Anchorage superintendent proposes FY26 budget built on unchanged base-student allocation; warns of deep cuts unless legislature acts

Anchorage School District Superintendent Dr. Bryant presented a preliminary FY26 budget to the school board that assumes no new state revenue and uses one-time funds and reserves to balance the district’s books.

Dr. Bryant said the budget "is not a reflection of the school district's aspirations. This is a reflection of about 10 plus years of systemic neglect" and that administrators prepared the proposal assuming the base student allocation would remain at the current level. He told the board the district computed roughly $60–65 million in necessary reductions for FY26 under that assumption.

Why it matters: the proposal would touch personnel, programs and school operations across the district. The administration said it prioritized avoiding large layoffs where possible and preserving direct instruction and student supports, but recommended cuts including classroom staffing adjustments (a districtwide pupil-teacher ratio increase of about four students per class on average), reductions in counselors, nurses, librarians and extracurriculars, the elimination of middle school sports and cuts to some high school sports, and the proposed closure of two elementary schools (Lake Hood and NACA Valley). Chief Financial Officer Andy Ratliff told the board the plan uses about $12.6 million more of fund balance and would reduce the district’s unassigned reserves to about 5 percent of expenditures.

What the administration pitched as mitigation: Dr. Bryant said the budget tries to protect people in their current jobs, leaning on attrition and limited reductions so the district does not trigger mass layoffs immediately. Ratliff emphasized the district produced a balanced budget to meet the Municipality of Anchorage charter deadline and described the revenue picture: the district is projecting a roughly $43 million decline in revenue tied to statute and about $20 million in inflationary pressure, producing the $60–65 million gap.

Legislative context: the administration outlined state bills that could materially change the picture if passed. The board packet highlighted HB 69 (which would tie future BSA increases to recent inflation and add a catch-up amount), and the governor’s proposals (HB 76 and SB 82) that contain targeted incentives (for reading, transportation, CTE multipliers and teacher bonuses). Dr. Bryant and Ratliff explained that passage of a BSA increase similar to the HB 69 proposal could replace many proposed cuts, but said such legislation remains uncertain and, even if passed, might not eliminate all FY26 reductions.

Board reaction and next steps: board members pressed for more detail on the distribution of reductions and asked for analyses that explicitly show how dollars are aligned to instruction. Several board members asked administration to present options that would more directly protect classroom instruction. The board voted to schedule a special meeting for Feb. 25 to consider the final FY26 budget after additional public testimony and any late legislative developments. The board also agreed to use its Feb. 18 regular meeting primarily for public testimony on the budget and rightsizing decisions.

What’s not decided: the preliminary plan is based on the assumption of no additional state action. If the legislature passes increases to the base student allocation before the board votes, the final district budget could change substantially. Dr. Bryant repeatedly told the board and the public that advocacy to legislators — and the timing of any state action — will determine whether proposed cuts must stand.

Ending: the administration plans to return with refined analyses showing trade-offs, further details on school-level impacts and alternative scenarios tied to possible state funding outcomes. The board set Feb. 18 as the primary public-comment meeting and Feb. 25 as the special meeting to adopt the FY26 operating budget, subject to any late-breaking legislative developments.