With the passage of House Bill 69 by Alaska’s lower chamber on March 12, it seems the State House minority has been unsuccessful at convincing the majority that Alaska education is a failing system in need of complete overhaul.

It is a tall task, and I hold nothing against the House minority. Nevertheless, we might look to HB69 (which now heads to the Senate) to help us understand where the majority feels education is succeeding. But first, let’s do some simple math.

Alaska’s annual petroleum revenue can presently be estimated at 20% of the annual market value of production. Average daily production sits at around 460,000 bpd. At $85 per barrel, that represents about $14.3B in annual market value, with $3.1B of that total going to Alaska as revenue.

These numbers are consistent with the Alaska Department of Revenue Spring 2025 Forecast. Anecdotal reports suggest Willow and Pikka oil development could contribute as much as 144,000 barrels per day by 2032. While this production slowly comes on-line, however, oil prices are anticipated to stabilize at around $70 per barrel. This represents incremental revenue contributions over time starting at $0 per year, gradually increasing to annual revenue of about $700M per year by 2032. Moving forward, a linear progression suggests steps of $100,000 per year in additional revenue to Alaska.

In reality, the actual revenue calculation isn’t quite this simple. In fact, despite the anticipated production increases, the revenues forecast for FY25 and FY26 are expected to drop below FY24 levels largely due to tax deductible capital investment. This simple calculation is good, however, for illustrating what a balanced sense of reality should look like.

These are bad faith negotiators. At a time when Alaska finds itself starving on many levels, the education system has decided to strike while the iron is hot and take a giant bite out of the apple while the rest of us sit around and watch it being eaten.

The Anchorage School District uses a chart to illustrate how maintaining the BSA at essentially a consistent level of $5,930 per student “flat-funds” education. ASD neglects to consider that the alleged “flat-funding” has occurred as oil production has consistently declined. Volatile oil prices appear to be settling from periods of relatively higher prices into a forecast period of stable but relatively lower market prices – especially considering inflation trends.

Despite these market trends, the public education lobby has made no concessions to move away from business as usual – even as school attendance steadily declines. Each fiscal year, one-time funding from the legislature rescues Alaska’s school districts from their fiscal cliffs.

Meanwhile, many Alaska families once relied upon the PFD to help support private education and efforts to home-school their children. In 2016, however, their reliable, predictable funding stream – the PFD – dried up after then-Governor Bill Walker and the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the statutory PFD formula was unconstitutional because it represents a dedicated funding source. The PFD has since been subject to annual appropriation by the legislature.

So, what does HB69 do?

Funding HB69 sets up an inverse relationship between spending and the revenue benefits Alaska might expect to realize from Willow and Pikka. Over the foreseeable life span of HB69 – through 2032 – increased education expenditures (above existing levels) amounts to more than $4.5B. The largest increase in education spending would occur on the front end. Meanwhile, over the same period, Willow and Pikka are only forecast to bring in $2.8B, with the largest increase in revenue expected at the tail end.

HB69 looks in the way-back time machine to when Alaska emerged as an energy powerhouse partially in response to the Arab Oil Embargo of the 1970s. It callously expects Alaskans – through legislators who are supported by educational political interests – to deliver the same level of investment to education as it did during the 1970s and 1980s.

All of this is occurring at a time when the education system spreads woke ideology, while being hostile to families, workers, and the industry supporting public education.

Instead of asking how much more production can be generated to provide what our children need, the education-first lobby asks Alaskans: “How much revenue do you expect to have in the future?” Next, they ask: “How much can we get away with taking up front?

These are bad faith negotiators. At a time when Alaska finds itself starving on many levels, the education system has decided to strike while the iron is hot and take a giant bite out of the apple while the rest of us sit around and watch it being eaten. How will we respond? Will we lie roll over, or take the bull by the horns?

HB69 is not fiscally responsible. It lacks meaningful reform or overhaul. It does not serve the interests of our children and their future prosperity. Given current circumstances, HB69 kicks the can down the road and sets Alaska up for bigger problems in the future.

Finally, we might ask why it is that only the education system is entitled to reap the benefits of a funding formula and apparent exceptions to constitutional limitations.

There is no time like today for bringing about necessary changes in Alaska’s education to support our children and their future prosperity. Alternatives to the current education system do exist. Consider the Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act proposed by Michael Tavoliero.

Editor’s note: House Bill 69 is now in the Senate Education Committee, where it is scheduled for the first of several public hearings on March 17. Click here to contact members of the Senate Education Committee.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.