Among the things Idaho voters are being asked to
decide in this year's general election are three
propositions on retain changes made last year to the state's education system,
also known as the "Luna Laws," named after Idaho
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna,
who developed them.
The provisions of the three propositions were
enacted last year; public outcry in opposition
will allow voters to decide if the laws remain
in effect.
While there's much more to each proposal, they
are summed up on the ballot as follows:
Proposition 1: Shall the legislation limiting
negotiated agreements between teachers and local
school boards and ending the practice of issuing
renewable contracts be approved?
Proposition 2: Shall the legislation providing
teacher performance pay based on state-mandated
test scores, student performance, hard to fill
positions and leadership be approved?
And Proposition 3: Shall the legislation
amending school district funding, requiring
provision of computing devices and on-line
courses for high school graduation be approved?
Touting them as "Students Come First" laws, Luna
contends that passing these propositions will
educate more students at a higher level with
limited resources by reforming Idaho’s public
education system. Through these laws, he says,
the state and local school districts will make
every classroom a 21st Century Classroom, ensure
every student has access to a highly effective
teacher every year in school, and give parents
immediate access to understandable information
about their child’s school and district.
Proposition 1, if passed,
would retain numerous amendments to
Title 33, Idaho Code, Education,
particularly
Chapter 5: District Trustees,
Chapter 10:
Foundation Program -- State
Aid -- Apportionment, and
Chapter 12: Teachers.
These regard how school boards may negotiate
with, hire and retain teachers. A "yes" vote
would retain legislation limiting negotiated
agreements between teachers and local school
boards, ending the practice of issuing renewable
contracts, phase out those currently in effect,
effectively ending tenure as a criteria for
teacher retention, and tie at least half of a
teacher or principal's performance evaluation on
how well students are doing in the class room.
Luna says this law returns local control and
authority to locally elected school boards,
parents, and patrons so they can make the best
possible decisions for students in their
communities. It also eliminates, he contends,
ineffective or inefficient practices in Idaho's
K-12 education system and ensures that any cost
savings from these programs is put into the
classroom, where it is needed most.
Opponents say Proposition 1 prevents teachers
from negotiating with their school
administrators about anything except for wages
and benefits. It makes it illegal for teachers
to negotiate class-size limits, student safety
protections, lesson-planning time, and funding
for basic classroom supplies.
Twin Falls Republican Representative Leon Smith
said, "I've read this bill through from the
first page to the last page. And as I went
through the bill, it became more and more
apparent to me that this is a very mean-spirited
bill. It goes beyond bashing unions. It bashes
teachers, and that to me is not a good direction
to go. It turns teachers into powerless pawns of
the political system.
"State Superintendent Tom Luna decided he
doesn't want to listen to the people who know
best: teachers and parents. He wrote these laws
to silence the voices of teachers on issues like
classroom overcrowding, safety, funding for
up-to-date textbooks, and classroom supplies.
"Tell Superintendent Luna that making it illegal
for teachers to discuss funding for the basics
that help our students succeed is bad for our
kids, bad for our schools and bad for Idaho."
Proposition 2, if passed, will
retain
IC 33-1004I, which establishes teacher
performance pay based on state-mandated test
scores, student performance, hard-to-fill
positions and leadership.
According to proponents, this law recognizes
that the most important factor in a student's
academic success is the quality of the teacher
in the classroom.
"The system we had before made it almost
impossible to financially reward great teachers
and difficult to deal with ineffective
teaching," Luna said. "This law removes the
barriers to both by implementing a statewide
pay-for-performance plan. The Idaho Legislature
provided an additional $38 million in new
dollars to fully fund this plan. On average,
each Idaho teacher can earn an additional $2,000
a year. Some teachers could earn as much as
$8,000 in addition to their annual salary. Now
local school districts have a way to recognize
and financially reward great teachers for the
job they do. An estimated 85 percent of Idaho's
teachers will receive a bonus."
Not so fast, opponents say.
"Like the failed "No Child Left Behind" law,
this proposal emphasizes standardized testing at
the expense of our children's education,
treating students like widgets on an assembly
line. Each child is unique, and it takes a
dedicated, highly-trained teacher to reach each
one. We need to make sure our children are
critical thinkers and lifelong learners, not
just good test takers."
Proposition 3, if passed, would
retain numerous amendments to Title 33,
including those to
33-125,
33-129,
33-1002,
33-1002A,
33-1004,
33-1004A,
33-1004E,
33-1004F,
33-1020,
33-1021,
33-1626,
33-1627, and
33-5216.
Proposition 3 amends school funding to require
"computing devices" (read "laptops"), and
on-line courses for high school graduation.
"This law ensures every high school teacher and
student has a wireless laptop device and every
high school will be equipped with wireless
internet accessibility," proponents say.
"Teachers are provided with an unprecedented
amount of professional development to learn how
to use this technological tool to greatest
advantage in their classrooms. This device
becomes the textbook for every class, the
advanced math calculator, the research device,
the word processor, and the portal to a world of
information and knowledge. No longer will
Idaho's classrooms be the least technological
part of a student's day."
If it stands, This law invests $9 million a year
in advanced classroom technology for elementary
and middle school classrooms.
Republican Finance Committee Chairman Senator
Dean Cameron said, "I'm voting against this bill
because ... not one stakeholder is supporting it
- not the superintendents, not the school
boards, not the teachers, not the parents. Every
single stakeholder... has testified opposed to
it."
In arguing against the measure, opponents say
that this law is a costly unfunded mandate that
could lead to higher property taxes, more
funding cuts, and fewer teachers in our already
financially strapped local schools.
"It requires us to trade teachers for computers,
forcing local school districts to spend our tax
dollars on expensive computer equipment and
software. But as parents and teachers know,
computers can't diagnose a learning problem,
develop critical thinking skills, or motivate a
child to get excited about learning.
"Proposition 3 puts our students last and big
computer and online education corporations
first. It requires local schools to give away
expensive, taxpayer-funded laptop computers to
every high school student in Idaho. Given that
kids will be kids, it's estimated that equipment
repairs and replacements will cost taxpayers a
lot more than the politicians predict. It also
requires our students to take online education
courses - using tax dollars to fund
unaccountable online education companies, at
least one of which was caught outsourcing
teaching jobs to India."
On each of these propositions, a "yes" vote will
keep the so-called Luna Laws in place, a "no"
vote would repeal them.
|
