There are three Propositions on the general election ballot in Idaho. If all three receive a majority vote, the measures, which were originally passed by the Idaho Legislature last year, will remain on the books and will begin the process of innovatively ameliorating the quality of public instruction across the state. The Wall Street Journal called these measures “the nation’s most sweeping education reform.”
The three Propositions are on the ballot because the education establishment, and especially the Idaho teacher union, the Idaho Education Association, opposes the measures and were able to garner sufficient signatures to place them on the ballot for Idaho voter approval. They are more sweeping in nature than any state’s education reform measures, including elimination of tenure, limitation of collective bargaining to salary and pensions only, increased parental involvement, pay-for-performance, technology in the classroom including distance learning and mobile computing devices for Idaho’s high school students, and transparency of the entire education apparatus. With little commentary, let’s examine what each of the measures on the ballot address.
Proposition 1 does primarily three things. It allows for parents to have input on teacher evaluations, phases out tenure for educators, and mandates that contract negotiations be conducted in open meetings.
A supportive and involved parent largely determines the academic success of a student. Including parental involvement in teacher evaluations will foster a more synergistic relationship between the teacher and the parent, with the predictable outcome of additional parental involvement and children who perform better academically.
Teacher tenure is preserved for those who already have it. Tenure is an obstacle for school districts and administrators to work around when faced with reductions in force. Phasing out tenure allows increased flexibility to retain the best teachers, regardless of seniority or tenure. This is clearly in the best interest of students and academic performance, but is also the major objection teachers have to the Students Come First legislation.
Collective bargaining is limited to matters pertaining to salary and benefits. In the past they could negotiate as part of the contract bell schedule, school calendar, teacher evaluations, and grading methods. This gives the local school board more flexibility and latitude in those peripheral issues without jeopardizing salary and benefit negotiations.
Contract negotiations have sailed through with few exceptions, since the open-meeting negotiations law went into effect. Everyone involved in such negotiations behaves more circumspectly when the public eye is on them.
Proposition 2 implements Pay for Performance (PFP) incentives for teachers, allowing for bonuses based on one of three criteria. The minimum teacher salary was raised and a funding mechanism added to increase the minimum salary in the future. The current salary apportionment grid for teachers with longevity and added educational credits is maintained.
PFP provides extra compensation for teachers who serve in hard-to-fill positions, like calculus teachers in small school districts, or leadership roles, like mentoring new teachers or developing curriculum. This comes as a bonus to those teachers on top of their pay grid compensation. The local school board determines hard-to-fill positions and the extra compensation.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.