Editorials
Friday, April 3, 1998FOR years Hawaii children have been eligible to enter kindergarten if they turn age 5 by Dec. 31 of the school year. Until last July the law setting this age requirement also gave the Department of Education the authority to evaluate a child's preparedness for school and grant exceptions to the age rule if the child were "found to be ready." But, conveniently for its interest in saving money and avoiding hassles with parents, the DOE never "found" any kids ready. Don’t raise minimum
age for kindergartenThe practice was to deny entry to any child born even one day after Dec. 31. Parents who inquired about an exception received the bureaucratic equivalent of a bracing rap across the knuckles with a ruler. Last year the practice of turning away younger children became the law when the exception wording was repealed by the Legislature.
Now, only nine months after it was eliminated, the exception clause may make a comeback. But there is no reason to think the DOE will be any more flexible about allowing younger children through the school doors. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true.
The exception clause and other changes in the kindergarten entry statute are being proposed by the House Education Committee. Chief among these changes is abolishing the Dec. 31 deadline and giving the Board of Education the power to set the minimum age for kindergarten eligibility. In February, the BOE made its desire clear by voting to raise the age of kindergartners. It recommended the age cut-off be pushed back a full six months, from age 5 by Dec. 31 to 5 by the previous July 1.
Bills pursuing this goal stalled in the Legislature, but House Education Chairman David Stegmaier said the changes will be added to an omnibus education bill whose language will be finalized in House-Senate conference committee meetings. If the provision giving the BOE authority to alter the kindergarten age becomes law, the board will be free to hold public hearings on raising the age limit, Stegmaier said.
During legislative hearings, lawmakers heard from some parents who feared that pushing back the age limit would mean their "old" kindergartners would miss a critical year of learning. Parents also explained the very real financial hardship of paying thousands of dollars for another year of daycare.
BOE members and some well-intentioned proponents of raising the age limit, many of them educators, cited research that shows younger children who enter school often don't perform as well as classmates only a few months older.
That may very well be true. But the way to address that problem is to keep kindergarten classes small and to offer a curriculum that meets the needs of children with various levels of skills and development.
The answer isn't to once again lower the expectations of Hawaii's school system and abandon children who are ready for kindergarten to an additional year of daycare.
PRESIDENT Clinton has been spared the humiliation of being forced to testify in a trial about allegations that he made crude sexual advances to Paula Jones when he was governor of Arkansas. He has reason to celebrate, not for being vindicated -- he was not -- but for the removal of a major distraction of his presidency. Others remain, and the president's reputation as an oafish womanizer remains central to them. Jones case dismissal
Being an oafish womanizer is not against the law and not even necessarily actionable in civil court. Jones maintained that she suffered retaliation on the job for turning Clinton down, but the record showed otherwise. She received two satisfactory job evaluations, a cost-of-living increase and a merit raise in the aftermath of the incident. Her contention that she was discouraged from applying for other jobs and failed to receive flowers on Secretary's Day was just plain silly.
U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright did not rule on the subject of Clinton's alleged womanizing. She did rule that Jones' accusations, even if true, fell short of the legal threshold for "outrage." Most Americans would regard the alleged behavior as outrageous, but the legal definition for outrage is "a grave injury," and Jones clearly was unable to demonstrate any injury.
The search by Jones' lawyers for other alleged victims of Clinton's womanizing to indicate the incident was consistent with a pattern of behavior added to the agenda of Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Those allegations do not disintegrate with the dismissal of the Jones case, and Starr intends to pursue them, as he should.
Suborning perjury and obstruction of justice are against the law, even when committed in connection with a civil suit that lacked merit. Questions remain about the source of the "talking points" memo passed on to Linda Tripp by Monica Lewinsky, the assistance provided to Lewinsky by presidential confidant Vernon Jordan and the allegations by Kathleen Willey that Clinton mauled her, which could be interpreted as sexual assault, not to mention the Whitewater land deal.
Although Starr lost a potentially damaging witness against Clinton with the death of James McDougal, he could have another one in Jim Guy Tucker, Clinton's successor as governor of Arkansas. Tucker has been convicted of Whitewater-connected crimes and removed from office. He is awaiting sentencing. Tucker and Clinton were sometime business associates, sometime political opponents. Tucker might provide evidence that could hurt the president.
That doesn't mean these allegations should dangle interminably. Starr should determine as promptly as possible whether the allegations are meritorious and, if so, turn his findings over to the House of Representatives.
Starr's work needs to be completed and this soap opera brought to a conclusion before his office becomes a fixture of government.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
