---

Schools can improve
without more funding

Former business CEO Randy Moore oversees the implementation of Act 51, the Reinventing Education Act of 2004. Act 51 is the blueprint for ongoing education reform in Hawaii, and as such, all of us should know and care about it.

"There's a great deal of misunderstanding about Act 51," Moore says, and he should know. In addition to being the project manager for school reform, he's also the Department of Education's resident mythbuster.

So what are the myths Moore is trying to bust?

Myth No. 1 is that Hawaii's public schools can't improve without more funding. Closely related is Myth No. 2 -- Hawaii's schools can't improve because of the constraints put upon them by union contracts, state procurement laws, etc.

Do schools anywhere ever have enough money? For Moore, the better question is, what can schools do differently with the money they have? As Superintendent Pat Hamamoto puts it, "Our schools must change the way they deliver services." Act 51 doesn't change the amount of money available to schools, but it allocates it in a different way based on characteristics that have an effect on learning exhibited by each student (see "Education Matters," Star-Bulletin, Feb. 6).

The question Moore poses concerning Myth No. 2 is, "If all schools have the same union contracts and procurement constraints, why are some schools doing better than others?" He believes, "Some schools have done a better job because they've focused on student achievement more effectively, not because they have more resources or fewer constraints."

Myth No. 3 asks, why change the existing way funds are allocated to schools? Isn't it fair the way it's being done?

No, Moore says. Under the current system, schools with similar student characteristics (for example, about the same percent of English as second language learners) receive different per-pupil allocations, the result of years of funding inequities among Hawaii's schools.

Moore believes the new weighted student formula system (WSF) will bring fairness and transparency to school funding. It will establish a base per-pupil allocation and then add more funding for students who participate in the free or reduced lunch program (a measure of economic disadvantage), students who are English language learners and students in special education.

Under WSF, some schools will gain funding and some will lose funding. All must develop an Academic and Financial Plan to decide the best way to spend the school's allocation.

Myth No. 4: Since principals, with help from their School Community Councils, will decide which programs will be funded at their schools, will good programs and even athletics disappear at some schools?

"Why would a good program disappear?" Moore asks. "Wouldn't a school want to continue a program with demonstrated success?" He adds that private schools provide athletics as part of educating the whole child, so why wouldn't the public schools do the same?

Myth No. 5 is that schools losing funding under WSF will be forced to cut teaching positions, particularly in noncore areas such as fine arts.

Moore believes that schools losing funding under WSF will ask themselves, "How must we organize differently with fewer resources to still improve student achievement?" Schools most likely will find savings in noninstructional costs rather than by reducing the number of teachers.

Still have questions about school reform in Hawaii? Ask your child's principal, or go to Web sites http://doe.k12.hi.us or www.hawaii.edu/hepc.

---