KBOI 2News fact-checks anti-Luna TV ad
»Play Video
BOISE, Idaho (KBOI) -- One of the hottest state issues on the ballot this November will be whether or not voters decide to repeal Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna's "Students Come First" education policy.
And as the election draws closer, opponents of the Luna laws are running a statewide TV commercial that says the Idaho Legislature failed to fully fund the high school laptop computer program, so property taxes could increase.
But hold on, the pro-Luna group, Yes to Idaho Education, says that's flat out false. Luna supporters say the legislature did indeed fully fund the laptops by making it a statutory requirement within the public schools budget.
So who is right?
We asked David Adler, director of the non-partisan Andrus Center for Public Policy.
"The reality is that the legislature has funded the laptops just as the legislature has funded other programs, salaries, benefits, buses," Adler said. "The money's there."
The anti-Luna group, Vote No On Props 1, 2 and 3, also says in its television ad that the "Students Come First" education policy replaces teachers with computers, by requiring taxpayers to fund laptops for high school students.
On this issue, Adler says the commercial makes a valid point: money used to buy laptops could be used to hire more teachers.
"That's right, on that part, I think the teachers have a good argument," Adler told KBOI 2News. "Ironically, it's one of their stronger arguments, and certainly it's one for voters to consider, whether they want money spent on laptops or whether they prefer to have those monies go for teacher salaries and other items."
And as the election draws closer, opponents of the Luna laws are running a statewide TV commercial that says the Idaho Legislature failed to fully fund the high school laptop computer program, so property taxes could increase.
But hold on, the pro-Luna group, Yes to Idaho Education, says that's flat out false. Luna supporters say the legislature did indeed fully fund the laptops by making it a statutory requirement within the public schools budget.
So who is right?
We asked David Adler, director of the non-partisan Andrus Center for Public Policy.
"The reality is that the legislature has funded the laptops just as the legislature has funded other programs, salaries, benefits, buses," Adler said. "The money's there."
The anti-Luna group, Vote No On Props 1, 2 and 3, also says in its television ad that the "Students Come First" education policy replaces teachers with computers, by requiring taxpayers to fund laptops for high school students.
On this issue, Adler says the commercial makes a valid point: money used to buy laptops could be used to hire more teachers.
"That's right, on that part, I think the teachers have a good argument," Adler told KBOI 2News. "Ironically, it's one of their stronger arguments, and certainly it's one for voters to consider, whether they want money spent on laptops or whether they prefer to have those monies go for teacher salaries and other items."
Its all about busting the teacher's union. Butch clarified that in his comments and Luna has long been anti union. Idaho is near the bottom in education, both funding and results. How is a laptop program going to improve our student results? Kids are very social, and they need to be as they are trying to find their individual identities. If you have never seen a high schooler try to take a class online, hang on to your patience.Â
Overturn these laws, oust Luna and say goodbye to Butch! We need new blood and new ideas!
I am concerned that the lawmakers took money from other education programs to fund the computers. Â Is that why we have had so many bond issues this last year?
 My child is in the 9th grade and is taking one of the on line classes.  She is an A B student and is having a difficult time with the class.  Sometimes they even have a hard time bringing up the class.  She is not the only one in the class having a difficult time with the class. Â
Reg & Rita Montgomery
 @Reg & Rita MontgomeryÂ
" Is that why we have had so many bond issues this last year?"
Yes.  Technically the legislature funded the computers by mandating that they are paid for out of the pool of  money they give districts.  But, they made that pool of money smaller (by about 3%) and didn't fund a raise for teachers.  (The only public employees to not get a 2% raise this year.) Â
Â
With an increased financial burden on the district, and a decrease in the over all amount of money they were getting districts were forced to run levies to maintain the quality education your kids are getting.
There is a valid argument to the monies being used for computers instead of salary. The problem I see is that if the laws are overturned then where is that money going to go. I would like to see that money go to increasing the starting pay for teachers. But I am afraid because of the union the money would be used for seniority. @Jen Tuttle I think channel 7 did a great job showing both sides of the laptop argument.
 @A. Johnson  @Jen TuttleÂ
I don't know about other districts.  In meridian the union is focused on reducing student load for teachers, and getting back preparation time so that the teachers have enough time to get prepared to teach our students.  This also means smaller class sizes, which would be awesome for every student.
I would like to know if the computers were 100% funded by the legislature or did some of the burden fall to the individual districts to fund? Did the legislature fund the needed infrastructure updates that some districts will need to make in order for this to work? Did the legislature fund the needed training and inservice needed for teacher training? Â
Â
Is KBOI 2News going to fact-check the pro-Luna claims? Â Aren't there two sides to the coin why just investigate one side of the argument? It seems pretty one sided.