Three Fairbanks school board members are taking issue with assembly candidate Tammie Wilson’s claim that Hunter Elementary School provides such a poor education, based on standardized test scores, that no students should be attending school there. I wrote about Wilson’s attack on Hunter here.

I asked all seven school board members to comment and received responses from Brandy Harty, Meredith Maple and Bobby Burgess.

Here are their comments:

Meredith Maple

From a March 2023 article in NEA Today: “Most of us know that standardized tests are inaccurate, inequitable, and often ineffective at gauging what students actually know.”

But as of 2024, this is still the system we are operating within. And so, the data is out there. And it is used to rapidly spread misinformation, often innocently.

If I don’t know how problematic testing is to truly communicate the successes or failures of students, I am not intentionally doing wrong by using that data to guide my thinking.

But I DO know. And so, I look to all of the other data I can find.

I look to our district’s dashboard to find that staff at Hunter Elementary overwhelmingly report positively to the surveys on engagement, safety, and environment at Hunter.

Perhaps an even louder statistic is that the vast majority of parents give Hunter Elementary an A, for the past five years, excluding 2020.

I look to the phenomenal staff at Hunter Elementary, modeled by the legacy of Mr. Billy Smith, more commonly known as Mr. Principal. I look to the smiling faces and loving teachers that visit me on field trips from Hunter Elementary. Sure, I can’t give you data points on that, but I can feel it.

And I know full well that my feelings aren’t enough to say a school is successful, but those test scores aren’t enough to say it isn’t either.

We have to look at the whole picture, just like we educate the whole child.

Our kids are more than test scores and data points. Our schools are too. And so is our district.

The insinuation that no one should send their kids to Hunter is harmful and narrow minded.

Ms. Wilson’s comments are truly a ball of wax I cannot even begin to address in this email. We could talk about the positive correlation between socioeconomic status and high test scores, or how racial bias shows up repeatedly in standardized testing, or that access to small class sizes dramatically improves outcomes, but that said access tends to be reliant on privilege in our community.

But none of this is the point. The point is that if test scores were the only piece of information we needed to evaluate to get ourselves out of this mess, we’d be out of it.

I do not believe for a second that any of my predecessors, like-minded or otherwise, were foolish enough to ignore a simple solution. The point is that the solution is not simple.

And what I would say to the staff at Hunter Elementary: I am so glad you are there every day, shaping the strong, intelligent, and kind citizens that will carry us into the future.

And to the parents: I thank you for entrusting FNSBSD with your most beloved. And to the students: I hope I get to see your smiling faces at the Fairbanks Children’s Museum this summer so I can ask you about all your favorite parts of your school right up the road.

Thanks,
Meredith Maple

Brandy Harty

Thank you for writing to the board and listening to last night’s meeting. I also appreciate the research you did to identify the schools Ms. Wilson was referring to, as she did not specify them in her testimony. 

Before answering your question, I want to clarify that I typically refrain from addressing public comments made during public testimony except to correct inaccuracies or misinformation about the district or our schools.

I firmly believe the community should feel comfortable sharing their thoughts, ideas, and opinions before our board. Even if I might disagree with the views expressed, I value the public’s right to express them without feeling attacked from the dais or in statements made to the press.

In this case, however, Ms. Wilson is a former elected public official and is currently running for a seat on the Borough Assembly. While she has the right to express her thoughts and opinions through public testimony, her comments inherently carry political weight and warrant scrutiny, especially given the topic she addressed

Additionally, the board president's response usually reflects the board's formal position. However, since the board has no formal stance on Ms. Wilson's testimony and you have asked all board members to respond, this response reflects solely my viewpoint, not that of the FNSBSD Board of Education or the district.

Had I known that Ms. Wilson's comments were about Hunter Elementary, I would have directed her to the district's data dashboard. There, she could better understand Hunter's student demographics and see why basing policy decisions on a single test score is grossly misleading. 

Hunter's student population is over 70% economically disadvantaged, and 32.5% identified under IDEA as having a documented disability. Basic research into standardized testing outcomes shows that socioeconomic background and whether or not you have a disability are significant predictors of potential standardized testing success. As someone who grew up in Fairbanks attending its public schools and was both economically disadvantaged and later diagnosed with a developmental disability, I can attest that my elementary standardized test scores were not indicative of my future educational success or learning.

During my time in our schools, I benefited from a well-funded school system with small class sizes, well-funded support programs, robust activity offerings, and well-paid educators who all had a defined benefit retirement plan. I am from a family of twelve kids who relied on the federal free and reduced lunch program. I was retained in the first grade and couldn’t read at grade level until the fifth. Today, as a student, under our now underfunded and overburdened school system, I would have far fewer resources and far more competition for the individualized attention my disability required to make educational progress.

Ms. Wilson is correct that we know how to educate students, including those with disabilities and those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. However, achieving this requires prioritizing and investing in education at the state and local levels. While funding isn't the only solution, it is a significant part of it and one wholly within the Alaska State Legislature’s and Borough Assembly’s control.

Lastly, I am a proud former Hunter teacher. My two years teaching fifth grade at Hunter were some of the most challenging and rewarding of my career.

The educators at Hunter are dedicated and skilled professionals who pour their hearts into their classrooms and the school. Hunter is more than just a school; it is a family.

I encourage Ms. Wilson to visit Hunter this fall and speak with Principal Bedford, who has dedicated her career to the Hunter community. She should be sure to attend their annual Harvest Festival and see how generations of Hunter families and alumni join the staff year after year to celebrate the school and the community they have built around it.

Ms. Wilson claims that no one should send their students to Hunter. I, along with many current and former Hunter Hornets, would strongly disagree.

Brandy Harty

Bobby Burgess

Thank you again for your email. I am writing this response on behalf of myself, and I would appreciate it if anything you publish includes a statement indicating that quotes from individual school board members represent only our personal views, not the views of the board as a whole.

In response to Ms. Wilson's comments, I would like to emphasize that each and every school in this district, and the staff in the schools, does exemplary work for our students. Year after year, school districts around the state have been forced to cut budgets due to flat funding and high inflation, and we continue to ask our teachers to do more with less, after their colleagues and support staff have been laid off, class sizes have increased, and valuable educational programs have been cut.

As a scientist, I appreciate the value of data in analysis of any situation. However, as a scientist, I am acutely aware that an accurate interpretation of data requires an awareness of its limitations, and that data generally should be evaluated in its proper context. Using nothing but standardized test scores to evaluate the value of a school or the quality of education in a school is an example of cherry picking, and exemplifies a failure to understand the context of the situation.

Educational outcomes are affected by many factors. Two of the primary factors correlated with student success are parental involvement and socioeconomic status. Hunter Elementary is one of our Title 1 schools, meaning that a significant portion of its students qualify for free or reduced lunch due to belonging to households that have low income.

We know from decades worth of data that low-income students are more likely to struggle with transportation and attendance, social and emotional needs, physical needs such as hunger or clothing, and other challenges that affect their academic outcomes. Parents also might struggle to participate in their children's education due to challenges of poverty, including working multiple jobs, general stress, and increased challenges of daily life. 

We also know that standardized tests are a poor metric for determining individual success of students or schools; their utility is primarily to understand trends and patterns in educational outcomes.

Anderson-Crawford is not a Title 1 school. This is a school on a military base, where parental involvement tends to be high and socioeconomic status of families trends higher, especially compared to Title 1 schools like Hunter.

While I have not done a critical analysis of the data, I would be willing to bet that the discrepancies in test scores between these schools can be explained in large part by these factors.

There are many metrics by which we can measure the success of schools. Choosing to highlight school capacity and test scores absent any other data or context is a surefire way to misunderstand the reality of the situation.

One example of another metric is the growth of students. For example, a student who enters kindergarten able to sound out words is starting out in a better position than a kindergartner who begins their school career unable to identify letters. If the skills of the former student improve enough that they can read sentences smoothly, but the latter student only gets as far as being able to sound out words, the struggling student may have exhibited greater growth over a school year compared to the student who started out reading.

The average test scores cited by Ms. Wilson do not reflect where students started before they were tested (and therefore the average growth), and we have no way of measuring the other types of supports that students receive from schools.

Ms. Wilson's evaluation of the data demonstrates a lack of understanding that our students have different backgrounds and experiences, different challenges, and differing needs. Our students are not carbon copies of one another, and the demographics of schools in our district are largely determined by geography.

Ms. Wilson also seems to erroneously believe that different educational practices occur in schools across the district. While it is reasonable to assume that each teacher and each school has their own unique qualities, styles, or methods of classroom management, the curriculum and teaching practices are relatively well conserved throughout our neighborhood schools. Even charter and magnet schools, which have some flexibility in their curriculum, are held to the same standards as schools throughout the state, and utilize staff with the same types of training and certifications. 

Ms. Wilson suggests that if we could only make Hunter like Anderson-Crawford or Barnette Magnet School, we could bring students back to the district.

She states "if you want more money, you need more students." While state funding is provided on a per-student basis (with many adjustments), the primary driver of deficits seen by school districts across the state is rising costs due to inflation and increased cost of living that necessitates increased pay for staff.

The suggestion that decreased enrollment is the only or the primary factor in budget shortfalls is erroneous, and another example of cherry picking. In addition, the data clearly show that declining enrollment is driven primarily by outmigration and declining birth rates, the latter reason being why communities across the nation are facing similar challenges. There are no data suggesting that declining enrollment is driven by test scores in the FNSBSD or elsewhere.

Ms. Wilson compares per-student costs at schools to suggest that "money doesn't matter." Per-student costs vary depending on many factors, including building size, Title 1 status (Title 1 schools get additional federal dollars), filled versus vacant positions, average longevity of staff (due to salary step increases), building age and maintenance costs, and student enrollment.

A focus on per-student costs without inclusion of these factors is yet another example of cherry picking data removed from its context and failing to see the whole picture.

Ms. Wilson also highlighted Barnette Magnet School in her testimony, citing that it is a popular school and is at over 100% of capacity. As is often the case with those highlighting the success of charter schools, the suggestion that this is a model that should be followed elsewhere is fraught with oversimplification. Barnette receives a small school allocation from the state, which is used to increase staffing.

This year, budget constraints forced the board to make the difficult decision to cut two teachers from this school (in addition to laying off teachers districtwide), which may affect its ability to continue to offer their educational model.

Charter schools and magnet schools are popular and successful at least in part because of their small class sizes, generally keeping the pupil to teacher ratio (PTR) at 22 or less. If these are the models that Ms. Wilson wants the school district to follow, she should be advocating for increased funding to allow for increased staffing levels so we can lower PTR districtwide. This would undoubtedly help our students and staff to improve educational outcomes.

It is easy to draw erroneous conclusions from cherry-picked data in order to support one's opinions or viewpoints. It is also wildly irresponsible to do so and to spread such misinformation to the public. What is challenging, and honorable, is to view data and information objectively, dive deep to understand the context and nuance, and do the background research to understand what is driving outcomes.

To assume that test scores and per-student costs tell you everything you need to know about a school is to be unwilling to do the work that is required to understand the whole picture.

Generally, I would agree that when it comes to education, it's not just about the money.

It is easy to draw erroneous conclusions from cherry-picked data, intentionally or not. What is difficult, but is the duty of any public official, is to view data and information as objectively as possible, dive deep to understand the context and nuance, and do the background research and community outreach to understand what is driving outcomes.

My job as a school board member is to understand as much as possible about the whole picture and all of its details, not to assume that a few data points are all I need to decide how to vote.

I appreciate the opportunity to shed some light on the complexity of these issues. Thanks for the work that you do.

Thank You,

Bobby Burgess