[Vision2020] Legislative Update 4 from Rep. Tom Trail

[Rep. Tom Trail]

LEGISLATIVE NEWSLETTER 4--FEBRUARY 5-11, 2011

Constituents:

Headlines concerning SB1068 and SB1069 were the talk of the day in Boise. 
The Headline in the Statesman read: "Vast Majority Oppose the Luna
Educational Reform Plan."  The big corporations including Albertson and
private educational companies took out full page ads supporting the plan. 
Hundreds of people came to testify at three days of hearings at the Senate
Education Committee in the Capitol.

There are some good points in parts of Mr. Luna's proposal it has the
following problems:

 1.  Failure to identify quantifiable evidence from internal or external
sources that the plan has a reasonable chance to work.

 2.  Lack of a pilot that demonstrates tangible success

 3.  Lack of involvement of all of the principal stakeholders

 4.  Lack of multiple solutions to test and evaluate programs and concepts

 5.  Proposing approaches that have failed in other school systems

     I find that the whole process of stakeholder involvement as terribly
flawed (well described in my Op piece).  I would ask that Mike Rush,
Executive Director of the Idaho Office of the State Board of
Education (OSBE) be allowed to testify about the lack of any
involvement of the OSBE in the process of developing this proposal.  
Russ Westerberg, the OSBE President, reported to both education
committees that the Board had no involvement in the development of
the plan. This seems very strange since the Board has the charge of
oversight regarding K-12 education in the state.  This is a big gap
in a flawed involvement process.   Mr. Luna failed to involve the
teachers, PTA, School Boards Association, School Administrators, and
the State Board of Education.

     Many of us are disturbed by taking away the 99 safety net from
primarily our rural districts.  Yesterday I talked to a
representative from a rural district in N. Idaho with a budget of
about $3.2 million per year.   He estimated that the lifting of the
99 percent safety net would cost the district about $600,000.  This
will be devastating and further increase the disparity between the
rich and poor districts.  It is our students who will suffer.  I
would ask Mr. Luna to provide a specific list of the impact on all
school districts if the 99 percent safety net is abolished.

     There are many concerns regarding on-line courses.   I support
quality on line courses, but the quality of courses to date has been
variable.  Requiring all 9th grade students to have laptops sounds
good on the surface; however, in rural areas many students have no
access to the internet.  Our school tech people point out that
computer technology changes at an ever increasing rate, and that most
of the computers and software will be outdated within a four year
period.   Who provides for the pornography blocking on their
Computers, for example?  Does the one shoe fit all approach take into
account that students have different learning styles and some simply
don't learn well from on line courses?   What about special needs
students?    Teachers that I talk to say that the majority of special
needs students simply don't and can't effectively use on line
courses?    It is apparent that Mr. Luna has not thought through many
of these questions and details.

     There is also a bill before the House that would eliminate
kindergarten which apparently has Mr. Luna's support as well. There
are many other concerns as well, but I wanted to share these with
you.

Rep. Tom Trail

The following is my Op. Ed. piece

HIS VIEW:  The strange life, times of Tom Luna
By Tom Trail

     Since Tom Luna won election as superintendent of public instruction
in 2006, he has championed the fact that Idaho students were making
very good progress academically despite the state ranking 49th in the
nation in per capita expenditure for students. In fact Idaho students
were above their peers in terms of science scores, reading and math. 
Luna claimed that much of this was due to his leadership, the
inclusion of all stakeholders in the decision making process and
several new initiatives. This was certainly evidenced by the Math
Initiative, Teacher Evaluation Program and some pioneering on-line
education approaches. These initiatives were supported by the
Legislature. He noted Idaho had many outstanding teachers although
the vast majority had not had any pay increase for three years.  As
one constituent wrote me, “While running for office this past fall
Mr. Luna praised education in Idaho noting student test scores in
science were well above the national average, and he noted that under
his leadership the educational system was moving ahead.”

In early January, Luna unveiled his revolutionary education reform plan.
He issued a cry that the Idaho K-12 system was in shambles and only
desperate measures could save the situation.  Luna’s new plan would
increase class size (resulting in more than 700 teachers losing their
jobs), require high school students to take two on-line classes per year
to graduate, provide every ninth-grader with a laptop, a
pay-for-performance plan for teachers, eliminating tenure for teachers and
several other changes.  Luna touted himself as an inclusionary leader
during his 2006 campaign.  He stressed during the campaign and during his
first four years in office, that as head of the Idaho K-12 system he would
involve all of the major stakeholders in key educational policy decisions.
 When we look at his performance in meeting the inclusionary standard in
the development of his new plan we are sadly disappointed. Major
stakeholders, including the Idaho Education Associaton (teachers), PTA,
State School Boards Association, Idaho Association of School
Administrators, and Idaho universities and colleges were not involved.

Russ Westerberg, president of the State Board of Education, was asked if
the board had any input into the process. The answer was no. It seems odd
that Luna, as a member of the board, didn’t even casually mention the plan
to any of board members. This should raise all sorts of red flags because
the state board oversees K-12 education in the state.

I asked UI President Duane Nellis if he or any of his faculty has been
consulted. The answer was no.  Some of the components Luna overlooked are:
lack of a pilot program that demonstrates tangible success; lack of
wide-spread involvement of all the stakeholders; lack of multiple
solutions to test and evaluate; and using approaches that have failed for
other school systems.

During this past week I received three calls from suppliers of laptop
computers, software and curriculum supplies urging me to support the new
plan. I also noted that a number of the Albertson Foundation Board members
came out in support of Luna. A local reporter noted these individuals all
had ties to the private educational company “K12” based in Virginia. If
the plan is approved then millions of dollars will flow from the Idaho
taxpayer to out-of-state educational companies.

Out of concern I checked Luna’s list of campaign contributions. A
substantial number of donations came from the out-of-state private
educational companies.  Joe Kren, Potlatch School District superintendent
reported, “It is public knowledge that K12 inc. provided at least $25,000
to Luna’s 2010 campaign.”

Tom Trail, R-Moscow, is a member of the Idaho House of Representatives.