Who can forget the advertising campaign surrounding the Students Come First Proposition Three Referendum leading up to last November's election? Proposition Three, the Referendum to Approve or Reject Legislation Amending School District Funding, Requiring Provision of Computing Devices and Online Courses for High School Graduation.

More simply put, should Idaho taxpayers fund laptops for kids?

During the late summer and early autumn of 2012, the debate raged back and forth between those in favor and those against this legislation. The bill authorizing laptops for kids, S1184, had already passed the Idaho Legislature and been signed into law by Gov. Otter. Now, it had become a political football. Somebody had politicized what should have been primarily a technical matter.

The money trail soon revealed that somebody was mainly the Idaho Education Association (teachers union) backed by the national teachers association, as they poured millions of dollars into advertising opposing Prop. 3. Apparently these were the folks who organized the signature drive to get the referendum on the ballot in the first place.

Of course, the union's chief motivation - to provide job protection for their members - was legitimate enough. But some of their rhetoric and hyperbole seemed a little over the top. Even down to the wire in their "Argument AGAINST" in the Idaho Voters Pamphlet, they were still slinging mud.

Paragraph 4 states: "Before he wrote this law, Supt. Luna received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the companies that now stand to make millions selling computer equipment and services to the state. One of these companies, K12 Inc., ... were even caught sending students' English essays overseas to reviewers in India for grading. The last thing we should do is use our taxpayer dollars to outsource Idaho teaching jobs and our students' education."

No fans of Idaho's superintendent of public instruction, they concluded their argument with the following derisive note: "And like the other Luna laws, it is bad for children, bad for teachers and bad for Idaho."

Even Republican Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Dean Cameron was quoted as saying, "I'm voting against this bill because ... not one stakeholder is supporting it - not the superintendents, not the school boards, not the teachers, not the parents. Every single stakeholder ... has testified opposed to it." Apparently their campaign worked. On Nov. 6, Idaho voters rejected Proposition Three by a two-thirds majority.

It must have been with bittersweet irony that supporters of Prop. 3 read The Press headline Wednesday morning, April 24. "Tech Upgrades Top School Priorities." Apparently Post Falls District administrators, department heads, staff, and parents played a "dot game" to establish a priority list during a budget workshop at Post Falls High. Technology upgrades received the most dots. Technology upgrades - does that mean "computing devices" in the classroom? Maybe Senator Cameron simply missed Post Falls during his survey last November.

In the Press article, Prairie View Elementary principal Janelle Baker was quoted as saying, "We still have Windows 97 running." Perhaps Ms. Baker should be thankful for what she has. Based on the rhetoric going around last fall, Idaho schools would be lucky to have Abacus 97 BC running if the teachers union had its way.

"Public opinion is stronger than the legislature, and nearly as strong as the ten commandments." Charles Dudley Warner 1829-1900.

Apparently that observation still holds. The question is, who or what drives public opinion?

Bob LaRue is a Hauser resident.