Bad for children. Bad for teachers. Bad for Idaho.
Is it okay to starve your children for a long time and then promise them that, if they are very good and don’t complain, they can have some candy?
Idaho has been keeping its schools on a starvation diet for years. Did you know that we rank last in the nation in the amount we allocate for each child’s education?
You may have seen some of the effects of years of limited funding: Districts cut back on transportation. Many districts moved to a four-day week. Cooks, janitors, bus drivers and aides lost 20% of their income. Schools scheduled all-day kindergarten every other day. One superintendent said they had removed half the light bulbs in the buildings. (Of course, then the public utilities commission granted a rate increase so no real savings were realized.) Citizens went to the polls to vote to increase their property taxes to keep local schools operating. And parents saw the list of “school supplies” grow and grow as more and more fees were added.
Schools in Idaho have been adding technology to their operations for many years. 20 years ago in Moscow, I was bringing computers into the classrooms and training teachers in their use. Children were becoming adept from kindergarten on. When I was superintendent, a virtual high school was established. The Idaho Digital Learning Academy (IDLA) could be accessed statewide and became very popular for credit recovery or advanced classes. In some very small rural districts, entire classes signed up if a teacher was not available for a certain discipline. It was monitored by and paid for by the participating districts and the on-line teachers were chosen for their excellence and trained to meet the demands of working in a virtual environment. Technology is now an integral part of education but it is recognized as a tool to be used appropriately and effectively by the classroom teacher. There is intent to reduce the money for IDLA in favor of for-profit companies. The C.E.O. of one for-profit school received a multi-million dollar bonus last year – that is how our tax dollars were used. They are also used to make political contributions to politicians who will work to benefit the on-line companies.
The Luna laws reduced the money schools received to hire teachers. (This amount has never been generous.) Did you know that Idaho does not allocate money for music, art, physical education, counselors, nurses, and librarians? Instead, a school is given an extra allocation once it has met the student count for ten classrooms. Then the district can decide what program to add – perhaps a class in test preparation? Loss of funding means teachers cannot be hired. School boards have already cut funding for all other programs – including building maintenance.
One intent of the Luna law is to have for-profit companies provide the curricula in our schools. The teacher hired by the company can be assigned hundreds of students and can be located anywhere in or out of the country. You will have no idea who your kids’ teachers are. If the student takes the class while at school, an aide can be hired to monitor student behavior for liability purposes, but not teach. Schools have tried to maintain services by increasing, even doubling, class size. I’ve heard tearful complaints from parents of 2nd graders whose children are in a room with 35 students. The parents fear that their children will not get needed attention and will struggle with reading for the rest of their lives. They need to be worried.
Because schools cut back on the time teachers spend with students, one award-winning teacher told me she is making $4,000.00 less per year. One teacher reported that her district could no longer afford its employee health insurance and she was having $1,200.00 per month removed from her paycheck to maintain her family’s insurance. Even so, those are not the primary concerns – the teachers are more upset because large class sizes and reduced time to prepare or evaluate lessons are exhausting an already demoralized workforce.
I’ve talked to deans at colleges of education, both private and public, and student enrollment in teacher education is much reduced. Young people can see that teaching is not a good career path. We are told not to worry – Idaho has made it possible for anyone with a college degree to teach. They just need to pass a basic skills test. That process removes the quality controls that our colleges have been trying to put into place to assure us that candidates have not just knowledge, but some expertise and the right disposition to be responsible for our children’s learning. We may get some good teachers from the alternate route but we have to be aware that anyone who cannot get a job or has been fired from their position can come to Idaho and our kids will teach them how to teach.
The attacks on teachers are unwarranted. Our students do remarkably well considering the low level of financial support the state provides for our K-12 and university systems. We need for more kids to get career training after high school but we are raising fees for higher education every year to make up for lack of state funding. Because Idaho ranks with the deep South in terms of our per-person income, we are a state plagued by poverty. That’s another reason to tend to basic needs before deciding to hand out gifts.
Here’s my suggestion: Our elected officials and legislators should determine how to provide adequate funding for basic education needs before deciding to hand out gifts of computers and bonuses. I’ve heard that over 80% of the students already have internet access at home. Merit pay is not a bad idea, but there is no credible plan in place. I won’t take your time to even discuss how that plan could happen. We can help our teachers know that we value their knowledge, expertise, and commitment to our kids by telling them so. We can tell the legislature that the laws known as Prop 1, 2, and 3 are hurting kids. A great deal of damage has already been done. We should pause, get rid of these laws, and try to do better.
- Dr. Marilyn Howard, Former Idaho State Superintendent of Public Instruction
For Immediate Release
.
Contact: Mike Lanza
Cell: 208.861.2064
.
I want to start this by saying I am a dedicated student. I am in the top 5% of my class and spend hours on homework every day. I am a perfectionist and spend a lot of time and energy making sure my work is complete and up to my standards of quality. I have taken three online classes as a way to get ahead, avoid a teacher I disliked, etc. and have struggled in all of them. The work is boring. The assignments are cookie-cutter at best and provoke little deep thought, and although the teachers try, there is no good way to connect with students. I was not motivated to do my work, stayed up late finishing assignments an hour before the deadline, and I never even learned any of my teachers’ names. I came away from every single one of these classes knowing almost nothing of what I was taught. The reason students don’t like the idea of requiring online classes has nothing to do with us not wanting to move forward and “embrace technology.” We don’t like this because the system doesn’t work for everyone. I have had an amazing experience at Boise High sitting at a real desk learning from a teacher who is only ten feet away from me. I have been inspired and motivated by these teachers more than I could ever be in an online class. No teacher who lives miles away and only checks his email once every two days can ever replace my 8th grade English teacher who had us build a model empire and wage war Machiavelli-style. No online textbook can ever replace the fire lab in chemistry. No online discussion board post can replace the discussion my friends and I had about the ethics of social experiments after our psychology class. As hard as they try, no online class will ever be able to make a connection to a student and keep them as motivated to learn as a real, in-the-flesh, living, breathing, passionate, dedicated classroom teacher can. Students shouldn’t be required to take classes in a system that does not work for them.
- Sarah Whelan, High School Student, Boise
For Immediate Release
Cell: 208.861.2064
For Immediate Release
.
Cell: 208.861.2064
Idaho Department of Education for Blatantly Political Push Poll
BOISE – The Vote No on Propositions 1, 2, 3 campaign called on State officials to pull the plug on a taxpayer-funded survey that is a blatant use of taxpayer dollars to pay for campaign polling for the proponents of the Luna Laws.
“This so-called survey simply doesn’t pass the laugh test,” said Mike Lanza, Chairman of the Vote No campaign. “It is a political poll, plain and simple. Tom Luna shouldn’t be using taxpayer dollars to pay for a function of a political campaign.”
The questions and statements in the survey, as reported by the Idaho Statesman, are skewed and are clearly intended to sway public opinion. Characterizations such as “more effective teachers should be paid more than less effective teachers” and “granting teachers tenure results in greater student achievement,” are leading statements that are typical of a political “push poll” that attempts to influence opinion at the same time that it’s claiming to gather public opinion. The survey also asks if schools, and the so-called “Students Come First” scheme, are on the “right track or wrong track.” Such language is commonly used in political polling.
“There’s no need to do a survey of this sort at this time,” said Lanza, “unless it’s intended to sway the opinions of undecided voters. These questions could certainly wait until after the election.”
The Vote No campaign also questions why a truly impartial survey wasn’t conducted before the Luna Laws were ever proposed.
“Why was there no survey that asked parents, teachers, and administrators what they thought of the half-baked ideas in the Luna Laws before they actually rammed the laws through the Legislature, over the objections of so many?” asked Lanza. “If they were sincere about wanting to know what people really thought about ‘how best to meet the needs of Idaho students,’ they would have asked the questions long before they imposed their top-down mandates on parents and professional educators who widely opposed them.”
Statement on the release of the Vote No campaign financial disclosure report
Mike Lanza, Chairman and Maria Greeley, Treasurer
.
We are enormously gratified by the support we have received from the hundreds of individuals across the state of Idaho and from the millions of teachers and other school employees across the nation who voluntarily gave their hard-earned dollars to the organization of which they are members.
We’re also immensely grateful to the thousands of supporters across Idaho who have given countless hours of their own time volunteering to help our effort. From the outset, our campaign to defeat these laws has been driven by grassroots volunteers who believe in local control of our schools. Their support is invaluable.
This broad-based, bi-partisan outreach gives us great confidence that our message is resonating and that Idaho voters are poised to reject the bad ideas that are the Luna Laws and to vote “no” on Propositions 1, 2 and 3.
.
Mike Lanza, Chair | 208.861.2064
Maria Greeley, Treasurer | 208.761.4433
Vote No on Propositions 1, 2, 3
The Vote No on Props 1,2,3 campaign is now on TV. Please take a look at our first ad now on the air:
Anne-Marie urges voters to Vote No on Props 1, 2, 3.
Prior to moving to Idaho, I taught in a small town south of San Antonio, Texas. Our school district won an enormous grant from Apple which provided every high school student with a laptop, charger, and specialized backpack in which to carry them.
The program was an utter disaster.
Students mistreated their laptops and came to class with them uncharged. If they remembered to bring their charger, the classroom was crisscrossed with cords, making it difficult to walk around the room. Backpacks were destroyed and laptops were broken, lost, stolen, and pawned. When computers malfunctioned, students were left stranded, unable to access any work they had completed. Some students’ families could not afford internet service at home, so they were unable to complete homework assignments. When computers malfunctioned, there was often little we could do because the staff member responsible for maintaining the laptops was completely overwhelmed and unable to keep up with demand.
But the worst outcome was that students continually accessed inappropriate websites both at home and at school. And it wasn’t only our students. Other family members would use the laptops for their personal use. Pornography was rife. Anyone who thinks a firewall will prevent students from visiting prohibited sites is kidding themselves. I once walked into a classroom with a graphic pornographic image displayed on the wall (using a projector). The teacher was almost in tears. This is not the kind of classroom environment we want for our students.
In my own classroom, as I walked down the aisles to assist students with their work, I knew that students were off-task (usually playing video games), but I couldn’t prevent it because I couldn’t watch everyone’s screen at once.
The entire experience was upsetting and demoralizing. Based on my experience, I completely disagree with the plan to purchase laptops for students. Idaho schools already have more than enough computers available for student use.
- Anne-Marie Bebber, Middle School Teacher, Garden City
I am one of the many teachers that “migrated” from Idaho this year after 9 years of teaching there. Unfortunately, it became necessary to seek other options as a single-income earner with my salary both frozen and reduced over the past several years. If only the other expenses in my life like my mortgage, utility costs, credit card, and other bills would follow that same trend, there would be no problem!
A better quality of life was my goal in moving to Idaho in 2003. I had no secure job, but a desire to continue into my fifth year of teaching. I would like to thank the state for the wonderful training and support I received in my first years of teaching 4th and 8th grades (2nd grade and Kindergarten most recently). Ironically, it is this exact training in literacy and second language acquisition that made me an attractive candidate for the work I am now doing at an elementary school in Colorado.
I do not regret my decision to move to Idaho. My time there led to things like my master’s degree and a passion to work with students and teachers and to end the myth that this is a “get rich” career filled with bad teachers. We find ourselves in a situation where the problem is systemic. It requires an overhaul that is being addressed through the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, and service learning. This seems the better route rather than continuing to blame the many teachers who are truly doing their best to educate our children, yet are making less and less each year.
I thank “Vote No on Propositions 1,2,3″ for the opportunity to tell my story and get on the “soap box” for Idaho. I may have moved, but I will always support the students and teachers of Idaho. I will have mixed emotions when I remember my efforts to prepare Idaho’s children with the skills needed to meet the demands of careers they haven’t yet imagined.
- Eric Schmitz, Former Idaho Teacher, Fort Collins, CO
The slogans are snappy, simple and grouped in threes.
“Electorate demands it. Economy requires it. Students deserve it.”
“Bad for children. Bad for teachers. Bad for Idaho.”
Those who embrace the first set of sentiments support the Students Come First laws spearheaded by schools Superintendent Tom Luna and passed by the Legislature in 2011.
Those whose opinion of the new education laws might be capsulized as “Bad, bad, bad” aim to repeal all three and successfully gathered about 75,000 signatures to put the issues on the Nov. 6 statewide ballot. Prevailing “no” votes would kill the laws; “yes” votes would keep them in place.
Advocates for both sides are passionate, organized and determined to bring in money and supporters to ensure the electoral outcome they desire. At stake, both sides say, is Idaho students’ ability to learn and succeed up to their potential.
The “yes” and “no” campaigns won’t have to file pre-election finance statements until early October, and both declined to reveal donations so far. But managers on each side say they expect to bring in $1 million or more, with much of it coming from national organizations.
Radio advertisements already are plying the airwaves, with television spots anticipated as more money rolls in. Last week the “Vote No Props 1, 2, 3” campaign posted ad videos on YouTube.
The campaign against what opponents call the “Luna laws” is mining social media to great effect, “Vote No” communications coordinator Morgan Hill said.
“We’re getting thousands of people plugging into Facebook and Twitter, plugging into us online,” Hill said. “We’re getting quite a few people who are donating.”
By Friday evening, the “Vote No” campaign had more than 4,000 Facebook followers. “Yes for Idaho Education” had 46.
“We haven’t really been focused on (social media) yet,” said “Yes” campaign manager Ken Burgess. “We’ll be ramping it up shortly.”
Burgess cited “a grass-roots support system across the state” and noted a direct-mail campaign with fund-raising pleas signed by Gov. Butch Otter and Idaho Republican Party Chairman Barry Peterson that went to more than 6,000 individuals and businesses this month.
“We need your help to keep our bold and innovative reforms on track for our children’s future,” the letter says, seeking donations of $25 to $250 or more.
DIVIDED OVER TECHNOLOGY
The Students Come First laws stripped many of Idaho teachers’ collective bargaining rights, established a pay-for-performance bonus system for teachers and imposed “21st century technology” measures to phase in laptop computers for all high school students and require future graduates to earn at least two course credits online.
Both sides make the technology piece central to their arguments — but from opposite perspectives.
Wendy Horman of Idaho Falls, a longtime school board member who co-chairs the “Yes” campaign, said the technology bill addresses the need to get all Idaho students, regardless of where they live or what their parents can afford, adept with technology that is prevalent in higher education and the workforce.
To the Idaho Education Association and Idaho Parents and Teachers Together, which led the effort to get the repeals on the ballot, the laptop push is a wrong-headed effort to funnel money into devices when those funds would be better spent on making sure there are enough teachers and workable class sizes to give students the help they need.
“We do not believe the best way to try to teach kids is to replace a teacher with a computer and a requirement,” said Mike Lanza, a Boise father of two who chairs the “No” campaign and co-founded Idaho Parents and Teachers Together.
“Where there’s a skill gap is in the intangibles … the ability to think things through and problem solving,” said outgoing District 19 Rep. Brian Cronin, D-Boise, who “vehemently” opposed the Students Come First package in the Legislature. “Those are things that can’t be taught by a laptop.”
“Kids today don’t really struggle with technology,” Cronin added.
“There’s a huge equity piece in this for me,” countered Horman, a mother of five and former president of the Idaho School Boards Association. “You and I both know that the kids who can afford the technology already have it in their pocket.”
WHO’S ON WHICH SIDE?
The statewide teachers’ union, Idaho Education Association, has staunchly opposed the new laws since Luna proposed them early in the 2011 legislative session. The State Board of Education reiterated its support for the laws this month.
But besides those two groups — and the organizations formed specifically to work for and against the ballot measures — Idaho education and business groups have yet to publicly pick a side. Campaign insiders on both sides said they don’t expect that to change.
Cronin said “a lot of business people” are supporting the “No” campaign, but “they don’t necessarily want to put their business name on the line.”
And “Yes” advocate Burgess said he believes numerous teachers support the new laws, “but they’re afraid to say anything publicly.”
Idaho first lady Lori Otter says she knows at least one local teacher who wanted to back the “Yes” campaign and suspects there are many more.
Otter, who spent 12 years as a teacher and coach in Idaho schools before she married the governor six years ago, said she never joined a union while she was teaching, “but I felt pressure every year.”
An avid spokeswoman for keeping the Students Come First laws, Otter said her support comes from her love for her profession, not loyalty to the administration.
“Some people think the only reason I’m for this is for my husband and Luna, but if you know me at all you know that’s not how I operate,” she said. “I think in the long run it’s protecting the profession.
“Right now teachers kind of feel that they’ve been beat up on,” she said, but “I think once teachers understand a good change can help them work smarter, not harder, they’ll come around.”
IEA President Penni Cyr called allegations of union pressure on teachers “almost hilarious. We don’t do that.” She said the union does invite every teacher to join every year, “but it’s an invitation. This is a Right to Work state.”
Cyr said teachers overwhelmingly oppose the trio of laws but “are making the best of it.” “They go in there and they make it good for the kids. That’s what they do. But they’re committed to voting no on these laws.”
IMPACT ON TEACHERS
Spending the past year under the new laws reinforced teachers’ opposition, Cyr said. Class sizes have gone up in many districts, teachers and parents are forced to pay for school supplies districts can’t afford to provide, and an unprecedented 1,300 teachers left the state last year, she said.
Budget cuts that affect teachers’ jobs are local school board decisions born of the economic downturn, not Students Come First, State Department of Education spokeswoman Melissa McGrath said.
“State revenues have declined, and therefore the state had to send less funding to public schools than in years past,” she said.
Luna and other proponents say the laws are good for teachers because they allow for merit pay and provide technology that can make teachers’ jobs easier and more effective.
Nearly $39 million has been set aside to reward teachers this fall for their work last year. The State Department of Education estimates 85 percent of all Idaho teachers will receive some type of bonus, with an average amount of $2,000.
“Bonuses for teachers is money that was originally appropriated for salaries,” Cyr said. “If you’re talking about reducing salaries to give bonuses, that’s kind of interesting.”
The state shifted about $14 million from school salary funding in fiscal 2012 to pay for some of the initial reforms, McGrath said, but legislation passed earlier this year makes sure no further such shifts will be made.
Cyr noted that distribution of bonus money to reward teachers for last year’s success is not scheduled until mid-November — after the election. If Proposition 2, which deals with pay for performance, is defeated, that money would go elsewhere.
All three laws are fully funded for this budget year, McGrath said. If they are repealed, the state would not have legal authority to distribute any of that money as designated by defunct laws.
“This funding would go into the Public Education Stabilization Fund until the Idaho Legislature could address it in January 2013,” she said.
LOCAL CONTROL
One controversial aspect of the new education laws eliminates multi-year teacher contracts and limits collective bargaining to issues of salary and benefits.
“This returns control to locally elected school boards that were elected to make decisions but were often bound by agreements made by board members 20 years ago,” Horman said.
But Cronin said the changes to collective bargaining rights hurt students by “silencing teachers.”
“People in Idaho know teachers in many respects are children’s best advocates,” he said. “When we take away their voices on such issues as classroom size and scheduling, that is not good for students.”
Bonneville School Board member Horman said teachers can still talk to district leaders “as colleagues,” which can more effectively communicate viewpoints than talks at the bargaining table.
Cronin said Students Come First erodes local control by forcing “one-size-fits-all” measures, such as laptops and online course requirements, on all districts rather than leaving it up to individual school boards.
He and Cyr said they’re all for pursuing improvements to Idaho’s school system, but they want to get rid of this package of laws and start from scratch. They say a more collaborative approach is needed that brings in teachers, parents and others to identify the objectives as well as the solutions.
“I think we haven’t really identified what problem or problems we’re trying to solve,” Cronin said. “Instead, we’ve developed a fiscal crisis plan under the assumption that there’s no will in this state to make the necessary investment in education.”
Kristin Rodine: 377-6447