[ OUR OPINION ]
Need to fix public schools
still a priority for votersIMPROVING public education does not live or die with Governor Lingle's plan for seven school boards. Although the governor's initiative had fueled the movement for reform, other proposals remain in play and lawmakers are well aware that changes are what voters want.
THE ISSUE
The House has rejected Governor Lingle's centerpiece for public education reform.
The House last week turned down a bill for a constitutional amendment that, among other things, would have replaced the current statewide Board of Education with local panels, the chief piece of legislation Lingle sought as a way to improve public schools.
Despite her investment in a special committee made up of a financial management expert and a host of local school board advocates, and a lobbying campaign that included town meetings staged across the state, the Republican governor was unable to persuade the Democrat-dominated House. It is unlikely that the Senate, also with a Democratic majority, will take up the flag.
Whatever role partisan politics may have played in the vote, it appears that Lingle's measure was evaluated at least as much on the question of how much of an effect local boards would have on student performance. In addition, the governor's measure contained procedural and technical flaws that would have required considerable overhauls before passage.
Lawmakers were not convinced that restructuring governance would be the most direct way to improve public education when there are other proposals about which Lingle, legislators and educators had agreement. Among these are bills to distribute funding to schools based on the needs of individual students and allowing each school to decide how to use the money, to extract other state agencies from decision-making on hiring of staff and other management operations and to set up governance school by school. Another bill would expand the current state Board of Education membership to 17 and eliminate at-large positions, which tended to give Oahu interests a priority. Neighbor island schools would have stronger representation and allow parents and others more access to the board.
These measures and others present feasible opportunities for reform, but significant issues have to be worked out, including amending union constraints over programs like school-based manage- ment, school calendars and accountability. Give and take on such matters will provide school leaders with the flexibility to adapt to students' needs and all involved should keep their eyes on the goal instead of placing their narrow interests ahead of children's.
Lingle's objective has been to recast the school system so that it is more responsive to students, parents and the community at large and in the process turn out better educated children. This can still be achieved, but it will require participants to relinquish ownership of ideas and do what's best instead.
