Another email to Senator Bair

I decided to write another email to Senator Bair. I guess you could say that maybe I don't know when to give up on an issue. I was just so frustrated by all the political spin in the answers that I felt compelled to respond to him one more time. I don't care if I get anymore response, at least he will know where I stand. This is long but maybe someone out there will find this interesting. Thanks, Brian




Senator Bair, Thank you for encouraging the Department of Educations response to my questions. I guess I shouldn't expect direct answers to my questions. Communication Directors know how to talk political speech. I have dealt with this on the dairy boards I serve on. I serve on the National Dairy Board a group of thirty eight dairymen from across the country that administer over the dairy checkoff program which has a budget of about $190,000,000. I have pushed for better accountability on this board, often getting similar language responses as I received from the education department. I once spoke out against an issue that I thought was an improper use of check off funds. Leadership brought this to us and even had approval from USDA to spend check off funds for it, but I didn't think it was right. I asked questions that nobody else seemed willing to ask. I had only been on this board for about a year at the time. I later found out from a long time member that to her recollection, no one had ever spoke against anything leadership wanted, partly out of fear they wouldn't advance in leadership or would loose their board position. It took a lot of time, a lot of emails and conversations with leadership, but I eventually encouraged enough support to stop this improper use of funds. I know I made some enemies, but also gained a lot of respect. I have served on the state dairy board for twenty years, and a regional western states dairy board that mostly deals with government regulations, emigration , and environmental issues, for several years. I have been on the school board for almost four years. So I serve on boards from local, to regional, to the national level. So I am well aware of how politics work at all levels.

I am sure there are many things that the state gets mandated from the federal government that you don't like and fight against. You probably wonder why the state isn't trusted better to make the decisions that you know are best for the people of Idaho. I am sure you don't like funds received from the federal government with so many strings attached that it's hard to manage them. You probably think what makes these people think they are so much smarter than the leaders from Idaho.

Well, I think about the same way as to how the state seems to think about the local school districts. What makes the state politicians think they know what's best for schools over the local districts. I do appreciate the discretion we received last year in regards to our teacher funding, other than it made us the bad guys  RIFing teachers.

I don't expect another response from the Department of Education, I don't want to hear anymore political speech. But I want to point out to you a few things I still have problems with.

She says the online learning does not remove the teacher from the learning experience, because they still are taught by a certified teacher. That's totally not the point, there is a lot of difference between a teacher teaching over a computer and having a teacher in the classroom.

She says funding was not reduced to fund online courses, isn't that what we have heard was necessary to fund these classes and partly why our funding was reduced last year. She mentions that funding was raised 4.6 percent, but as I read it almost all of the increase either goes to raise the pay to teachers in some form, but no funding to restore lost positions, or goes toward funding different aspects of the online program. There is very little to restore general funding to schools. I also have read that if there is future surplus funding it too will go to the online program, no mention of restoring the schools general funds.

She says the goal of the online course requirement is to help increase student achievement. She says this in response what I say about how hard it is to succeed taking online classes and how many failed them at Firth, and who is to blame if they don't do well. I know there are many options to teach these classes, but I can't believe taking the teacher out of the classroom and replacing them with a teacher over a computer will increase achievement. She mentions the success of 15,000 students taking them and because they succeed all students can. That is a big assumption. Of the 15,000 students taking them, I would bet that most of them aren't the average or below average achieving students. Of course it is a good goal to raise student achievement, but I strongly doubt this will accomplish that goal.

I question her response to cheating. She says all the course work will be done in class so there will be no cheating. If this is true then they will have to change how it's been done in the past. A lot of the work has been done at home.

She makes it sound really good about all the pay increases for teachers. It will be good for the teachers to have an increase in pay, but what about all the teachers and paraprofessionals we either had to RIF or reduce hours, she doesn't even mention that or the challenges that brings to the schools, or how with less staff we are supposed to manage the online requirements. I have read nowhere that we will have anymore funds to hire more staff unless we are growing.

I still think they should have done more piloting of the online program. Not everything the State Department of Education has tried to implement in the past has been successful. Before I was on the board we participated in some type of computer grading system that was tied into the state system somehow. I don't know all the details, but I do know it was a major failure, and created a big headache that year for everyone trying to use it. Implementing this program with all the costs involved, if this fails or has problems, will be very expensive.

Her remarks on this whole program and particularly her last statement, to me could be summarized this way. Regardless of what concerns you might have or problems this might create, we know what's best for you so live with it and be happy, aren't we just wonderful for caring so much about your students future.

I have been a lifelong Republican and have appreciated most things the Republican party in Idaho has done for the state. But I sometimes wonder if the way this was presented having Tom Luna and the Governor strongly supporting this, if anyone really questioned leadership, and asked the tough questions. There was so much opposition to this, was the questions just brushed aside because it was thought most of the complaints were coming from the Democrats and teachers unions. Do many of the Republicans just go along to get along. Do most think for themselves studying each issue on their own to make the right decisions. Much like I face on the political boards I serve on, I sadly doubt that is what happens on too many occasions. I'm not saying that is how I think you vote, I don't really know much about how you vote, or how you personally arrive at your decisions.

Last year we laid off three teachers, and made many other changes. The superintendent is recommending already this year that we not replace one that is leaving and we might have to make more cuts. We haven't received enough information yet to know where our funding will end up. By the way the education budget gets presented on the news and in the papers, I think most people think the state has done a good job funding schools. But reality is much different. One thing I would like someone in state government to do is admit how the funding has evolved over the last few years. Someone should explain how property taxes used to pay for a lot bigger share of school funding. Explain how the home owners exemption and other property tax changes effected school funding. How the state said they would cover these reductions of property taxes through other state funds. Explain how with the bad economy funding for school support had to be reduced. And now explain how much the overall state support has dropped in all areas, with no political spin. And then the most important thing would be to admit that the state has no intention anytime in the near future of restoring funding, anywhere close to where it used to be. And finally, admit that the only way for schools to provide adequate funding is for the local tax payers to support school levies. That the state has decided to push a portion of the funding for schools back to property taxes. But I don't expect anyone willing to step up and really explain these issues, it would make them look bad. It's easier to make it appear that the local boards are just not being responsible with tax payers money. That because somehow our own mismanagement forces us to make more and more cutbacks, and ask for levies to bail us out. I think if things don't change and more aren't willing to step up and question leadership more openly, the citizens will take it upon themselves to make changes, either by hopefully electing politicians with a backbone or I hate to say more Democrats to bring a better balance. So Republicans have to work more with Democrats to come up with a better plan for schools.

When we tried to pass a levy two different times, we had so many accusations of how wasteful we must be by not being able to live within our budget. No matter how much we tried to explain all the cuts we had made, and how much our support had dropped, a lot of patrons didn't believe what we were saying. I think because we have done so many things to reduce our costs that aren't very visible, a lot of people don't realize what we have done. The first time we tried for a $250,000 levy, the next time $300,000, it wouldn't have been a very big burden on most tax payers. We would be asked, if we the patrons support the levy this time what are you going to do so we don't keep having to have them? I remember one board member saying. When the economy improves in a couple years, I'm sure they will restore school funding, so by then we won't need a levy. I was never that optimistic. Soon we will have to try for a levy again. This time we will need to convince patrons that we have made all the cuts possible, without cutting the few elective programs we have. And try to explain how the state won't restore our funding, so you the local tax payers will need to step up and provide the funding.

I wish the state politicians could understand the situation we and I'm sure many other districts are in. How can we feel good about the online program being mandated on us with all the cutbacks we have had to make. Dollars would have been much better spent in my opinion, on restoring funding to the schools, and helping to provide more opportunities for our students to take online courses if they chose to take them, not requiring them.    

I know this is long, but I wanted to explain to you one more time in detail what my concerns are. I write this with no political spin, unlike the response from the state, just my honest straight foreword opinion. Thank you for your time. Brian Esplin