[ OUR OPINION ]
Adult ed may belong
in university systemAN audit of the state's $9 million adult education program calls for not only correction of deficient supervision and accounting, but for an evaluation of the program's goals in proportion to its cost. The Legislature should follow the state auditor's recommendation that it consider transferring the program to the University of Hawaii's community college system.
THE ISSUE A state audit finds the DOE's adult education program lacks adequate oversight and efficient delivery of services.
The Department of Education program was established more than 50 years ago to offer learning to under-educated adults, non-English-speaking immigrants and those who seek high school diplomas later in life. It also aims to widen education in recreational and cultural subjects, goals worthy of a society that values knowledge as a means to a dynamic community. However, administering and delivering services has become encumbered by inertia, inattention and self-serving interests.
The audit found that staff pay, based on per-student count, may have been inflated by the way enrollment was tallied. In some cases, a student taking three classes was counted three times. Inaccurate attendance records could not verify enrollment.
Fees were applied inconsistently; a course that one school classified as tuition free would be classified differently at another where a fee would be charged. The audit also found that the department has not properly monitored or assessed the program to determine its effectiveness. Evaluations, if any, were infrequent or informal.
Although the program aims to encourage more than book learning, officials should take a second look at such subjects as sushi-making, basket-weaving and aerobics. Enriching as they may be, such interests may be satisfied through other venues.
When the program was established, there were few alternatives for adult education. However, with community colleges offering higher education, job training, instruction in new technological areas and in culture and the arts, and with the colleges' expertise in program evaluation, adult education may be a better fit in its educational structure. An analysis should be conducted to see if proper administration and cost-effectiveness may be better achieved if the program were shifted to the university system.
BACK TO TOP |
Hand-held cell-phone ban
is good first stepA City Council proposal to restrict the use of cellular telephones while driving would not eliminate the danger, but the compromise may be the best way to begin dealing with the increasing problem. The proposal is premised on the wrong assumption that driver distraction associated with talking on the phone is physical rather than mental.
THE ISSUE A proposal to ban motorists from using hand-held cellular telephones while driving is being considered by the City Council.
The proposed city ordinance would ban motorists from using hand-held wireless phones while driving. New York last year became the first state to enact such a law and 16 smaller jurisdictions have approved similar bans. Such laws exist in at least 30 countries, including Spain, Brazil and parts of Australia.
The industry reacts to cell-phone-related traffic accidents by saying there is a need for education about driver distraction. Of course, a modicum of such education would make drivers realize that talking on the phone while driving is dangerous.
An enlightened Verizon Wireless gave its support to "hands free" requirements on cell-phone use by drivers a year ago. However, Gary Slovin, a local Verizon Wireless official, said he opposes the Council's version because technical requirements for a phone mount or cradle were "not workable." The bill should be modeled after existing laws that work effectively in other jurisdictions.
The Honolulu bill fails to recognize studies that have shown that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as hand-held phones. University of Utah researchers found that cell-phone conversations place drivers in a "cognitive context" other than driving, resulting in a level of distraction four times that of listening to and changing radio stations.
"I'm seeing more and more people who are not concentrating on driving," said Darrlyn Bunda, chairman of the Council's Transportation Committee, who recalled having seen a motorist driving 30 mph on the freeway while talking on a cell phone. Such diminished concentration is caused by the mental distraction of the conversation, not the physical one of handling the phone. The distraction differs greatly from a conversation with a passenger who is aware of traffic occurrences.
Public officials are reluctant to alienate the nation's 110 million cellular-phone owners, 85 percent of whom use the phones while driving. Most legislatures and councils are not likely to ban such a popular activity in an effective and comprehensive way until the danger becomes plainly obvious to the public. Under those circumstances, a ban on hand-held cell phones is a good start.
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.
