Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Other Views
AS lawmakers, we are "caretakers" of the state; as chairman of the House Education Committee, I am specifically responsible for taking care of public education. Accountability
with authorityThis legislative session we are being challenged by the state schools superintendent to think deeply about how we can significantly change our public education system via accountability. This approach makes sense.
Accountability means one must have authority but also take responsibility for the tasks assigned. In a bureaucratic organizational structure, the authority resides at the top.
The bureaucracy must be restructured to distribute authority within the Department of Education. Unfortunately, within the current system, various functions are assigned to other state agencies.
This means "authority" is not the DOE's to distribute. This creates competing goals and objectives that impede the efficiency and effectiveness of our public schools. HB 1874 would allow for the DOE to negotiate authority with those who currently hold the authority.
Another important ingredient of an accountability system is resources. For example, a teacher cannot be held accountable for students knowing how to use a computer if no computers are available.
Obtaining more money from sources other than the state would pay off, if the same amount gained was not then subtracted from the allocation coming from the general fund. HB 1873 allows for the DOE to "get ahead" of its allocated state budget by granting some fiscal autonomy.
HB1875 is the proposed accountability system for the DOE. It would "invoke a full and balanced set of appropriate consequences for performance, including rewards and recognition, assistance to those who fall short, and sanctions to those that -- AFTER given adequate assistance and time -- continue to fall short."
The accountability system will affect everyone within it: students, parents, teachers, school staff, administrators, district and state level staff, as well as the Board of Education. The accountability system also requires responsibility to be assumed by others outside of the DOE system, such as the business community, the unions and political leadership.
The most controversial part of the proposed accountability system is whether teacher accountability should be part of collective bargaining. There are several reasons it should not:
The collective bargaining process in Hawaii is between the teachers' union and the BOE. This means others who could contribute to the design of a solid accountability system (like the superintendent) would not be "at the table."
We are at a critical point in making decisions about how to improve public education in Hawaii.
CAN the policy makers release some of their power to give the DOE some flexibility and authority? Can the DOE demonstrate its commitment to create an accountability system that is fair and humane? Can the teachers' union have the courage to collaborate on a mutually agreeable memorandum of understanding outside of collective bargaining?
Being accountable without authority is unreasonable. And having authority without accountability is irresponsible. Thanks to the speaker of the House, House leadership and the Education Committee, we will be neither unreasonable nor irresponsible.
Rep. Ken Ito (D) represents the 48th District and is
chairman of the House Committee on Education.