Small Business News
May 2004 | Online Edition
Omnibus Education Bill Will Not
Improve Student Achievement
By Laura Brown, Hawaii Reporter
In spite of the Hawaii State Constitution’s Bill of Rights Article I, Section 1: “All political power of this State is inherent in the people and the responsibility for the exercise thereof rests with the people. All government is founded on this authority,” Rep. Mark Takai, D-Waimalu, stated during the final reading of the Democrats’ education spending bill, “A vote against this bill is a vote against education reform. There is nothing else.” By killing Gov. Linda Lingle’s initiative to let the people decide by ballot initiative on school governance, Democrats ensured this lack of choice. By ignoring the constitution, the Democrat Majority Party told the public, “It’s our way or the highway.”
The stated purpose of SB3238 is education reform and decentralization, while the Democrat Majority Caucus insisted repeatedly during the legislative session they are only interested in laws that will result in student achievement. Using that criterion, this is how the bill measures up:
Part II establishes a committee to revise categories and “weighted amounts” to provide operating monies to schools, excluding charter schools, by 2006. However, schools will not have control over funds beyond fixed costs that would allow for the flexibility to create programs to benefit students. Charter schools will continue to receive less per pupil funding than other public schools.
Part III eliminates existing School/Community-based Management groups and replaces them with identical School Community Councils with new members effective SY05-06. The recently released PREL report highlighted the negligible effect of SCBMs on student achievement, because principals and unions have absolute veto over council decisions. This will be true for School Community Councils too.
Part IV writes into law the existing DOE principal cohort program by naming it the Hawaii Principals’ Academy. Like SCBM to SCC, a name change is unlikely to result in student achievement.
Part V sets up the Teacher National Board Certification Incentive program within the DOE to administer bonuses to teachers that were appropriated by the legislature in 2001. This is unrelated to student achievement.
Part VI sets up a working group to figure out how to incorporate the education-related responsibilities of other state agencies. This discussion is about management, not student achievement.
Part VII allows for discussion of principal and vice-principals to be put on 12-month salaries. This would benefit adults and is unrelated to student achievement.
Part VIII appropriates money for faculty positions at the College of Education. This may eventually result in student achievement only if the University of Hawaii teaching program is improved.
Part IX adds accountability requirements for tracking student achievement that should have been established by the Board of Education instead of the Legislature. Requires the DOE to report on how much money it will require to implement to include individual education plans (IEPs) for all students. If the DOE follows the manner in which IEPs are currently done for special education children, there will not be enough time, paper or money in this state to implement it. Meanwhile, teacher energy will continue to be diverted away from the development of a curriculum, which is what student achievement is based on.
Part X adds appropriations for one educational officer and clerk to recruit and train principals. This provision is about adding more bureaucracy, not student achievement.
Part XI appropriates funds to maintain Hawaii Teachers Standards Board. Again, this is not about student achievement.
Part XII increases funding for Parent Community Networking Centers. PCNCs are basically a way for the schools to entice and coordinate parent volunteers as a free labor source for the schools. Student achievement may result, because parents are on the campus and can see for themselves what is or isn’t going on.
Part XIII increases funding for student activity coordinators. The DOE has previously diverted this money into other programs.
Part XIV appropriates $2.1 for 75 additional elementary school teachers, although this amount is approx. $500,000 short of the amount needed to hire 75 teachers at starting salary levels. Teachers may still be removed from the classrooms to work as resource teachers.
Part XV creates a revolving fund for A+, the DOE’s after school program. This is another accounting provision unrelated to student achievement.
Part XVI allows the DOE to spend educational funds to hire private attorneys while retaining use of state attorney generals effective 7/1/04. This is an anti-student achievement provision that will drain education funds from other programs when attorneys are used against parents who are seeking redress against the DOE.
Part XVII sets up a schedule to reduce by one student per classroom in grade K by 2006, grade 1 by 2007, grade 2 by 2008 and grade 3 by 2009, allowing for a 3-year delay (provides an escape clause) if the DOE can’t comply. In other words, parents who just gave birth may experience this benefit.
Part XVIII funds conversion of two Hawaii Teacher Standards Board positions to permanent status. This is not about student achievement.
Part XIX lists dates provisions go into effect.
The Legislature attempts to establish goals of academic achievement, safety, well being and civic responsibility even though the Hawaii State Constitution clearly charges the Board of Education with the authority to set statewide education policy.
The Hawaii State PTSA supports school governance that “empowers all segments of the School/Community in shared decision-making, clearly defines the lines of accountability and responsibility, places resources more directly towards students, teachers and the school community served and is fully funded.” This bill does not do that. Union contracts continue to control all details of school operations and decisions that affect their members. Funding is directed towards more centralized bureaucracy, diluting the amount of funds available for schools. While this legislation attempts to establish lines of authority, no sanctions exist for non-performance and the DOE remains entirely a self-monitoring agency.
HSTA President Roger Takabayashi claims, “It’s not about school governance. It’s about getting high-quality teachers into the classroom.” However, this education bill does not do that either. The pay scale, which creates a career ladder out of the classroom, remains in effect.
Neither does this legislation follow the recommendation of the Hawaii Business Roundtable to allow schools to control the budget for central office services and 90 percent of all operating funds. Control of funding remains centralized, programs are renamed, principals further burdened, the bureaucracy increases and parents are forced to accept whatever the government does to its children, schools and communities.
And if there is no measurable improvement in student achievement in two years, there will be no consequences to the DOE or to the legislature. Elections will have come and gone, billions more dollars will have been spent, but children will not understand why adults continued to fail them when they had a genuine opportunity to improve their chance for success.
Laura Brown is the education reporter and researcher for HawaiiReporter.com and the education
policy analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
|
