Why vote “NO” on Props 1, 2, and 3?

Why vote “NO” on Props 1, 2, and 3?

Please visit www.votenoprop123.com for additional information and opportunities to volunteer.

Props 1, 2, & 3 On the Ballot

Below you will find the official wording of the so-called Luna Laws as it will appear on the ballot on Tuesday, November 6th.  Specific concerns about the consequences of these laws, and their impact on Boise students and teachers are in bold following each Proposition.


Referendum to approve or reject legislation limiting negotiated agreements between teachers and local school boards and ending the practice of issuing renewable contracts.

Referendum to approve or reject S1108; relating to education: revising Idaho Code by amending 33-513, 33-514, 33-514A, 33-515, 33-515A, 33-516, 33-521, 33-522, 33-1003, 33-1004H, 33-1271, 33-1272, 33-1273, 33-1274, 33-1275, 33-1276 and 33-402; repealing 33-1004G; and, by adding new sections 33-515B, 33-523, 33-524, 33-1271A, 33-1273A and 33-1274A to revise the annual written evaluation process for professional staff; phase out renewable individual contacts; provide that professional staff employed after January 31, 2011 shall not be entitled to a formal review of decisions for not being reemployed; allow school boards to change the length of terms stated in current contracts and reduce the salaries of certificated staff with renewable contracts without due process proceedings; require school districts to disclose to employees a list of professional liability insurance providers; eliminate education support program for school districts experiencing enrollment decreases greater than one percent; eliminate teacher early retirement incentives; restrict the scope of negotiated agreements between school boards and professional staff to compensation and the duration of negotiated agreements to one year; and eliminate provisions for fact finding in professional negotiations.

Shall the legislation limiting negotiated agreements between teachers and local school boards and ending the practice of issuing renewable contracts be approved?

Yes         No

What this means, and why we must vote “no.” 

Because of this bad law, there are currently excellent teachers in the Boise School District that have up to five years of proven success working with students who will NEVER be able to have a contract that extends beyond one year.  How do we expect to continue to attract and retain the best teachers for our kids when their ability to financially plan for a career, a family, and a home in Boise is limited to one year at a time by Idaho law?  We must vote “no.”

Because of this bad law, decades of collaborative work by the Boise School District and the BEA to agree on appropriate, reasonable, and workable policies and procedures on teacher prep time, lunch breaks, transfers, evaluations, length of the workday, and class size has been eliminated from the Master Contract.  We currently have a supportive and enlightened School Board that thankfully has agreed to maintain these policies in a Certified Employee Handbook.  We are in a better environment than some, but make no mistake, the purpose of this law is to limit the ability of educators to have a voice in these critical employment areas, and all the control has been given to a single entity instead of requiring agreements through a Master Contract.  This is not a balanced, professional way to make decisions that affect the professional lives of those who teach and care for Boise students.  We must vote “no.”


Referendum to approve or reject legislation providing teacher performance pay based on state-mandated test scores, student performance, hard-to-fill positions and leadership.

Referendum to approve or reject S1110; relating to education; revision Idaho Code by adding new section 33-1004I to provide and distribute in fiscal year 2012 state share-based pay for performance bonuses to certificated instructional staff based on a school’s median student growth percentiles on state achievement tests and a school’s median standardized score on state achievement tests and local share-based pay for performance based on student test scores, graduation rates, dropout rates, percent of graduates attending postsecondary education or entering military service, meeting federal “adequate yearly progress”, number of students successfully completing dual credit or advanced placement classes; percent of students in extracurricular activities, class projects, portfolios, successful completion of special student assignments, parental involvement, teacher-assigned grades, and/or student attendance rates, and, in fiscal year 2014 and thereafter, in addition to the aforementioned bonuses, providing incentives for certificated instructional staff in hard-to-fill positions and leadership awards for certificated instructional staff who assume one or more of the following additional duties: instructional staff mentoring, content leadership, lead teacher, peer coaching, content specialist, remedial instructor, curriculum development, assessment development, data analysis, grant writing, special program coordinator, research project, professional development instructor, service on education committees, educational leadership and earning national board certification.

Shall the legislation providing teacher performance pay based on state-mandated test scores, student performance, hard-to-fill positions and leadership be approved?

Yes         No

 What this means, and why we must vote “no.”

Because of this bad law, Boise educators – instead of being respectfully and professionally compensated for their success in educating and mentoring students every day, their knowledge and skill to monitor and adjust to the education needs of an incredibly diverse student population, their expenses in continuing education requirements for certification, their increasing expectations of an already demanding profession, and their work hours before and after contract time to get it all done – are now in competition with educators from around the state for the chance of receiving a one-time yearly “bonus” that is purposely funded with limited dollars so that some teachers will win and some will have to lose. 

When a professional educator’s ability to make a car payment, repay a student loan, or save for her own child’s college education is not stable or predictable over time, she will be forced to leave the state or the teaching profession altogether.  We do not want our best and brightest giving up on a dream of being a Boise teacher because the state of Idaho is not willing to appropriately invest in the professional educators that make a commitment to teach our children.  We must vote “no.”


Referendum to approve or reject legislation amending school district funding, requiring provision of computing devices and online courses for high school graduation.

Referendum to approve or reject S1184; relating to education; revising Idaho Code by amending 33-125, to provide for a fiscal report card; repealing 33-129 relating to science education matching grants; amending 33-357 relating to a certain internet website; amending 33-1002 relating to the educational support program; adding new section 33-1002A relating to fractional average daily attendance; amending 33-1004 relating to staff allowances; amending 33-1004A relating to the experience and education multiplier; amending 33-1004E relating to district’s salary-based apportionment; amending 33-1004F relating to obligations to the public employee retirement system and social security; amending 33-1020 relating to moneys distributed to the Idaho Digital Learning Academy; adding new section 33-1021 relating to distribution of moneys to school districts for certain math and science courses; adding new section 33-1022 relating to public school technology and expenditures or distributions of moneys for such; adding new section 33-1626 relating to dual credit; adding new section 33-1627 relating to online courses and mobile computing devices and providing certain expenditures or distributions of moneys; adding new section 33-5216 relating to public postsecondary institutions being authorized to operate public charter high schools.

Shall the legislation amending school district funding, requiring provision of computing devices and online courses for high school graduation be approved?

Yes         No

What this means, and why we must vote “no.”

Because of this bad law, the Boise School District must conform to a state mandated, one-size-fits-all, online learning scheme that does not improve the learning opportunities of Boise students in any way.  Over the vocal and overwhelming objections of Board Trustees, parents, students, teachers, and administrators, this law requires every students to take two credits online to graduate from high school regardless of the student’s interest or ability to be successful, or the parent’s ability to support the child outside of the school setting.  We must vote “no.”

Because of this bad law, already limited public school dollars will be diverted from our District to purchase laptop computers for all high school students.  This is yet another top-down mandate that was pushed through as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist in the Boise School District.  Student access to appropriate technology in a supervised and meaningful way has been a focus of the District for years.  The debate about when and how to transform the Boise Schools away from text books, pencils, and paper is one that should happen at the local level with the input from our community.  By acting without the support of those who will be required to make it all work, the state has created a logistical nightmare without the needed buy-in for it to be successful.  We must vote “no.”

November 6th is your chance to say:

I care about my child’s education, I care about having a respectful and supportive school system for Idaho teachers, and I care about honest and transparent debate in creating Idaho laws.

I vote “No” on Props 1, 2, and 3.

Comments are closed.