---

‘No Child’ lawsuit
could benefit Hawaii

THE ISSUE Connecticut has sued the government over funding for the No Child Left Behind act.

CONNECTICUT this week became the first state to sue the federal government over the financial burden the Bush administration's signature education law places on its school system.

Hawaii officials should closely watch the legal developments since whatever Connecticut gains -- flexibility in complying with the law or more funding -- may also prove advantageous here.

The suit is the latest salvo in a continuing battle over the No Child Left Behind law that requires schools to test public school students' math and English skills every year with results measured against certain achievement standards. School districts in three states and the nation's largest teachers union also are challenging the law in court on other issues.

No one objects to the law's lofty goal of having all students proficient in those subjects by 2014. However, critics have said that the objective is unrealistic and that penalties the law imposes have forced schools to focus too much on testing.

A recent Gallup poll showed that 68 percent of adults surveyed did not think annual testing in math and English gives a fair picture of whether a school needs improvement and 80 percent think measuring achievement should also cover broader fields, like arts and sciences.

Connecticut's complaint, however, is based on funding. The law forbids the federal government from requiring states to spend their own money to carry out federal policies, which Connecticut says it will have to do to comply.

Connecticut, whose position is buttressed by its status as one of the highest-achieving states in the nation, argues that the law should allow some flexibility.

Hawaii has not resisted compliance, but officials here estimate that the federal government has supplied less than 20 percent of the costs of implementing the law. If Connecticut prevails in its suit, that could also open federal coffers to Hawaii.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Lifting of quarantine
relieves pets, owners

THE ISSUE Pets landing in Hawaii have increased by 62 percent since the lifting of the quarantine.

RULES adopted two years ago freeing pets from quarantine upon their arrival in Hawaii have been a major success. Utilizing medical technology, the policy allows visitors and new residents to bring their dogs and cats to the islands without the grief and expense of their pets' imprisonment. Families can eliminate the quarantine from factors weighed in planning their trips.

The law requiring a four-month quarantine originated in 1912 to prevent rabies from entering Hawaii. Britain enforced a six-month incarceration of incoming animals until 2000, when it eliminated the requirement for dogs and cats arriving from Europe, and extended the emancipation to pets entering from Canada and the U.S. mainland three years ago.

Hawaii revised its rules in 1997 to allow 30-day confinement of animals that met vaccination and blood-testing requirements. The Lingle administration initiated reforms two years ago allowing properly documented pets to bypass quarantine entirely.

Pets that are vaccinated, blood-tested and embedded with identification microchips can be released to their owners at the airport or, at worst, wait up to five days to be liberated. Future rules awaiting the governor's signature will extend the blood tests' validity from 18 months to three years.

Records kept by the state Department of Agriculture show that the number of cats and dogs entering the state increased from 4,771 from July 2002 through June 2003 to 6,834 in the following year-long period. That total rose in the 12 months prior to this July to 7,653, an overwhelming 86 percent of which were returned to their owners at the airport.

The policy is a relief for military service members assigned to Hawaii who had complained about having to leave their pets on the mainland or subject them to imprisonment. As the worker shortage increases with Hawaii's improving economy, the new rules eliminate what would have been an impediment in recruiting employees from other states.

---

---

---