Levy unclear on how it will help children learn

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO APPROVED JULY 3, 1890,

ARTICLE IX EDUCATION AND SCHOOL LANDS,

SECTION 1. LEGISLATURE TO ESTABLISH SYSTEM OF FREE SCHOOLS.

The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.

I find it interesting that in the newspaper articles related to the upcoming vote to raise money for local schools there is no mention of the purpose of investment in public schools as defined in the constitution of the state of Idaho.

I searched the text of these newspaper articles and could not find how the levy funds would be used to develop “the intelligence of the people.” Neither could I find a reason why these local funds were necessary to ensure that the future voting citizens of Bonner County would be able (or willing) to contribute to a stable form of republican government in Idaho.

More disturbing to me was the question of why the Idaho Legislature must have supplemental funding to discharge it’s “duty to … establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of free common schools” in Bonner County.

But … questions of constitutional duties aside, I am more concerned about my two young grandsons who are being educated in the Lake Pend Oreille School District.

Like other children, learning is their full-time occupation. Whether they are playing, or doing household chores, or attending school, or being entertained, they are learning all the time. Most of their effort is devoted in learning how to learn.

Their parents (and sometimes grandparents), their teachers, their faith communities and their friends help them learn how to learn.

During classroom time, teachers help children learn. Teachers, not buildings, help children learn.

Administrators help teachers as they help children learn. Curriculum can help teachers as they help children learn.

The point is that children in public schools learn from their teachers. And yet, the language of the request for supplemental funding fails to focus on how the supplemental funding will affect how and what our children will learn.

I would like to know how supplemental funding for buildings will contribute to the ability of my grandsons to benefit from their teachers’ efforts.

I would like to know what level of administrative guidance is required to make it possible for professional educators to help children learn.

Lastly, I wonder why the campaign for supplemental funding uses language that (while it may make sense to government workers) is off-putting to most voters who are reflexively suspicious of government overreach.

These same suspicious voters are very interested in their children’s futures however, and it would seem to make sense to frame the request for supplemental funding in terms related to the needs of children.

PAUL A. SMITH, Ph.D.

Sagle