Ahead of the 2026 general election, Wyoming Public Radio and KHOL Jackson offered all candidates in competitive races for statewide and federal offices 20-minute interviews to introduce themselves to voters and discuss their positions. The following transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.
Ana Cordova is the Democratic Party’s nominee running for state superintendent of public instruction. Her campaign website is www.facebook.com/Ana4WY. She spoke with KHOL’s Sophia Boyd-Fliegel.
Click here to listen to a special episode of Open Spaces previewing the races for statewide and federal offices.
Sophia Boyd-Fliegel: First, very quickly, I have read that you were asked to run for this position by some community members. What's that story?
Ana Cordova: I moved back to Wyoming fairly recently and got in touch again with the Laramie County Democrats.
SBF: This was after growing up here.
AC: Yes, this was after growing up here. I left for about 20 years, mostly living in D.C., and then came back to Wyoming. This spring, [I] was talking to some of the leadership at the Laramie County Democrats about the strategy for the midterms and making sure that every race was contested, making sure that Democratic voters in Wyoming have an option, and that even Republicans who just aren't happy with the status quo have an alternate option, so that it really is a choice because voting is where you can make your voice count.
SBF: Getting a little bit more into your particular interest in education. You have certainly had an illustrious experience as a Wyoming student, and your opponent, Rep. Steve Harshman, he has decades of direct classroom experience. Why should voters trust you to run the Department of Education?
AC: I'm passionate about education at all levels. I do have some direct teaching experience. It's in higher ed. But I think I really just understand the needs of education generally from working with these national nonprofits, from working with both schools across the nation, and also in curriculum development, and what that really means to create materials that are aligned with standards that also are functional, that truly improve student learning and improve student outcomes.
I also just love Wyoming and have always kept in touch with leaders around Cheyenne and around the state, just kind of keeping a pulse on the needs of Wyoming. I think just being involved and being ready to listen are really my strengths when it comes to why voters should vote for me.
SBF: With that nonprofit education experience, what have you learned about the administrative side of this job that you would carry over?
AC: Definitely from the nonprofits, I've learned about the leadership hierarchy and making sure that people that aren't directly facing students are also aligned with the same goals of wanting to improve student outcomes and make the best high-quality educational experience for students.
Aside from that, I also did go to law school. I think that's really a place that I bring a strength in contrast to Rep. Harshman, because I went to law school. I'm trained in statutory interpretation and regulatory compliance, and what it means to have a high-quality program that is the intent of the Legislature and how that gets implemented.
SBF: Speaking of legislation and litigation, one of the hotter topics this election cycle has been public funding for private or alternative education. A court will likely decide the fate of our state's universal choice program, as it's being litigated. Your opponent, Rep. Steve Harshman, has been a vocal opponent of that program, as have you. And in fact, I read that you said that your top priority as superintendent would be to create an environment where programs like the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship are essentially unnecessary because public school is so vibrant and successful.
Pushing you a little on that, I have talked to parents here, and these are working-class parents who say they need that financial flexibility because public school doesn't meet their child's needs. How do you respond to families like that?
AC: Again, with listening. I think that Wyoming is in a really unique place where we value education, and we have really good systems in place. Students across the state are afforded just amazing opportunities from our public schools. And so my priority isn't so much to oppose universal choice as it is to uplift public schools, because I really believe in the transformative power of education in changing students' lives no matter what their background is or where they live in the state.
So, if a parent or a family comes to me and says, ‘Our student's needs just aren't being met,’ I want to listen, and I want to work with both the family and the local leaders. I think that the local districts do need to have a very strong voice in the education systems that they serve for their communities. If there's specific students, specific families, specific interests that might be regional, where there's a stronger FFA program is needed in the more rural school districts and maybe a DECA or more business focus is needed in the slightly more urban areas. I'm fully in support of helping to ease any friction in getting schools the resources they need so that we can serve all students.
SBF: In this hypothetical we're building, you would advocate for trying to create solutions through the public offerings for students who say their needs aren't being met.
AC: Exactly.
SBF: Another follow-up on that. Let's say that this idea remains popular in Cheyenne. How would you talk with lawmakers or plan to convince them that public funding should remain exclusively within the public system? I know that's what's being debated right now, but how would you lead that conversation?
AC: I think, again, I would lead that conversation armed with the knowledge of what it is parents are really looking for in trying to access the money through this program. Because I don't think – we can't start with the Legislature. It's building a solution before knowing the problem.
Rather, I would like to spend a lot of time really finding out why parents across the state want this program, to open the conversation up with legislators and say, ‘Okay, this is the actual problems.’ Like, yes, throw money at problems and problems go away. But there are alternative solutions that can work within the public school system, I believe, that just need to be thoughtfully addressed so that they can be meaningfully implemented and truly address the needs of students across the state. So, in finding out more of a precise problem, I think it will be easier to talk with legislators about the appropriate solution.
SBF: So, getting a better diagnosis of what these parents are talking about, what their specific needs are for their children and seeing if money can be directed that way?
AC: Yeah. I'm really hoping the courts rule against the Legacy Steamboat Scholarship program, because, constitutionally here in Wyoming, it's very clear to me that we as a state have chosen to not funnel public money to private individuals, and that's essentially what this program does.
If, for whatever reason, the courts decide that it is constitutional within our system, I also see a role for the Department of Education for ensuring that those monies are not just freely given. I think that that initial gatekeeping of no public money to no people is to avoid waste and abuse and inefficiencies. I really see the Department of Education having a role, stepping in, if this program does continue, to put in appropriate safeguards to make sure that this money is being used thoughtfully and meaningfully for the needs of students that can't be met through the public schools. I really don't believe those will exist.
That's why I try to talk about it in terms of making it irrelevant, because I want to meet the needs of every student. If there's truly – and I truly can't even imagine a scenario – but if there's truly a situation where public schools do not serve the mission of providing high-quality education to a specific student or a specific family, I do want to make sure that the Department of Education has a deep understanding of why, through an application process where it's fully explained and understood by both sides, why this money – why this public money – is getting funneled to private individuals.
SBF: You brought up understanding where the money is going if it does pass, which is something that Rep. Harshman's also talked about, trying to glean more transparency on what these hundreds of programs are that right now are eligible for that funding. Is that something you're also interested in? Is that what you were more specifically talking about?
AC: Absolutely.
SBF: I want to turn a little bit to recalibration. We're entering this new era of a new funding program and cycle for our public schools after legislators passed a sweeping overhaul this winter. You've said that this version of recalibration didn't go far enough. I wanted to ask a little bit more about that. Where do you see this current funding model most lacking?
AC: To get into the weeds a little bit, this funding model really is based on, in my mind, somewhat arbitrary cutoffs when it comes to things like school size. I've looked into the model and there's these buckets where it's like: a small school that only serves, or a small school district that only serves 100 students, versus up to 500, versus up to 2,000, versus up to 5,000, or over 5,000. I'm really disappointed in those cutoffs. They really seem a little bit arbitrary. They're not data-driven, as far as I can tell, in terms of how schools that are under 100, versus between 100 and 500, really have differences and why 100 is the cutoff. Absolutely, it makes sense that if you take the ends, over 5,000 has very different needs than under 100. But I'm not in agreement with where those cutoffs are.
It's not just [the] number of students. There's other buckets that the funding model uses, like square footage of buildings. It just seems to me to be like: Of course very tiny schools, small schools, medium schools, larger schools have different needs. But I don't think it was really well researched and supported for where those cutoffs are and what the attached funding for each of those buckets is and why.
SBF: Have you heard that complaint from people on the ground?
AC: I've heard just a general underfunding, and I think part of it is because of these arbitrary cutoffs where, really, if it should be zero to 200 because those smaller schools do get more funding because it's more expensive to educate a smaller group of people. There's no efficiencies of scale.
SBF: Proportionally, they're getting more funding.
AC: Yeah, because of the efficiencies of scale. And so, I think potentially having a more thoughtful model that incorporates these metrics, but also potentially other metrics around student success, around teacher retention, around graduation rates, to show a more complete picture than just how many students a school district serves.
By digging into those details and teasing out which school districts really do need more money, which school districts are struggling with graduation rates, which school districts are struggling with literacy rates, which school districts are struggling with retaining teachers, to make more thoughtful decisions on funding so that school districts feel like they're adequately funded to truly provide quality education.
SBF: I wanted to ask a little more about what you just said, these alternative measures of success or broader measures of success, such as teacher retention or career readiness, rather than, let's say, standardized testing. This is something that a lot of the candidates have talked about. Where do you see the line being for allowing those softer priorities to have some influence, but also wanting to hold up more concrete metrics to make sure that our students are prepared?
AC: I would push back a little bit on calling those softer metrics. I'm talking about things like graduation rates. That is not a soft metric in my mind. Making sure that our students complete a full K through 12 education successfully with the skills we expect of a high school graduate is not a soft metric in my mind.
It's really looking into more than test scores, because test scores are limited. They're a snapshot in time. There's some degree of manipulation that can happen. I don't want teachers to feel like they need to be teaching to the test in order to get funding. I want teachers to feel empowered to create environments where students can really thrive. And so these alternate measures are not soft, they're just outside of standardized testing.
I also don't want to inflict more standardized testing because of the disruptive nature of non-instructional days. They're there to learn. They're not there to be assessed on what they're learning, how they're learning. The assessments are really an instructional tool, not an administrative tool, or shouldn’t be.
SBF: Maybe this is an opportunity to clear up what we're exactly talking about, because I definitely agree – graduation rates, that's a concrete number, not necessarily a soft metric. But I see there being a trend in education administration of wanting some of those actually softer metrics, like student wellbeing or teacher wellbeing, to actually have some sway. Maybe you don't agree with that. But if you have noticed that too, could you talk about where you think that is appropriate, if at all?
AC: There are definitely softer metrics that are in this discussion, where it's teacher wellbeing, how respected teachers feel, if they feel like they have the freedom to teach, or the respect of being a professional in education.
My answer would be that specific measures should be used for specific things. Harder metrics for things like school funding, school programs, curricular decisions, where we're thinking about introducing a new curriculum in order to meet these state or national standards. We're going to do a very straight up control group, test group – does this curriculum work better? Pretty black and white, quite frankly, hard metrics. Because that kind of data is very powerful. I'm a scientist by training. A lot of my work in education is in that research, data-driven environment, and I think it's very powerful, and it's also very powerful to uncover things that go against what you think is happening.
For example, when I was working with law schools, the prevailing theory was that, given a group, given a cohort of students, [the] LSAT was going to be predictive of success on the bar. GPA was going to be predictive of success on the bar. Possibly age, more mature students would probably do better on the bar. Low income or specific racial minorities or other diverse living experience cohorts would do better or worse, based on what we've seen in other arenas or based on gut feeling. And I was able to show through student-level data that some of those things that we think are predictive are just not.
The LSAT is actually not predictive of a whole lot of anything. One of the things we found was that the biggest predictor of success on the bar exam for one cohort was[an] increase in GPA from year one to year two. So showing that growth trajectory. It didn't matter if they came in with an LSAT that was low for their class or high for their class. If their GPA increased, they were more likely to pass the bar. And so I really believe in digging into the data, without going hunting for the data. So not standardized testing, but what do we know about these students? What do we know about how we are teaching them? And what do we know about the outcomes that are resulting? Where are those differences, and where can we leverage those places where a difference is meaningful, that it actually does impact the outcome? Not just put students in traditional buckets of, ‘You come from a lower socioeconomic status, [so] you're less likely to graduate.’
Those very broad brush generalizations can be really harmful, when in specific communities and with the right supports and with thoughtful educational initiatives, it can be shown that socioeconomic status really doesn't play in if, across a cohort of all students, an appropriate initiative is implemented and negating any of those negative factors associated with student background or past learning experience, or even testing in other subjects. So, I would really like to see data really taking a forefront in the Wyoming Department of Education to inform things that impact students.
Now, I know you asked about soft metrics. I promise I'm getting there. I think the softer metrics are really important for teachers and for administration and for extracurriculars, where it is providing that holistic picture. But the baseline really needs to be academic excellence, making sure our kiddos are learning, that they're given the tools to succeed within their educational journey.
SBF: It sounds like you think the data can tell some different stories than we're used to repeating.
AC: Yeah.
SBF: These conversations around people running for leadership positions in the state, they can kind of center around what you want to change. It's just the nature of an election. But I want to hear you talk about some things you've noticed in our education system that you really want to help keep the same or keep on track.
AC: I would actually say that's probably, like, 80% of what I want to do, is keep what we're doing. Wyoming, for being a small state in population, for being incredibly rural, for having challenges around serving very small populations and not having those economies of scale, Wyoming consistently ranks in the top 10 of a variety of measures, not just standardized testing, but graduation rates, the SAT, et cetera. I think we're doing a really great job at educating our students.
I think Wyomingites have a really unique opportunity, because we're such a small state population-wise. I look back on my own educational journey within public schools, and it's kind of amazing that we have these programs like All-State Orchestra, for example, or anything at the state or national level that any average, well, not average, but any student in Wyoming can be eligible for. Where, if you contrast that to practically any other state in the nation, those kinds of opportunities are limited to the wealthy, the connected, the otherwise educated.
I personally came from a lower socioeconomic background. [I] learned to play the cello in public schools and went to All-State. It was amazing, just being around these other highly talented students. I think to friends I've made at [Johns] Hopkins, who also played instruments in high school, and I had mentioned, like, ‘Oh yeah, I went to All-State.’ And they were like, ‘Oh, didn't realize you had private lessons.’ And I was like, ‘Oh, no, I didn't. My mom couldn't afford that. That's outside my sphere of experience.’ But for them to be competitive at the state or national level meant private lessons, tutors, even a tracking, where it's like, ‘If I want to do super well in music, that means I can't participate in sports or other pursuits.’
Where[as] here in Wyoming, students really get the opportunity to excel without having that hyperfocus. So again, looking at my own educational journey, I was in competitions in law for Mock Trial, I was in Science Olympiad, science fair, math, orchestra. It was a very holistic experience for me going through Wyoming public schools, and I think that's amazing.
I just want to promote it, and that's really why I've been running on the idea of making public schools so vibrant and enhancing their transformative power so that all parents across the state choose public schools because it is the best choice, not the only choice.
SBF: I think plenty of people would look up to that story, too. Is there anything that's integral to your campaign that I haven't touched on or asked you about?
AC: Not specifically, no. I think we kind of covered all of the major points.
You can find more conversations with Wyoming’s candidates on our How do I vote? page.
