As Alaska Schools Struggle For Funding, Nick Begich Called For Alaskans To Say “No” To Federal Support, A Move That Could Endanger At Least $425 Million

HEADLINE: “With Hope Fading For Additional State Education Funding, Alaska’s Rural School Districts Prepare To Make Difficult Cuts.” [Anchorage Daily News, 3/24/24]

HEADLINE: “Alaska Schools Making Drastic Cuts In Wake Of Governor’s Veto, School Administrators Council Says.” [Alaska Public Media, 4/8/24]

HEADLINE: “My Turn: Alaska’s Deepest Trouble Is Nonsupport Of Education.” [Juneau Empire, OP-ED, Art Petersen, 3/21/24]

HEADLINE: “Alaska School Administrators Urge Action On ‘Crisis’ In Teacher Hiring And Turnover.” [Alaska Public Media, 2/5/24]

Begich Criticized Alaska’s Department Of Education And Supported The Elimination Of The Federal Department Of Education

Begich Criticized The Department Of Education In Alaska, Questioning Their Funding And Saying “This Is The Problem With Them.” BEGICH: “The reality is we’ve made a deal with the devil by relying so heavily on the federal government. We have allowed them to exert an extent of control over a state that prides itself on self reliance. When the feds down in DC know that they’ve got us, they’re going to use that leverage. This is the problem with the Department of Education. You can get the money, but you’re going to have to follow our rules. Then you have people locally who are trying to use this as a political tool to change the way the state works.” [YouTube, Michael Dukes Show, 4/1/24]

Begich Wanted To Eliminate The Federal Department Of Education. Host: “Can you name two or three federal agencies that you would be in favor of defunding and disbanding?” Begich: “Yeah, I think the U.S. Department of Education is right at the top of the list. And this is not to say I don’t believe we shouldn’t be funding education. Of course we should. But the role of the federal government in funding education is dubious at best. Prior to Jimmy Carter, we didn’t have a Department of Education, and we managed to educate folks just fine. Here in Alaska, in fact, we were one of the top states in the country for education in the early ’70s. Since the funding of the Department of Education, what we’ve seen is, as with all government, scope creep. So federal monies are dangled out there but they’re dangled out there with strings attached. And from presidency to presidency, we continue to see ideological weaponization of the federal government through the Department of Education. So for example, the Biden administration has attempted to utilize the Department of Education funding as a way to push through transgenderism in schools and to influence sex education in schools. And if you’re gonna have funding from the federal government for education, the Department of Education should be eliminated, and if there’s funding, it should come in the form of block grants to allow the states to do what they believe is best for their own folks.” [Rumble, AnimalAK, [20:47], 1/17/24]

Begich Called For Saying “No” To Federal Programs. BEGICH: “Instead of saying yes to every federal program that comes our way, we need to say no, we’re not going to be complicit in the destruction of this country.” [YouTube, Michael Dukes Show, 1:13:00-1:13:21, 4/1/24]

Begich Argued That All Federal Education Funding Should Come In The Form Of Block Grants. “Any federal education funding should come in the form of block grants to the states, allowing a greater level of local control over how such funds are deployed in the classroom.” [Ballotopedia , Accessed 9/15/24]

• A Study Of Federal Block Grants For Education Found That The Tendency To Disperse Funding Across A Wide Range Of Programs Mitigated The Usefulness Of The Policy Mechanism. “The block grant has helped to expand the use of educational technology, bolstered curriculum and staff development, and provided seed funding for local improvement initiatives among large numbers of districts. The scale of improvements, however, is modest at best, due to the low levels of funding and the tendency for districts to disperse, rather than concentrate, the funds among activities and beneficiaries. In addition, not all districts or segments of the student population benefit. In general, the block grant appears to trade depth of impact for breadth, which raises questions about the longterm viability or usefulness of this policy mechanism.” [Educational Improvement Under the Education Block Grant, 12/1/87]

Begich Served As A Fellow At The Club For Growth, Which Advocated For The Abolition Of The Department Of Education

Begich Said He “Recently Completed A Fellowship With The Club For Growth, America’s Leading Free-Enterprise, Limited-Government Advocacy Group.” “As a lifelong Republican, Nick Begich has held a variety of professional and political roles with the intent of growing opportunity through entrepreneurship. […] Additionally, Nick recently completed a Fellowship with the Club for Growth, America’s leading free-enterprise, limited-government advocacy group.” [Nick Begich for Congress, Archived 3/1/22]

Image: see original report, p. 132

[Nick Begich for Congress, Archived 3/1/22]

Begich’s LinkedIn Page Listed His Location As “Washington, District Of Columbia” When He Served As A Fellow At Club For Growth Starting In June 2020. [LinkedIn, Nicholas Begich III, Accessed 9/7/24]

Image: see original report, p. 132

[LinkedIn, Nicholas Begich III, Accessed 9/7/24]

The Club For Growth Listed The Abolition Of The Department Of Education As Their Primary Policy Goal In Education. “Policy Recommendations: Close down the U.S. Department of Education and end the federal government’s role in education. Take further steps to empower parents through choice of schools. Continue and improve the charter school system. Provide school vouchers to give more control and choice to parents. [Club For Growth, Accessed 9/13/24]

Abolishing The Department Of Education Was A Key Pillar Of Project 2025. In chapter 11 of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, author Lindsey Burke stated “the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” [Project 2025, Accessed 9/9/24]

April 2024: Alaska Was At Risk Of Losing $425 Million In Funding From The Federal Government

Alaska Was At Risk For Losing $425 Million In Federal Government Support Form The Department Of Education For Their Schools. “Education funding for the State of Alaska has hit another roadblock as the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has designated Alaska as a ‘high-risk’ grantee… Unless that happens, Alaska could lose $425 million in federal funding.” [Newscenter Fairbanks, 4/1/24]

Begich Claimed Alaskan Schools Already Had “Substantial Funding”, Despite The More Than 70% Of Alaskans Said They Supported Increasing Funding To Alaska Schools

Begich Claimed Alaskan Schools Already Had “Substantial Funding” And Would Improve Only With Increased Competition. “In spite of years of effort and substantial funding, Alaska’s schools consistently rank among the worst in the country. As a result, young Alaskans are deprived of the skills needed to succeed in years that follow. Parents must have the opportunity to place their children in the educational environment that best meets their needs and gives those children the best chance at success. To do this, we must encourage healthy competition among schools inclusive of public, private, and homeschool options and ensure that funding follows the student.” [Ballotopedia , Accessed 9/15/24]

Polling Found That 77% Of Alaskans Would Like The State To Permanently Increase Funding For Schools. “The $37,500 poll he commissioned from Dittman Research said that 77% of Alaskans would like the state to permanently increase funding for schools. Just under 40% of the people surveyed reported having school-aged children.” [Alaska Beacon, 4/11/24]

Dunleavy Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Raised State Education Funding Significantly For The First Time Years. “Gov. Mike Dunleavy has vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have raised state education funding significantly for the first time in years. In a statement late Thursday evening, Dunleavy said the bill ‘lacked sufficient changes in how charter schools are chartered in order to allow more students and families charter school possibilities.’” [Alaska Public Media, 3/14/24]

Begich Supported School Voucher Programs, Despite Research Showing That Vouchers Subsidized Wealthier Families And Reinforced Existing Socioeconomic Disparities

Begich Supported School Vouchers For Use In Faith Based And Private Education. “Nick Begich, who is Palin’s Republican opponent, has long supported school vouchers. He is a product of a private Christian school education, through 12th grade, but his family did not use vouchers, as they were not available when he was in school. Vouchers allow families to move their children to non-government schools and have the money follow the child.Begich believes that school funding should follow the child and be able to be used for both faith-based or private education.” [Must Read Alaska, 7/19/22]

Begich Was Slated To Speak At An Event Hosted By National School Choice Week And Alaskans For Choice In Education. “Hosted by National School Choice Week and Brave Nation in collaboration with Alaskans for Choice in Education, […]raising awareness about learning choices from local public schools to learning pods. Guest speakers will include prominent Alaskans such as Kelly Tshibaka and Nick Begich.” [PR Newswire, 1/13/23]

Voucher Programs Subsidize Wealthier Families With Students Already In Private School Systems Without Meaningfully Increasing Mobility For Public School Students

School Voucher Programs Subsidized Students From Wealthier Families At The Expense Of Public Schools And Families With Lower Income. “Increasingly, voucher proponents have turned to more complex, expensive proposals to subsidize education — primarily for wealthy families — at the expense of public schools. A recent study of school voucher programs in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin shows how state spending increased by hundreds of millions of dollars annually between 2008 and 2019, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Education Law Center, and Public Funds Public Schools. Evidence also shows these policies are not well-targeted toward students from families with low incomes, who often face the greatest barriers to navigating the voucher application process and do little to help these students. If they do get into other schools, it can be a challenge to find transportation. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/21/23]

In The First Universal-Eligibility Voucher Program In The US, Only 25% Of Applicants Were Enrolled In Public Schools. “Voucher programs often benefit those students already enrolled in private school. Arizona enacted the nation’s first universal-eligibility voucher last year, making all students in the state eligible for the program regardless of income level or other form of need. The state’s Department of Education recently found that 75 percent of children applying for the new universal program were not enrolled in the public school system.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/21/23]

Voucher Programs Racially And Socioeconomically Segregate The Education System. “Racist in origin, school vouchers perpetuate existing disparities in our K-12 funding and tax systems to further racially and socioeconomically segregate our education system.[2] Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Southern states funded school vouchers to allow white students to avoid legal orders to integrate and attend private academies (also known as segregation academies at the time).[3] Virginia was the first state to adopt tuition grants, and many of those same academies still exist as private schools in the state, while public schools that serve a disproportionate share of Black students continue to be underfunded.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/21/23]