Dig deeper to solve the big problems

Thank you, Wayne Hoffman.

The head of the Boise-based, Libertarian-imbued Idaho Freedom Foundation is not just entitled to question the spending of every penny that goes from taxpayers’ calloused hands into government’s eager fingers, but serving in that watchdog role fulfills an important societal function. To hold government accountable is a holy mission. To question authority is a mandate not just for improvement, but for survival.

Yet painting a massive target on the back of government-sponsored education is not the best way to bring about change. For criticism to resonate, let alone ignite improvement, a deep understanding of underlying issues is essential. That’s where Wayne’s lance bounces harmlessly off government’s broad backside.

Earlier this week, Press journalists sat down for 90 minutes with Coeur d’Alene School District Superintendent Steve Cook, Operations Director Jeff Voeller, and Communications Director Scott Maben. The purpose: To help newspaper staff anticipate and better understand several of the key issues the district is taking on.

These range from adjusting attendance zones, which could directly impact up to 2,800 District 271 students, to changing school start times, which could affect almost every district patron in some way.

Discussion included the district reviewing high school graduation requirements and the differences between offerings at Lake City and Coeur d’Alene. Did you know that CHS offers 49 courses that are unique to that school, while Lake City offers 116? Or that Lake City requires 24 elective credits for graduation, doubling CHS’s requirement? Or that CHS uses a traditional schedule (six class periods daily) vs. Lake City’s block schedule (eight class periods over two days)?

While business principles have broad and positive applications, not every institution can be run like a business. As Hoffman acknowledged, public education in Idaho is mandated by the state’s constitution and managed accordingly. Yet even the wise creators of those guiding documents could not possibly have foreseen the problems today’s students and educators face.

Agents of change are most effective after they’ve come nose to nose with the challenges their targets routinely confront. But that requires getting down in the trenches with people it’s easier to criticize from a safe distance.

In our view, improving public education is worth the extra effort.