Tom Luna, Idaho’s superintendent of public schools, has introduced a sweeping proposal to the Legislature that would, in part, increase class sizes, mandate some online courses and eliminate 770 teaching positions over five years. The Spokesman-Review’s editorial board posed some questions to his office about the plan.

Q.What are the budget realities that prompted this proposal?

A.Idaho has cut and shifted $200 million from K-12 public schools. Even with optimistic revenue growth, it will take us 10 years to backfill this hole. This year, the state faces an additional shortfall of up to $80 million. We must face reality: Our state is broke, and the current education system is collapsing under its own weight. Rainy day funds are drained; federal bailouts are gone. We have cut all we can from the current system. We must change the system to spend what we have differently.

Q.You want to end or phase out teacher tenure and seniority. How would that improve education for children?

A.The current system limits our ability to reward our great teachers and remove poor teachers. It’s in our children’s best interest to remove the barriers to both because we know the most important factor in a student’s academic success is the quality of the classroom teacher. Research shows neither tenure nor seniority help raise student achievement, but can hinder it. Under this plan, any teacher who currently has tenure will keep it. New teachers will receive a two-year rolling contract. Districts will no longer use seniority as a factor in reduction-in-force because we know longevity does not define teacher quality.

Q.With whom did you consult in devising the plan?

A.The Students Come First plan is based on the recommendations developed by the Education Alliance of Idaho, which includes the Idaho Education Association, Idaho School Boards Association, Idaho Association of School Administrators and 80 of Idaho’s largest corporations, among others. Working together, we used these recommendations to write Idaho’s Race to the Top application, including a pay-for-performance plan we all agreed upon. Students Come First puts these recommendations into action and creates a way for Idaho schools to get back on firm financial footing.

Q.Mandatory online courses are a critical component. What do you say to educators who claim the traditional classroom experience is superior?

A.The vast majority of our colleges, universities and employers expect Idaho graduates to learn and work in an online environment. We must ensure our students are prepared for this. Studies show online learning is just as effective as traditional education. Today, more than 2 million students in public schools nationwide, and 15,000 Idaho students, are taking online courses. This number will only grow in the coming years.

Q.How would the delivery of laptops to students work? Would there be computer training? What happens when they’re lost, stolen or broken?

A.The goal is to ensure every Idaho public high school has a 1:1 ratio of students to computers by providing a laptop, or other mobile computing device, beginning in the ninth grade. The state will provide the technical support, maintenance and security, including filtering software. Local districts and parents will shoulder none of the burden. Local school boards will own and control the devices and determine if students take the laptops home or use them at school. In addition, Idaho will provide funding to prepare teachers on how to integrate this technology into the classroom. Similar programs have been successful in Maine and Texas.

Q.What is the biggest misconception with this plan? What is the largest hurdle in getting it passed?

A.There are many, but the most troubling is people believe the situation in our schools will remain the same if we do nothing. It’s not true. Our schools face a serious funding cliff. Idahoans have made it clear they do not want increased taxes. If we cut the budget again at the state level, we will leave local districts – and taxpayers – holding the bag. Instead, we must spend what we have differently. We cannot just reduce revenues at the state level; we must also reduce the costs our districts bear.