anchorage School District is the state’s largest and has lost about 7,500 students since 2015, closing six schools in the last four years. The district saw an 84% increase in correspondence students between 2011 and 2025.
Despite that enrollment drop, Anchorage School Board President Carl Jacobs said the recent cluster of closures are a symptom of state fiscal issues plaguing several core government services.
“It’s a process that, with the right leadership at the state level, may have been completely avoidable,” Jacobs said. “The issue is so much bigger than just school choice.”
ASD Superintendent Jharrett Bryantt said the district will not close more schools next year, and instead will work to rebuild trust with the community. He said closures should be used as a way to improve academic offerings for students, not to close budget deficits as they were this year.
Bryantt said results from Anchorage residents on a budget-balancing simulation showed the community supports school closures. Bryantt said choice schools are not causing school closures, and called for an increase to state funding.
“Thousands of families in Anchorage and all over the state are choosing their neighborhood schools, and they are urging us to figure out ways to strengthen those neighborhood schools,” Bryantt said. “There is certainly a conversation to be had about consolidations, but I think it’s a red herring to pit neighborhood against choice.”
Benefits for students
While many districts sought out low-capacity schools to close, district leaders on the Kenai Peninsula felt they couldn’t combine students at its smallest schools in more remote communities — such as Cooper Landing, Hope, Moose Pass or Razdolna — with others without disproportionately increasing travel time for those students.
The KPBSD Board of Education has voted to close five schools in the last two years, but reversed planned class size increases with additional funding from the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Superintendent Clayton Holland expects more school closures next year, but said he’s dreading those discussions. Districts budgets are due to local municipalities or boroughs before the Legislature has determined what level of funding to appropriate for schools.
“We’re so intent on a short-term financial stability or financial gain that, because we don’t know what we have, that we have to go through this early. It’s not as planned out as it could be,” Holland said.
Closed in 2025, the Nikolaevsk School has been approved to reopen as a charter school by the district and state Board of Education and Early Development. Housing charter schools has become a popular use for the vacated buildings.
Farther north, the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District has shuttered seven schools in the last four years, more than any other district in the state.
Unlike Anchorage, Fairbanks Superintendent Luke Meinert said his district had a much smaller savings account to draw from as state funding fell flat year after year, and hasn’t received the maximum allowable local contribution from the borough.
That led district officials to invest early in the idea of closing schools, and giving residents an idea of what to expect long term. Meinert said the emotional toll that closures have on the community is real.
“We were kind of on the tip of the spear in terms of having to make some of these painful decisions earlier than some other school districts,” Meinert said. “We went through three rounds of school closures, and I will say, while we felt like the process from administration got better each time we did it, it’s still incredibly difficult and painful.”
Bobby Burgess, the Fairbanks school board president, said military families were concerned about the plan to close Ben Eielson Jr./Sr. High School. But the small class sizes limited what educators could offer, and students had more options once they moved to North Pole High School.
“Because those kids were not getting that number of electives, there were a lot of folks who were, in the end, OK with the move because they had more choice and more opportunity,” Burgess said.
Burgess said the closures were approved as a way to avoid class size increases. Instead of more school closures this year, Fairbanks officials used the savings from prior closures to reintroduce elementary music offerings and programs for gifted students during their budget process.
Outmigration
In Southeast Alaska, former Juneau School District Superintendent Frank Hauser said consolidations and closures have had a positive impact on student performance.
“By combining the schools in Juneau, we’ve been able to maintain and expand opportunities for students,” Hauser said. “The board here has also not had to make the heartbreaking decisions other school boards in the state have made to cut art or music or other opportunities or supports for students.”
The Juneau School Board voted to close three schools in 2024 and reopen one as a middle school the following year. Hauser’s time as superintendent ended last month, but he said the consolidations saved the district money.
Juneau and other Southeast communities have experienced more rapid population decline than other parts of the state, and suffer less from school choice options.
“While we’ve seen a lot of improvements and positive impact from the consolidation and the closure, the district is still projecting a multimillion-dollar deficit for FY28,” Hauser said.
Ketchikan Gateway Borough School Board President Katherine Tatsuda said their district represents the other side of that equation. Board members in Ketchikan voted to close two elementary schools and increase class sizes after cutting about about one-quarter of their staff to reduce expenses.
“None of us knew how significant of a really negative financial position we were in until we got into it at the end of February,” Tatsuda said.
Research from Stanford’s Center for Education Policy Analysis released in May suggests closures don’t save districts as much as expected, and districts often come closer to breaking even after closing schools.
“With closures comes a whole host of other kinds of expenses that can show up,” Stanford assistant professor of education Francis Pearman has said. “It’s not free to close up a building and to move students and material elsewhere.”
Further research indicates that poorly handled school closures can exacerbate racial inequities and hamper student achievement.
Last year, the school board in Ketchikan avoided closures by restructuring elementary schools, which Tatsuda said drove many families to leave the district for choice schools.
“Basically, every single department across the board and every school was impacted by that reduction in force, and so the impact to students is (that) there will be larger class sizes for sure,” Tatsuda said.
Tatsuda said residents have been emotional and frustrated with the decision, and called on lawmakers to forward-fund education.
State Sen. Löki Tobin, an Anchorage Democrat who co-chairs the legislative Task Force on Education Funding, said Alaska’s shift to the per-pupil model that ties school funding to the location of students is part of the problem.
“We don’t have good statewide policies to support families,” Tobin said. “What we also should be thinking about is new school finance models, and I think that’s really where the work of the task force and education funding is critical.”
Tobin suggested paid family leave, a statewide option to access healthcare, improvements to the foster care system and raising wages. She said Alaskans uncertain if their school might close next should support state leaders who support schools.
“The hope is November,” Tobin said. “There have been multiple opportunities for us to stop this rash of school closures, and that has been at the ballot box.”
Alaska
Climate Change Is Helping an Invasive Predator Wreak Havoc on Iconic Alaskan Fish
-
Missouri3 minutes agoMissouri realtors hold statewide rally to vote no on Amendments 4 & 5
-
Montana5 minutes agoDistrict court judge blocks new Montana GOP bylaws – WTOP News
-
Nebraska11 minutes agoNebraska ag experts say early detection for livestock parasites, illnesses will be important during summer show season
-
Nevada18 minutes agoLocal artists on Northern Nevada stages, now through Labor Day weekend
-
New Hampshire20 minutes agoTrans athletes drop lawsuit to gain access to girls’ sports in New Hampshire after SCOTUS ruling
-
New Jersey26 minutes agoFamily describes frantic moments delivering baby on the NJ Turnpike
-
New Mexico33 minutes ago
Hidden gem in Cloudcroft, New Mexico has best BBQ in US
-
North Carolina36 minutes agoNorth Carolina Airport Looks to Expand Commercial Service | AirlineGeeks.com





