---

State taking a risk with
school-reform companies

THE ISSUE Three companies are preparing strategies to help public schools meet federal standards.

THE three companies contracted to help 20 public schools that have failed to reach achievement standards acknowledge they have no special programs to deal with the specific groups of students whose test scores caused the gap.

This is a troubling admission despite the companies' assurances that they can do the job. The state Department of Education should have followed the advice of the state Legislature to require money-back guarantees from the providers instead of accepting terms that merely allow contract terminations.

The state is risking a total of almost $8 million, not to mention the prospects for the schools and their students.

The companies -- ETS Pulliam, Edison Alliance and the National Center of Education and the Economy -- have been hired to "restructure" schools that have not met benchmarks of the federal No Child Left Behind law.

The law requires all students to pass annual tests, even those who typically don't do well because they don't speak English or are disabled or poor. Ten of the schools were marked for restructuring only because one or more of these so-called subgroups didn't meet standards. As unreasonable as the demand, schools must comply or face losing essential federal funds, and Hawaii education officials have generally accepted that the intent of the law is worthwhile.

However, contracting companies that lack programs specifically addressing the problems of students who need the most help seems counterproductive. All three told the Star-Bulletin's Dan Martin they will used modified versions of off-the-shelf reform programs.

How effective these will be is uncertain. For example, though one company has experience in working with Spanish-speaking students on the mainland, most of Hawaii's non-English-speaking students come from Asian and Pacific regions where cultural differences contribute to learning difficulties. In addition, children of recent immigrants often come from low-income families unable to give integral support from parents working long hours or multiple jobs.

The companies' roles aren't to take over hands-on teaching, but rather to insert management systems to supply information to teachers and administrators about where instruction should be focused and which students need the help to pass tests.

The emphasis on teaching to content of tests is also problematic. The practice can constrict learning to the detriment of a well-rounded education that includes arts, sciences and the healthy aspects of physical education.

It also might lead to eliminating programs that entice children to learn. One principal sees the narrow approach as a benefit, cutting out "fluff" such as field trips that she says are "fun to teach but have nothing to do with standards." She forgets that education should encompass pleasurable experiences, that fun enhances scholarship through a child's curious response.

---

---

---