Editor’s note: This column was first published by Alaska Families for Education Freedom, a new group that works to support and expand school choice options for families across Alaska.
The Alaska Association of School Boards recent chiding of correspondence school graduation rates and testing is not only one-sided – it’s misleading. AASB’s remarks echo familiar talking points by the NEA teachers’ union on the need for more tracking and accountability, while overlooking how inconsistently those expectations are applied across Alaska’s public education system.
AASB’s executive director stated a desire to avoid division, yet his comments a few weeks ago were intended to do exactly that – single out one segment of public education while ignoring broader systemic issues. That is not a unifying message; it is intentional, selective criticism that lends itself to divisiveness, a hallmark of associations and groups like the AASB.
In quickly browsing through memos and outreach messages from correspondence programs to their stakeholders and parents, these communications seem supportive of all public-school systems. The AASB, however, does not support correspondence and actively works against it.
For more than a decade, many districts across Alaska have ranked in the lowest percentiles on statewide assessments. Yet there has been little consequence. In many cases, those same districts receive additional funding, grants, and targeted support precisely because of low performance. They continue to receive full foundation formula funding along with supplemental resources. In practice, low performance is not penalized, it is subsidized. If accountability is truly the concern, the discussion should not selectively be targeted at correspondence programs. Furthermore, the current state testing has zero accountability and, therefore, any argument regarding the need for students to test is political grandstanding.
This interest group’s argument is not supported by evidence; it is false conjecture provided by those who wish to undermine parental choice and correspondence programs.
The criticism of correspondence program graduation rates is equally incomplete without proper context. Many of these programs intentionally serve students in alternative pathways, students who are often years behind after struggling in traditional systems. We do not blame traditional schools for directing struggling students to correspondence, as all children need access to different opportunities to succeed. Yet, AASB made it a point to cast shadows on the programs taking these students in. Many enter these programs with significant academic deficits and with a limited likelihood of graduating on time. At the same time, the districts they leave benefit from improved graduation metrics, while correspondence programs embrace educating these wonderful children, fully aware this will impact their own data. Criticizing correspondence schools for that reality ignores the role they play and creates the very division, which the AASB claims to oppose.
It is also important to recognize that many of these programs operate large academic recovery systems, serving students who are significantly behind in credits. That reality directly impacts reported graduation rates. If those credit recovery populations were separated out, the graduation rates for the core correspondence student population would likely be several percentage points higher, further widening the gap between these programs and the state average. Again, contextual evidence that the AASB ignores.
The assertion that correspondence programs lack accountability is also difficult to reconcile with the data. If there were truly no accountability, one would expect graduation rates to approach 100 percent. They do not. That alone undermines the claim. This interest group’s argument is not supported by evidence; it is false conjecture provided by those who wish to undermine parental choice and correspondence programs.
Some Alaska schools spend more than $100,000 per student, while correspondence programs operate at less than $6,000 per student. Despite this significant disparity, correspondence students continue to demonstrate strong outcomes.
A broader look at the data tells a different story. Across several of the state’s larger correspondence programs, those operated by Anchorage, Kenai, Galena, Mat-Su, Denali, Fairbanks, and Yukon Koyukuk, the combined four-year graduation rate over the past five years is about 71.7 percent. Over that same period, the statewide graduation rate excluding those programs is about 70.8 percent. In other words, these correspondence programs are performing above the state average, not below it, a fact AASB omitted. It seems to reason that if AASB is so concerned about the graduation rates of correspondence schools they would be yelling from the mountaintops, getting buttons made, and holding protests at the capital about the other schools falling beneath them. But this does not fit their narrative.
The absence of this context is significant, as it materially changes how data should be interpreted and raises legitimate concerns about how the issue is being presented to the public by AASB – an organization funded with public dollars.
Financial comparisons further complicate the narrative. Some Alaska schools spend more than $100,000 per student, while correspondence programs operate at less than $6,000 per student. Despite this significant disparity, correspondence students continue to demonstrate strong outcomes. That is not indicative of a failing model but suggests efficiency and effectiveness.
It is also interesting that AASB places a disproportionate focus on the finances of correspondence programs. Less than $48 million was directed toward these programs in the form of disbursed allotments during the 2024 fiscal year as reported by ADN on February 13, 2025, or $43.2 million as indicated by available DEED information. These are funds that are already audited and accounted for, yet the remaining $1.4-1.5 billion in statewide K-12 education expenditures receives far less scrutiny from AASB. This imbalance raises legitimate questions about intent. If accountability is truly the goal, why target a relatively small segment of education funding while ignoring much larger expenditures? In fact, AASB is interested in less than 4% of expenditures – not the remaining 96%. It’s a classic Red-Herring tactic used for manipulation.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
The AASB spokesperson’s concerns about testing participation also lack important context. Alaska law allows families to opt out of statewide testing. Traditional students test at a higher percentage simply because they are a captive audience and physically in the building when these assessments are administered. When participation was required, correspondence students outperformed their peers in literacy. Given the gargantuan funding differences, those results are notable and the return on investment is crystal clear – correspondence programs deserve their place in the system.
Notably, the Alaska Legislature Task Force on Education recently held a meeting and heard a presentation that further debunks AASB’s infatuation with destroying correspondence schools and provided a significant take on testing for these students. The presenter from Furman University noted that legislators should not make decisions about students based on a single standardized test. Rather, the “key to understanding data in Alaska is the information on poverty.”
Taken together, these omissions, inconsistencies, and lack of listening to the professionals point to a broader issue: the use of selective data to support a predetermined narrative. A more balanced and comprehensive review, particularly of the state’s largest correspondence programs, would have provided a clearer and more honest picture.
The views expressed here are those of the authors.
