---

STAR-BULLETIN / 2005 Third-grader Angel Nguyen, 8, receives tutoring after school with Rebecca Hirakami at Kalihi Kai Elementary School. The afterschool tutoring program is funded by the No Child Left Behind law but turnout among the students remains low.

---

Act 51 might not
create many changes

Critics of the education reform movement under way in Hawaii say the Reinventing Education Act (Act 51) passed by the 2004 Legislature is flawed. Under the banner of "reinventing education," this latest school reform effort is the same old box in glittery new gift wrap.

Statewide school system

The adage "too much of a good thing" could be applied to Hawaii's school system. Since Hawaii is a statewide school system with funding primarily from state tax revenue, schools in wealthier areas have no more funding because of their location than schools in poorer areas. That's the upside.

Critics say that because we have a statewide school system, we also have a highly centralized state Department of Education with a bureaucracy large enough to manage 250 schools. Predictably, the degree of control exercised by this bureaucracy has continued to grow over the years along with its funding despite a decrease in student enrollment. Today the DOE is Hawaii's largest state agency.

Decentralization reforms

Thirty years ago in Hawaii, an education commission said, "A persuasive case can be made for decentralizing decision making." Indeed, efforts to change top-down management of schools to bottom-up have been numerous over the years. Yet, the findings of an education task force in 1992 seem to apply to us today: "The state's existing highly centralized system has distanced Hawaii's people from their schools."

Act 51

Does Act 51 continue the attempts to decentralize the state DOE, or, as its critics believe, does it preserve the status quo?

Though there are many provisions in Act 51, critics as well as proponents agree that two concepts are central: 1. resources should be allocated to schools based on student need, and 2. principals/School Community Councils, rather than the state DOE, should have the authority to determine how to use these resources to meet student needs.

Weighted student formula

Allocating funds to schools based on the learning needs of each individual student has been around for more than 30 years. This allocation methodology, variously called weighted student formula (WSF) and student-based budgeting, is used by the San Francisco Unified School District, closest to us, and a number of other school districts around the country.

Starting in 2006-'07, schools with student populations having greater learning needs will receive greater funding. In the new weighting system, factors that influence a student's ability to learn include economic disadvantage (students who participate in the free or reduced lunch program), English language ability (students for whom English is not their native language) and special education. These and additional factors such as mobility and transiency (students who move in and out of the school system or from school to school) are under consideration by the Board of Education.

Schools will receive a base amount of funding for each student and additional funding for those students exhibiting the factors that are weighted. Will this increase the amount of funding to schools? The total amount appropriated by the Legislature remains the same, but under WSF some schools will gain funding and some will lose funding based on the characteristics of each school's student population.

The DOE believes WSF will bring greater transparency to and equalize the inequities in funding that have historically existed among Hawaii's schools. Currently, schools of similar size with similar student populations can receive vastly different funding, primarily in nonteaching personnel. A mainland study says funding inequities among schools are the result of historical precedents, more influential or resourceful school leaders advocating for their schools, and the personal opinions and preferences of school system administrators.

Not mentioned in the study but significant in Hawaii, according to critics, is the role played by the Legislature in influencing allocations to specific schools. Political pull is nowhere more evident than in construction funding for schools. During this past legislative session, rather than funding the DOE/ BOE's prioritized list of 60 projects, legislators funded 69 projects that benefit schools in their districts, while funding only nine on the DOE list.

Will funding to schools via WSF improve student achievement? Critics believe WSF is just one puzzle piece in a larger picture. If significant funds get down to the school level, and if principals/schools have the authority to make decisions about how to use and leverage these funds, then research shows that more money will get down into the classroom. However, if funds are distributed to schools with strings attached, that is to say, if spending decisions are made for the school not by the school, then nothing will change.

Budgetary control by principals

A major provision of Act 51 is that 70 percent of the DOE's operating budget of $1.7 billion ($1.6 billion after excluding debt servicing and capital improvement projects) will be expended by principals starting with the '06-'07 school year. The current DOE recommendation to the BOE is that 72 percent of its operating budget should be expended at the school level.

Since principals currently expend 15 percent of the DOE's operating budget, a move to 72 percent would be a huge step toward decentralization. The trouble, as critics see it, is that comparing the 15 percent and the 72 percent figures is classic apples and oranges. The 15 percent does not include employee salaries and fringe benefits that currently are accounted for at the state level. The 72 percent figure includes these amounts. Critics say when apples are compared with apples, principals will end up with little or no increase in budgetary control.

Further, critics charge that the phrase "expended by principals" is misleading. Of the 72 percent, principals will have discretionary control over only 48 percent that is further reduced to 38 percent when employee fringe benefits are removed from the percentage. The DOE's position is that money spent at the school level, regardless of whether principals have discretionary control over the money, is money expended by principals.

Twenty-four percent of the 72 percent to be expended by principals is in funds that must be spent in specific ways. In other words, principals have no say in how this money will be spent. These funds, called categorical funds, are primarily mandated by the Legislature. For instance, included in Act 51 is a mandate that all high schools be staffed with a full-time year-round student activity coordinator. Regardless of the merit of this and scores of other categorical programs, critics believe the Legislature must stop micromanaging schools. They find it ironic the Legislature continues the practice of restricting principals' discretionary control over funds while stating in Act 51 that "it is the Legislature's intent to place a far greater number of decisions, and a much higher percentage of moneys, directly in the hands of individual schools and their leaders."

Unanswered questions

Will principals/schools be able to leverage their discretionary money by making sound spending decisions to improve student achievement, or will they be constrained by union contracts and state procurement laws? Will they be able to go to private vendors if they decide not to buy back services from the state DOE? Will the Legislature allow principals to convert vacant positions' fringe benefits into dollars to be used at the school level?

These questions remain largely unanswered.

Critics say staffing ratios agreed to with unions limit a principal's ability to make personnel changes. Further, new legislation (Senate Bill 1352) passed by the 2005 Legislature will make it difficult for management (in this case, principals) to transfer or reassign school personnel. State procurement restrictions also make it hard for principals to act as entrepreneurs of their school.

Like the old School/Community-Based Management councils enacted by the Legislature in 1989, the new School Community Councils (SCC) in Act 51 are a vehicle for educational partnership among school, parents and community. The primary role of the council is to work with the principal in developing an academic and financial plan for the school, the school's blueprint for improving student achievement.

Act 51 mandates that all schools (except charter schools) must have School Community Councils in place and operating by '05-'06. Members of the SCC will be elected by their peers, and the number of community stakeholders on the council (students, parents and community members) must be equal in number to school staff (principal, teachers and nonteaching school staff).

The SCC brochure written about a year ago by the DOE describes the councils as a "major part of the overall decision-making structure at each school," and further describes the functioning of the councils as "shared decision-making among principals, teachers, parents, students and community members to improve student achievement." However, in the new SCC Handbook, the councils are described as part of the "leadership structure at each school" and "forums for open discussion and problem-solving."

Critics believe SCCs are a step in the right direction, giving schools more autonomy and involving more parents in school matters. They worry that the DOE has shifted the council's role from shared decision making to advisory.

Further, the promise in Act 51 that schools via their SCCs can make important decisions is less than meets the eye, critics say. Though the act gives schools via their SCC the right to initiate a waiver from policies, rules or procedures, including collective bargaining agreements, the reality is that a Memorandum of Agreement exists between the Board of Education and the Hawaii State Teachers Association. The MOA requires that 75 percent of teachers at a school give their approval before a request for an exception to a labor agreement can even be made. If the request clears that hurdle, it then goes to a SCC Exception Review Committee made up of an equal number of BOE and union representatives for negotiation, and finally if an agreement is reached, to the full board for approval. So making decisions at the school level will be easier said than done.

Act 51: Promise or problem?

If you believe (as I do) that improvement in education is the result of small, incremental steps accomplished over time, then Act 51 might lead to positive change over the long run. I believe a good faith effort is being made by the DOE to embrace and accomplish the provisions in Act 51. On the other hand, 30-plus years is a long time to wait for change, and Act 51 might be less about reinventing education and more about changing the gift wrap on the same old box. Time will tell.

---