Anchorage School District unveils FY27 budget proposal with $90 million gap; broad staffing and program cuts proposed

The Anchorage School District presented its FY27 proposed budget at a Feb. 3 work session, warning that flat state funding and prior one‑time balances produce a roughly $90,000,000 shortfall that the district says requires structural changes across operations.

"We present this budget to you on the backdrop of us facing this what's about a $90,000,000 deficit due to flat funding," said Andy Ratliff, the district's chief financial officer. Superintendent Dr. Bryant told the board the district exhausted much of its unassigned fund balance to protect programs in the current year and that the shortfall will require reductions that will affect classrooms and building operations for the coming fiscal year.

Why it matters: District officials said about 95 cents of every general‑fund dollar supports classrooms, so even cuts targeted "as far away from the classroom as possible" will have school‑level impacts. Staff estimated the proposal would reduce more than 500 full‑time‑equivalent positions district‑wide and raise class sizes across grades if additional revenue is not secured.

What the proposal would change: Senior leaders outlined a mix of personnel, program and operational cuts, including

- large reductions at the Ed Center: a proposed net reduction of 48 FTE in the academic services office (a roughly 22% reduction in that unit); - school‑level staffing changes that together exceed 500 FTE district‑wide, including cuts to principals and assistant principals, counselors, custodial and IT staff; - elimination of elementary summer school and reductions to supply and equipment budgets (a proposed 15% cut); - changes to specialist delivery at the elementary level (reducing five specialist roles to three and shifting toward longer in‑school specialist time); and - cuts or reduced district funding for many middle‑ and high‑school sports and activities, with district staff proposing community outsourcing agreements to preserve some offerings.

On class sizes and a possible levy: Ratliff and other staff said the district is exploring an $11 million levy for the April ballot that district leaders estimate could fund about 80 FTE and reduce projected class‑size increases by roughly two students per class. "I think we could get our class sizes down by two," Ratliff said when explaining how levy revenue would be used; he also noted a statutorily required share would pass through to charter schools if the levy is approved.

School nurses and student health: The proposal would move nursing to a regional, acuity‑based model. "What this does is allows us to reduce the 25 positions that have been discussed previously, and it would be a 29% reduction of our nursing staff," said Kirsten Johnson, deputy chief of schools, who described staffing six regions with 9–11 nurses each and assigning nurses by student health needs. Diana Beltran, senior director of mental health and student support, said the model would deploy nurses based on specific student acuity and that some buildings with high needs could still have full‑time nurses.

Board concerns and questions: Board members repeatedly raised programmatic and safety concerns, particularly about middle‑school changes, nursing coverage, and the effects of shifting grant‑funded positions back into classrooms. Members asked for more detailed data on Title IX impacts for sports participation, enrollment assumptions, and which schools would retain critical supports. The board's conversation also revisited options to reopen school consolidation discussions and whether the district should engage with ongoing litigation challenging state education funding; Dr. Bryant said ASD had not been invited as a plaintiff but would support an adequacy study.

Costs of meeting state standards: Ratliff presented estimated price tags to meet state or research‑based class‑size targets. He said meeting the HB 57 target class sizes would require about 341 additional FTE (roughly $47 million); a more aggressive model discussed in a referenced study would need about 702 FTE (roughly $95 million). Those estimates are shown in the district's budget book and appendix C, Ratliff said.

Next steps: Staff said the budget will be back before the board for approval on Feb. 17; it must be submitted to the municipality by the first Monday in March. At the meeting's close the board moved to adjourn to executive session for uncontested student hearings, legal updates, negotiations and contracts.

The meeting transcript shows this was an introductory public briefing and that many recommendations are proposals: any personnel or program changes would depend on board action, grant revisions, community engagement on outsourcing opportunities for activities, and potential levy results.