[Vision2020] An opinion piece on Tom Luna (candidate for State Superintendant of Public Instruction)

[ttrail at moscow.com]

Visionaries:

The year of 2006 will see Idahoans going to the ballot box to vote for
candidates for the position of State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Tom Luna (R) is an announced candidate and has worked the last four year
for the Bush administration with the No Child Left Behind Program.  The
attached opinion piece about Mr. Luna may be of interest.

Tom Trail

******************************************************************
POST REGISTER

Wednesday December 28, 2005  

Luna simply isn't qualified
Geoffrey Thomas Guest columnist 
 
Tom Luna is inflating his credentials to serve as Idaho's next
superintendent of public instruction. In truth, his resume is quite
underwhelming, writes Geoffrey Thomas.

Electing Tom Luna would be like going on that blind date you really didn't
want to go out with in the first place and who then ended up ordering the
lobster. She may have seemed potentially attractive at first, but
ultimately, it ended up costing you dearly.

I read Tom's unintentionally humorous and thinly disguised campaign
propaganda in a recent column in the Post Register with a combination of
irritation and laughter. I am opposed to Tom being elected as the
superintendent of public instruction. Why? Tom is simply not qualified for
the job. He also frequently exaggerates his meager accomplishments and
certainly doesn't understand definitions.

Tom says he is for local control and then loudly proclaims his federal
Department of Education in Washington, D.C., desk job working with No Child
Left Behind. NCLB is a historically unprecedented, largely unfunded,
massive federal government intrusion into local education business. This
mandate rips away local control from parents and locally elected school
boards and gives it to the federal bureaucrats. I think Tom is confused
about the definition of local control.

Tom states that he is against a "one size fits all" type of school. Once
again, the NCLB act is the biggest "one size fits all" law that could
possibly be imagined. Every district from inner-city Cleveland to Dubois
has to abide by the exact same requirements. Again, Tom is confused about
definitional concepts.

If Tom would take the time to actually visit any of our local schools, he
would see we provide numerous programs for the struggling student to
Advanced Placement classes in a variety of subjects. Schools districts also
provide a wonderful array of electives from agriculture, art, band,
construction, choir, debate, orchestra and welding that offer students
excellent educational choices and experiences.

Tom asserts he wants to reward "good" teachers. I agree. However, I have
never heard Tom advocate for additional money for teacher salaries,
benefits or school operations either during his last campaign or today.

Tom says he has worked for 15 years in all levels of education. Tom once
again overstates his experience. He has never worked in a school or taught
in a classroom.

All of his opponents, both Republicans and Democrats, have classroom
experience. He has never served as an administrator. In essence, he has
zero experience in Idaho schools.

Tom's vision of education is to impose a "business model" on schools by
converting our schools into mini factories, where kids are seen as
"products" instead of children. In Tom's world, children are small adults
who need be to be trained to become workers, rather than educated to become
learners and thinkers. I hope when Tom discusses business models he isn't
suggesting schools be more like Enron, WorldCom or Adelphia.

Tom indicated that he was tapped by two different governors to "lead" the
standards movement and implementation of the Idaho Standards Achievement
Test. Once again, the exaggeration and definition problem rears its ugly
head. True, he was on the committee, but so were hundreds of other people
who worked to initiate the standards in Idaho. Being on a committee is
quite different than leading. Everyone was appointed by the state board,
not the governor, again an exaggeration.

Tom also may want to check on the definition of "popular." The ISAT is not
exactly popular as it has been repeatedly proven to be an invalid test. Its
"popularity" will really come under fire next year as the first group of
students will not be allowed to graduate when they do not make the state
board imposed ISAT cut scores.

Tom supports school choice. This really means he wants to divert your
hard-earned tax dollars into voucher programs for private or parochial
schools. The Idaho Constitution correctly has strong limitations on
blurring the line of church, private and state. Vouchers do not work as
they siphon away money generally from deserving existing programs and have
wisely been rejected in state initiatives throughout the nation.

Tom advocates for charter schools. Though not inherently bad institutions,
there has been no statistically significant difference in test scores
between charter and public schools.

What charters really do, however, is slice the financial pie even further
for financially-strapped school districts. More charters mean more
buildings, more administrators, teachers, custodians and bus drivers for
the same number of students and with the exact same amount of money.
Financially, they do not make sense in fiscally tight times.

Tom says the election is not about Luna. Wrong. Elections are very much
about who is running. I am underwhelmed by Tom's credentials. My preference
is someone who has successful classroom teaching and administrative
experience. It also helps to elect someone who provides accurate
information and will be able to understand definitions.

My advice: Go on a date with someone you know well and don't order this
lobster.

Thomas is superintendent of Madison School District 321. You can write to
him at P.O. Box 830, Rexburg, ID 83440.



---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/