[ OUR OPINION ]

DOE’s decision on
substitute teachers
a good compromise

THE ISSUE The temporary instructors will be allowed to get the college degrees they need while remaining on the job.

A DEPARTMENT of Education decision to give substitute teachers time to elevate their credentials while keeping their jobs appears to be a good compromise that will better ensure public school students will have qualified instructors while relieving a possible shortage of substitutes.

The decision may allow the DOE to squeeze by demands of the federal No Child Left Behind Act that public school classrooms be staffed by "highly qualified" teachers, a general requirement that the law leaves unclarified in reference to substitute teachers.

The department notified about 1,500 substitutes in March that they would not be allowed to continue working because they do not have the college degrees the act appears to call for. Some principals, particularly those in rural districts where substitutes are scarce, said the move would leave them short of temporary instructors. Some of the substitutes were upset because they had earlier been given the idea that they'd have more time to upgrade their education levels.

Education officials now say substitutes may remain on the job as long as they get their bachelor's degrees within three years and meet other qualifications, such as completing a substitute teacher course within a year. The change applies only to those already on hiring lists while new job applicants will be required to have earned their degrees.

The department's change of heart on the qualifications won't likely attract sanctions from the federal government. However, it should continue to pursue guidance from the U.S. Department of Education on this as well as other fuzzy requirements of the act. Governor Lingle and Hawaii's congressional delegation should lend a hand to the DOE in bringing these matters to the federal government's attention.

Meanwhile, the department's concession to substitutes appears to be a workable solution that should satisfy all parties.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Put lobbyists’ acts
online and in detail

THE ISSUE Hawaii has received a failing grade in an analysis of states' requirements for registration and disclosure by lobbies.

LOBBYISTS perform valuable functions in government, especially in states with part-time legislators, but they need to be scrutinized. A new report by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based watchdog organization, rates states on how well they keep track of lobbying activity, and Hawaii shows a need for improvement. The itemized evaluation provides a checklist of ways to keep closer tabs on people paid by businesses, nonprofit groups, trade associations and consumer groups to influence state lawmakers.

Hawaii received a failing grade in the assessment, as did more than half the states. Hawaii has the basic mechanism for requiring its 250 lobbyists to register and disclose how much their operations cost -- $3.5 million in 2002, up slightly from the previous year. But if the devil is in the details, Hawaii's demons are well hidden.

That area was Hawaii's major shortcoming in the assessment. While lobbyists are required to report spending activity at regular intervals, summarizing amounts spent in various categories, such as gifts, entertainment and postage, the reports are not itemized. Lobbyists should be required to disclose where their money came from and when and where it was spent.

The information also should be easily accessible to the public. The Hawaii State Ethics Commission lists lobbyists and their clients on its Web site but not their spending reports. People wanting copies of those reports must go to the commission's office and be willing to pay 25 cents a page.

The assessment may have been unfair in some areas. For example, Hawaii was docked for not requiring a lobbyist to report the number of a bill being lobbied. Longtime Hawaii lobbyist G.A. "Red" Morris points out that state law forbids lobbyists from charging clients to lobby on specific bills, although the prohibition seems ludicrous and probably is unenforceable.

"Lobbyists have to register," says Dan Mollway, the Ethics Commission's executive director, content with present requirements. "We know who the lobbyists are, and we know who they are representing and we know how much they (clients) are paying the lobbyists." That information -- all of it and in greater detail than now required -- should be put online so it is easily accessible to the general public.