[ OUR OPINION ]

---

School reform need
not be a contact sport

THE ISSUE A report prepared for Governor Lingle's education effort contends too much money is spent outside the classroom.

THE public can expect a certain amount of spin as politicians attempt to advance their agendas so Governor Lingle should be allowed some leeway in her crusade to transform the Department of Education.

Her commendable goal -- to improve Hawaii's public schools -- is as important as it will be difficult. She should not add to the task by delivering facts and figures that are disputable, nor should the effort cast broad blame and criticism on department officials and educators, because she will need their support.

To buttress her objective, Lingle brought in William Ouchi, a UCLA professor of corporate renewal, and Bruce Cooper, a Fordham University educational administration professor, to prepare a financial analysis of spending on public education. The privately funded report concludes that a "disproportionate share" -- 22.9 percent -- is consumed by "non-classroom teaching," a puzzling phrase that apparently means a lot of money is going to administrative activity not tied directly to students.

Cooper and Ouchi compiled figures that included spending by other state agencies, capital improvement projects and debt service related to education, determining that Hawaii laid out $10,422 per pupil last year and that only 49 cents of every dollar tracked to the classroom.

If building projects and debt service are excluded -- which is the practice recognized by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics -- the report pegs 2001-2002 per pupil spending at $8,361.

At that amount, Hawaii ranks 14th among states in operating costs per pupil, the professors said, citing the national center as the source. However, as the Star-Bulletin's Susan Essoyan reports, the center places the state's estimated spending at $6,775 in 2001-'02, or 33rd among the states and below the estimated national average of $7,524. (The state has since placed its final figure at $7,625, for which there are no current comparisons.) Cooper acknowledged that the report's ranking was based not on the center's statistics, but on census data calculated on revenues, not expenditures; were limited by comparisons to unified school districts; and were adjusted for cost of living.

The DOE also disputed the report's contention that 22.9 percent of the budget is spent by the "central office" which by most calculations is at 3 percent. Superintendent Pat Hamamoto said the report incorrectly lumps in such costs as a school's utility bills, food services and employee benefits when money for these expense merely passes through the administration.

The DOE and the report can agree on a number of issues: that the scatter-shot of financial responsibility among a number of state agencies leaves management and accountability in disarray; that oversight by outside agencies hampers operations; that micromanaging by politicians at the State Capitol undermines policy and programs.

These lay the groundwork for a meeting of the minds. The DOE recognizes reform is essential, just as Lingle does and she and education officials should be moving forward together as colleagues rather than as adversaries.