[ OUR OPINION ]
Constitution protects
political yard signsPOLITICIANS and homeowners concerned about a state law setting date limits for political signs in yards have nothing to worry about. Courts have ruled over and over again -- in Hawaii and elsewhere -- that such signs are constitutionally protected.
THE ISSUE Hawaii's chief elections official said he will ask state attorneys whether political signs are allowed in yards at any time.
Federal Judge David Ezra in 1990 struck down a Honolulu ordinance that banned political signs on private property. Four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court nullified a similar yard-sign ban in a suburb of St. Louis, Mo.
Although hairsplitting attorneys point out that Ezra did not address the state law limiting the display of political yard signs to 45 days before and 10 days after an election, the implication is clear. However, Dwayne Yoshina, the state's chief elections officer, says he will ask state attorneys for an opinion to clarify the issue.
The Attorney General's Office has only to send Yoshina a 1996 opinion authored by Madeleine Austin, a special deputy attorney general, explaining that banning political yard signs or limiting time periods for their display has been struck down by courts wherever it has been tried. The obvious conclusion is that such restrictions infringe on the right of freedom of speech.
In the suburban St. Louis case, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that yard signs "play an important part in political campaigns" and "have long been an important and distinct medium of expression." Government officials concerned about the aesthetics should realize, he added, "that individual residents themselves have strong incentives to keep their own property values up and to prevent 'visual clutter' in their own yards and neighborhoods."
The unconstitutionality of the Honolulu ordinance has led the Outdoor Circle to plead with candidates to obey the equally invalid state law's date limitations. Mary Steiner, the organization's executive director, says it will ask again that candidates make such a pledge because of the signs' "visual intrusion."
Lorraine Akiba, chairwoman of the state Democratic Party, says she also will suggest that her party's candidates abide by the state law's date limitation, even though, as she puts it, "It's technically illegal." The technicality, of course, is the First Amendment.
BACK TO TOP |
School testing’s
low ranking meaninglessCLASSIFICATION of Hawaii's public school testing program as the second worst in the nation is specious because the state did not participate in the survey that was conducted by a company that sells educational testing products. The Princeton Review's assessment appears to be more of a marketing tool than a valid report on standards-testing programs. Parents, students and educators should ignore it.
THE ISSUE A nationwide survey finds fault with Hawaii's public school testing program.
The review placed Hawaii above only Iowa because Iowa does not have a state testing program. Hawaii officials declined to submit information to the company because the Department of Education is in the midst of a new standards-based program for which the first tests were administered this year. The DOE delayed testing students last year because of the prolonged teachers strike and felt that providing data from old exams would not provide a credible appraisal. It also was concerned about participating in a survey by a profit-making entity, which could use results to sell the myriad material and services it produces.
As a result, the company was forced to glean what information it could from Web sites and published material, and based its Hawaii rankings on those. On that scant information, it gave Hawaii high marks for supporting students who do poorly on tests, for how questions were framed and for disclosing costs of testing.
Princeton Review contends that the DOE's refusal to provide data should be a concern for Hawaii parents and students. "If we can't find it out, then the chances of the average parent being able to find it out are zero," said the report's author, Steven Hodas.
Not so. The department has distributed test information through the schools this year and last, along with a synopsis of standards that are to be met. It has passed out the same information at public events, such as auto shows. The DOE's Web site contains detailed data about standards, performance levels and accountability, among other matters. Parents and students also may speak to teachers and administrators if they have questions about the testing program.
Hawaii's public schools have taken heavy hits over the years. There's no question that the system needs improvement and careful examination of its operations are helpful in pointing the administrators in the right direction. However, this survey has little to offer in constructive criticism. The ranking does not mean that Hawaii's testing practices are poor. It simply means Hawaii did not play in that game.
BACK TO TOP
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, Editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, Assistant Editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, Assistant Editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.comMary Poole, Editorial Page Editor, 529-4790; mpoole@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
John Flanagan, Contributing Editor 294-3533; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
