Three propositions on the Idaho ballot this November, memorably entitled Propositions 1, 2 and 3, would enact reforms proposed by Idaho’s conservative superintendent of education, Tom Luna. Each reform would hurt Idaho teachers, destroy teachers’ unions and bargaining rights, replace teachers with online courses and funnel money to the producers of those online classes. Ultimately, these reforms would hurt Idaho’s public education system and drive teachers away from the state.
Start with Prop 1. This proposition would make teacher’s contracts renewable on a yearly basis, and remove the system of automatic renewal (barring misconduct) of experienced teachers. It would also evaluate teachers annually based on “student growth” measured by their scores on standardized tests, and federal “adequate yearly progress” markers.
The evaluations would also require “parent input.” In short, it would penalize teachers for teaching anything other than the material on standardized tests and would open teachers to retributive action by parents. Any teacher giving a student a low grade would put their own job at risk.
Even more importantly, Prop 1 would make it far more difficult for teachers’ unions to bargain. First, it forces unions to have more than 50 percent of district teachers as members in order to collectively bargain. In seeking to protect the rights of teachers not to be union members, Idaho Republicans have taken away the rights of those teachers who wish to unionize. And more, the proposition would limit bargaining to salaries and benefits for teachers.
This means that teachers would not be able to bargain for class sizes or materials that would help teach students. Teachers may be forced to buy these materials out of their own pocket — in fact, many already do. Any district that does not negotiate for salaries and benefits with a union would have their benefits set by the school board. The school board would also be able to automatically end any salary disputes with the unions, thereby removing their ability to negotiate.
Proposition 2 would offer an unfair “pay for performance” plan. The idea may sound attractive at first, offering a chance to reward our best teachers, but in reality, these bonuses would once more be based on standardized test scores. We would then incentivizing our teachers to “teach to the test,” effectively giving up classroom control to the Idaho State Board of Education. And, of course, that would mean more power and control over Idaho’s public schools given to Tom Luna, who proposed these reforms.
Proposition 2 would also drive teachers away from Idaho. Many, of course, will leave when they realize their right to bargain with their employers is being taken away. Others will seek states in which their salaries and their employment contracts are not at risk of changing or simply ending every year.
Compared to this massive overhaul of teacher benefits and contracts, Proposition 3 is relatively minor. It would put laptops in the hands of every Idaho student. A worthy goal, if it did not also replace in-person class time with online classes. Many of these classes are run by companies such as K-12 Management Incorporated, based in Virginia, or Education Networks of America, from Nashville, among others. These companies have donated thousands of dollars to Tom Luna’s re-election campaign.
I urge all Idaho citizens to vote no on Propositions 1, 2, and 3, for the sake of Idaho’s students, its teachers and public education in the state.
Max Bartlett can be reached at [email protected]