The developing Idaho battle over the sweeping school proposal by state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna (with Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter) continues running fierce. It has merited some further developent, and maybe a Sunday Idaho Statesman newspaper ad (right, an ad; consequently, no link we could find) will help give it that kick.

The plan puts together a number of pieces: Larger class sizes, more electronic and online courses, notebook computers for 9th graders, hundreds of fewer teachers in the state, a merit pay system (with larger pay for many teachers) and no tenure for those who remain. Whatever you think of it, it would amount to a huge shift in public education in the state and change its direction in major ways.

Since it was released the first week of the session, there’s been fierce blowback, focusing largely on the larger classroom sizes, the diminished numbers of teachers, the increasing reliance on electronic education, and criticism of the swap (in effect) of teachers for computers. Luna spent much of last week, evidently, on the defensive.

Two full-page ads in the Sunday paper give the debate another twist. One of those, not by much: The ad from the Idaho Falls manufacturer Melaleuca boiled down to a bash of the Idaho Education Association. The other, from the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation, which likewise backed the Luna/Otter plan, was also limited but much more provocative.

The foundation has standing to comment in an informed way: It has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into public schools around Idaho on a wide range of projects – its core mission. It said:

We don’t take this stand in support of the Governor and the State Department’s education plan lightly. As a friend and supporter of education, we wade into this issue circumspectly, but we wade in nonetheless. The reform efforts we’ve funded have not worked, have had limited limited impact, or were never systemically adopted. At all levels and repeatedly, we’ve met with political indecision, territorialism, and a lack of political will. The historical focus on barriers, challenges, excuses and maintaining the status quo permeates our education system and stakeholder groups.

Our founder, Joe Albertson, was a visionary and a pioneer. He took risks and tried new things, but he also wasn’t afraid to change paths if it wasn’t working, and that required courage. Nothing can be improved without addressing the systemic issues confronting us, and Superintendent Luna and Governor Otter have shown the courage to tackle what will be a challenging process. …

We can either choose to support education reform, or the choice will be made for us when we no longer supply innovators or a workforce capable of fueling a vibrant, innovative and globally-focused Idaho economy.

Beyond that, the ad makes two other points. It notes that Idaho education is falling behind, including relative to other states, and isn’t educating students for high-end thinking a work (“In the future, most jobs will be either for highly skilled workers or the low-skilled working poor. Our system prepares students for the latter.”) And it notes that technology is useful in education (in a variety of ways), that “educator effectiveness and accountability are critical” and that simple measures of money spent are not the same thing as getting good results.

As far as they go, these points are unassailable. Your scribe was peripherally involved once (back in the early 90s) in a school reform effort different from this one, or from Albertson’s, but which also ran into the same kind of roadblocks this ad described. Those blocks to change are real and they have been intractable, for a very long time. And that’s not a good thing.

Here’s where we come up short: The diagnosis is on target, but is the prescription? Are we sure?

What the Albertson ad doesn’t say is why the Luna/Otter plan, in its specific details, is the only option to actual reform. Are there no others? The frustration of working around a hidebound school system must be very real, so is this a case of jumping at the first alternative (one with major political push) that presents itself? Why this plan, unaltered? The ad doesn’t really go there.

And are you really sure that, just because it’s never been tried before, that it will work? Wait a minute, there must be a problem with that concept …

There’s some very useful potential lurking around in all this, if Idaho legislators take the Luna/Otter plan and absorb the points made in the Albertson ad, and mesh that with the real and legitimate concerns (many from parents, who are a stakeholder group too) to develop an agenda for something innovative and system-altering, while lessening the education risk. Call this a real challenge of the legislative process. But that’s a good kind of challenge.

In Idaho as in many places, a lot of conservative Republicans make a great sound about adhering to and upholding the constitution – as self-described “constitutionalists.” So how does that work out in practice?

The House State Affairs Committee this morning introduced a measure (bill number yet to be assigned), by Republican Representatives Judy Boyle, Midvale, and Vito Barbieri, Dalton Gardens, which says (in Barbieri’s paraphrase): “The federal health care laws recently passed by the U.S. Congress have invaded the traditional sovereign powers of the state. This bill declares that this intrusion by the federal government is … null and void.” The vote to introduce was party-line, all Republicans in favor.

Democrats had a variety of issues to raise, though those evidently had little pull. After Barbieri offered an estimate of savings to the state of $228 million if the federal law were nullified (here’s a good one for PolitiFact to check out), Representative Phylis King, D-Boise, had a more immediate query. She “said the state Department of Insurance already has received $2 million from the federal government to start setting up health care exchanges. “This is the law of the land. So are we going to give it back? Are those folks working on this, are they going to be fired?” she asked. Barbieri said, “It’s inestimable, and that’s the difficulty.””

Some difficulty.

Not all indicated they will necessarily support the measure later. At least one, Representative Lynn Luker of Boise, pointed out that as a legislator he swore to uphold the constitution of the United States, and this bill … well, might run afoul of that.

Luker’s concern is much more than just speculative. A state attorney general’s opinion delivered on January 21 was conclusive: While federal laws can be challenged for constitutionality in the courts (and Idaho is among the state lawsuit challengers to the health care care law), state legislature have no authority to overrule a federal law.

From the AG’s opinion: “Once Idaho was admitted as a State it acquired all of the privileges and immunities held by each of the other States, but as reflected above, the right of nullification, the right of secession, and the compact theory had all been rejected by the United States by the time of statehood. The framers of the Idaho Constitution were acutely aware of that fact. Article I, § 3 of our Constitution states: ‘State inseparable part of Union.-The State of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.’ The framers therefore expressly recognized Idaho’s status as a part of the United States and the supremacy of the United States Constitution. Consistent with this recognition, every legislator is required to affirm “that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Idaho.” Legislators and other state officials, in other words, pledge to carry out their duties in a fashion that directly conflicts with the second form of the nullification theory. The alpha and omega of the nullification theory, in sum, rest upon rejecting the principle that the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the land.”

And here we thought Barbieri and Boyle, and many of the Republicans on the State Affairs Committee, were among the corps of self-described “constitutionalists.” Or if they are, what could the term possibly mean?

UPDATE Noting reports about a book being delivered en masse to legislators, Nullification by Thomas Woods, a book cuirculated nationally among the networks of the right. (National Public Radio reports: “As a college student in 1994, Woods helped found the League of the South, an Alabama group the Southern Poverty Law Center says has become a “neo-Confederate group” seeking a second Southern secession. Woods told the AP last week he thinks states have a right of secession, but he doesn’t support the Confederacy’s return. He’s no longer a member.”)

A suggestion: Read Garry Wills’ excellent A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, a fine overview of the subject, with some concise but clear and ample discussion of the problem of nullification.

Chuck Malloy Malloy from the Inside

A cross-post from the Malloy from the Inside blog, written by Chuck Malloy.

Clark Krause, the new executive director of the Boise Valley Economic Partnership, had an interesting piece in the Idaho Statesman today. He talked about attracting new jobs as a team effort. It’s going to take a serious team effort to help turn around this economy.

Gov. Otter, Commerce Director Don Dietrich and Department of Labor Director Roger Madsen are prominent members of that team. The Idaho Legislature is not – even though many candidates running for those seats talk about “jobs, jobs, jobs.”

The sad truth in the Idaho Legislature is that the weakest committee chairs in the House and Senate are on the commerce or business committees. The Senate doesn’t even have a business committee.

Don’t get me wrong, the chairmen and vice-chairmen are solid people, some of the friendliest and most sincere people in the Idaho Legislature. But they are not movers and shakers – the kind of people who offer innovative thinking at a time when Idaho cries out for creativity. Idaho has lost many jobs over the years, particularly with the demise of mining and agriculture, and the state’s economy still suffers as a result. Creating jobs should be one of the highest priorities in the Idaho Legislature. Unfortunately, it is about the lowest priority.

The House Business Committee is led by 74-year-old Max Black of Boise, who is in his 10th term. Black, one of the moderate holdouts in the unabashedly conservative House of Representatives, is where leadership feels he can do the least amount of damage. The vice-chairman is Frank Henderson of Coeur d’Alene, who in December celebrated his 88th birthday.

The chair of the Commerce & Human Resources committee is Sharon Block of Twin Falls, who was a kindergarten teacher in her professional life.

Leading the Commerce & Human Resources Committee in the Senate is 81-year-old John Andreason of Boise, who like Black is in his 10th term. Andreason, a former director of the Legislative Budget Office for 23 years, once was one of the sharpest minds in the Legislature. To put it mildly, he’s no longer in his prime. The vice-chairman of the committee is Shirley McKague of Meridian, one of the truly nicest people in the Legislature. I will say no more.

Krause, who spent six years leading the New Mexico Partnership, knows the good things that can happen with teamwork in economic development. The New Mexico Partnership is “an organization responsible for the sales and marketing efforts that attracted 46 companies and over 14,000 jobs to communities across New Mexico,” said Krause.

That’s a nice resume to bring here. It looks like there’s a pretty good team in place for Krause to enjoy similar success in Idaho – just not in the Idaho Legislature.