Some of you will probably guess that I'm a union thug or their shill, committed to the overthrow of capitalism and the imposition of a socialist system that deprives the people of democracy, individual initiative, and the rewards of hard work. Half right - I am a VP of the Coeur d'Alene Education Association and IB teacher at Lake City.

Kristin Gorringe's "My Turn" on Saturday did a great job of illustrating the passion and commitment of the teachers I have seen throughout my 20-plus year career. These are people that I have been proud to call colleagues and, in addition to schooling at home, to whom I have entrusted my three children. Research has found that the most critical component in a child's education is the teacher. But ultimately all three Luna Laws replace teachers with technology and silence teachers' ability to advocate for improvements in students' learning conditions.

Anyone who goes into teaching for the money is an idiot. Any teacher worthy of the title who says they will do a better job if they are paid a little more is wrong and disingenuous. (Please don't think that means we don't want or deserve a pay increase now and then). Teachers are underpaid for their level of education but accept this because their jobs are a vocation, a calling critical to the continued health and development of their communities, nation, and even civilization.

Teachers work with students to help them build character and develop practical social and academic skills. Public education is not a job training system; it is a long-term human/citizen development program. Ironically, even paradoxically, the end product for any given student cannot be fully known either at the beginning or even the end of the 12-year education process.

Think about your own educational experiences; you probably don't remember many specific lessons, but you do remember some of the people who taught you. We have all benefited from good teachers and suffered through crappy ones. But some kids liked, and learned from, teachers that others thought weren't very good. Understanding the efficacy of teacher-student interactions is highly problematic and technology does not necessarily make it easier.

The problem with the Luna Laws is that they 1) reduce our children's exposure to quality teachers; and 2) make the conditions of those educational interactions less conducive to the goal of the development of young people into effective citizens and community members. Here's why.

First, to save money in education, we "need" to pay fewer teachers. The Luna Laws are already reducing the number of teachers in Idaho classrooms and schools - more than double previous years' losses. Idaho's ability to attract and retain quality teachers is, and will continue to be, reduced by these laws.

Second, teachers have less influence on the conditions of learning because they can only negotiate salaries and benefits. The open negotiation meetings are a positive development, but that is not all the laws do. The Luna Laws allow teachers to talk only about money in negotiations; not class size, working conditions, length of instructional periods, etc. Anyone who looks at the 35+ years of Cd'A SD No. 271-CEA contract negotiations can see the evolution of improvements in the quality of instruction in our area. This is not a product of "liberal unions" undermining choice and impeding development; it is well-meaning and committed professionals with the ability (through law and a union of professional members) to work with (and sometimes force) the district to affect changes that benefit students.

As for the "bonus" that teachers can earn under Prop 2 of the Luna Laws - it is effectively blood money. The bonus comes from another teacher who is not getting paid or has lost their job. Ask any good teacher the fastest way to make them less effective - they won't tell you old textbooks, crappy administrators, lack of supplies, or problematic school boards - they will say, "Put five more kids in my already overcrowded class." That is what the Luna Laws will do: they reduce the number of teachers "needed" in Idaho to save money. They will increase class sizes so even great teachers will be less effective. Luna's Laws make Idaho less educationally competitive, less attractive to businesses, and darken Idaho's future prospects. Please ask your friends, neighbors, and relatives in the education profession why they do this job and what effects these laws will have. Please listen to their answers.

Mobile computing devices: why? Teachers are in favor of technology, so are students. Teachers WANT technology resources and training that helps them do their jobs more effectively. We did not have to legislatively mandate for 80+ percent of the student population to possess a cell phone in school (not that we would...). The technology was useful, therefore it propagated. In five years, what will be the percentage of our students that will have a smart phone or their own laptop? There is no need for government interference in something that will grow organically. Similarly the transition to online classes will happen naturally, if it works. Again, the money for the technology comes from reducing the number of teachers in the system, and the cost is 250 percent of Luna's estimates - $180 million over 10 years for technology which will be obsolete in five.

The Luna Laws assume a catastrophic failure of public education in Idaho, but Supt. Luna actually celebrated the competence and achievements of Idaho educators during his 2010 campaign before proposing the Luna Laws to solve the "crisis" in Idaho education. Which version of Luna's "reality" is supported by actual evidence?

Are Idahoans getting a sufficient return on our educational investment? Actually YES. We are at the bottom duking it out with UT for last place in education spending/student at about $7000/student (2010), but we are consistently in the top half of states on national test results in almost all subjects - a clear bargain when the most expensive states are paying 2x for marginally better results.

Are students getting computer and internet instruction in schools? Yes, they are, and under the guidance of professional educators, many with business-world experience. Are students using and improving those skills? Far more than the general public, because many high school "classroom" courses already use online tools and resources and this will only increase in the future. The issue of technology and successful completion of online courses is not as much about access as it is student motivation. Motivation is best addressed by a professional educator who develops a positive, consistent, productive relationship with students.

Please don't believe that "liberal unions" are campaigning against the interests of teachers - unions are arguably the most democratic institutions in our society; unions literally are their membership. The IEA looked at the laws and LISTENED to local members in taking a stand against the Luna Laws. Again, talk to teachers (whether they are union members on not) about the Luna Laws and the effects they will have in classrooms and on Idaho's future. Please. And listen to their answers.

Please vote NO on Props 1, 2, and 3 on Nov. 6.

Derek Kohles is a Hayden resident, LCHS IB Teacher and CEA Vice President.