Eye On Boise

The retooled school reform plan…

Posted by Betsy

Feb. 14, 2011 5:30 p.m. • 7 comments

Here's a link to my full story at spokesman.com on the retooled version of state Superintendent of Schools Tom Luna's school reform plan that was introduced today; it makes no change in the most controversial provision: Raising class sizes and cutting hundreds of teaching jobs. Instead, Luna proposed reducing his requirement for online classes for every high-school student from six classes to four; more flexibility for school districts to decide in what year students should be given laptop computers, rather than requiring them to go to all 9th graders; and elimination of the clause requiring that students be given ownership of the laptops when they graduate.

Seven comments on this post so far. Add yours!

teachum2 on February 14 at 7:31 p.m.
It’s just as bad as the old plan because it is rotten to the core. If they truly want to improve education then form a true task force with all stakeholders at the table - teachers, parents, school administrators - and take the time to do it right. Idaho’s schools are NOT broken. Luna’s plan is nothing but an attack on teachers, bargaining/contract rights and the good relationship that almost all districts have with their teachers. It has nothing to do with putting “children first”. It’s shameful to try and hide behind that slogan! As we’ve said over and over again - teachers and the IEA are not against change - just against bad, unneeded change. I’ve been watching the attacks on teachers get worse and worse in this state for 15 years. What makes this really bad is that Otter finally has a superintendant of instruction who is willing to work hand and hand with him to attack teachers. Shameful!
idahogie on February 14 at 8:42 p.m.
Of the three changes listed, only one makes a great deal of sense (giving schools some flexibility on purchases of technology). Reducing the online course requirement is a marginal improvement. Luna should be setting targets and providing incentives, not making a blanket requirement with no phase-in or evaluation period.

Retaining ownership of the “mobile computing devices” seems like a very marginal idea. Would you want to own a device that had been used for 4 years by a teenager?

And he seem to have split the other bill into two, but not made any significant changes.

The fact is, these bills suck and don’t address the problems of Idaho’s schools.
straighttalk on February 14 at 10:01 p.m.
And why do you suppose the attacks on teachers continues to grow over the years? If there was no problem there would not be growing complaints about teachers; there would be positive comments not concerns and attacks. BTW, where does the rhetoric of alleged attacks begin. There is some indication IEA fuels the rhetoric to incite teachers in order to develop its self-serving agenda of teachers first. IEA does not put students first; its agenda is teachers and teachers only. That has been amply displayed by the hearings wherein IEA school representatives were paid per diem and mileage for their attendance as answered by a north Idaho teacher upon questioning from a legislator during the hearings. Talk about self-serving interests; follow the money trail. IEA should look within its organization for the decline in education.
WildWest on February 14 at 10:31 p.m.
Otter has made his choice, his plan is to dismantle public education. This is all about politics and the destruction of a political enemy the teachers union.

Larger class sizes have absolutely nothing to do with education efficiency, however it is an effective direct shot at the teachers unions. Eventually more experienced better paid teachers are going down, replaced by cheaper, quickly trained, baristas style teachers that will be the death blow and politically neutered the teachers union from political participation.

As we look to the future, this legislation will be viewed as the beginning of privatization of Idaho education. Pay attention taters, rural schools will disappear, as it will not be profitable to offer brick and mortar education and it would be to expensive for rural families. Rural life will be severely effected.

All rural education will be available on-line, while Idaho’s suburban and urban areas will have a two tiered for profit education business were the wealthy will afford the best schools money can buy for there children and the rest of the children of parents who cannot afford the good stuff will be placed in poor performing, over-sized class, for profits schools that turn out the low information peasants of taterville.

Now that’s building a voter base of the future for the GOP.
slfisher on February 15 at 5:37 a.m.
The fact that he was willing to change the other components so readily, and yet not change the class size, shows what the real goal of this program was. Please continue to contact your legislators letting them know that you object to this plan and will remember their vote in two years.
teachum2 on February 15 at 6:39 a.m.
Straighttalk - You are wrong, plain and simple. There is a huge body of support and positivity out there about teachers, not a growing body of complaints and concerns. The growing concerns and complaints emmanate from the legislature which is overwhelmingly republican and wants nothing more than to defund and dismantle free public education because the state is required to support and provide it. They cannot stand that teachers have SOME modicum of control and say in their work conditions and compensation through collective bargaining. It is small because of Idaho being a “right to work” state - what a joke that is - but at least we do have some say.
idahogie on February 15 at 10:31 a.m.
Right, teachum2. Straighttalk fails to live up to his nic.

I’d love to see some evidence that teachers or union rules are the problem. Are we really inundated with horrible teachers that can’t be fired? Where’s the evidence?

I’m sending three kids through the school system, and have witnessed dozens of teachers. Some have been better than others, but all have been professional, serious about education, and concerned about my kids.

So Luna makes 2 huge proposals. One sends money to campaign contributors, and one is an attack on teachers and their union protections.

I want someone to tell me why Luna shouldn’t be fired on the spot. In a state with a decent administration, that would happen.