A couple days back, I posted the Idaho School Boards Association's argument for Proposition 1, the Students Come First collective bargaining rewrite that will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot.
Agree or disagree with the conclusions, it was a reasoned argument for local control, and for allowing locally elected trustees the latitude to craft contracts. (I will rerun the piece in Sunday Insight.)
For a counterpoint — from the same side of the issue — let's take a gander at Wayne Hoffman's weekly column, a series of broadsides directed at teachers' unions.
Here's one among many: "In a memo to supporters last year, an Idaho Education Association official wrote, 'it's easier to get the public riled up about laptops and online classes than contract issues.' So it is surprising that the union would even mention Prop 1. But they figure they've come up with a line that you will fall for — pretending that the education unions are most motivated to protect the interest of kids.
"But if that were true, we wouldn't need to have Prop 1."
It should be noted that Hoffman, unlike the school board members who co-signed the ISBA piece, is a conservative lobbyists who doesn't have to negotiate with teachers and their unions. As if that weren't obvious.
Here's a link to the Hoffman column.