COMMENTARY
We're hearing 'solutions' that would cripple schools

By Patricia Hamamoto
State Superintendent of Schools

Is the old Chinese saying "May you live in interesting times" a blessing or a curse?

School Superintendent Pat Hamamoto says Hawai'i schools every day strive to make high-quality, standards-based education a reality for all students. Advertiser library photo

In any case, Hawai'i's public schools certainly live in interesting times.

Every day we strive to make high-quality, standards-based education a reality for all students; to provide appropriate support to students with special needs; to ensure safe, healthy schools; and, under the new federal initiative, to have "No Child Left Behind."

Under the best of circumstances, these would be challenges enough. Even under the reality of Hawai'i's ailing economy and other hurdles, the public schools are making significant strides toward improving student achievement.

And now, on top of it all, the campaign for governor is generating a steady stream of education "solutions" that might just make life a little too interesting, which could undermine the progress of our public schools.

One campaign plan says that half of what is currently spent on "DOE's centralized bureaucracy" should be redirected to the school level. In frequent TV ads, we hear the promise "to invest in learning, not in more bureaucracy."

While claiming to support reducing the cost of government, this plan actually proposes to greatly expand the size and cost of administering the public school system by creating seven distinct district boards of education. Yes, creating more — not less — bureaucracy, without even offering a clue about how such government expansion might be paid for.

Another campaign is promoting a similar plan, again without detailing the cost implications. Rather than cut bureaucracy, these plans would hasten bankruptcy for Hawai'i's marginally-funded public school system.

Spending less on bureaucracy and more on classrooms sounds good, and it may get votes. But it's not realistic, and it won't improve our public schools.

First, there's the faulty assumption that Hawai'i spends an excess amount on administration; that it's a typical "top heavy" bureaucracy. The frequent repetition of this theme by politicians and others creates the impression that it's true. When one checks the facts, it just isn't so.

The Department of Education budget is allocated by the Legislature in five categories. "EDN 300," which pays for state and district administration, is only 2 percent of the entire DOE budget.

EDN 300 totals $29 million, so, according to one candidate, if 50 percent is redirected, it would equal less than $15 million. And what 50 percent of the administrative costs could be cut? Essential services cannot be cut any further, and across-the-board cuts of 50 percent would assure collapse of every administrative function.

This year alone, the DOE had to deal with a $32 million shortfall, so shifting $15 million from administration — or taxing gamblers for $30 million as another campaign proposes — doesn't even get us back to the starting line, yet alone win the race for improving education.

A few years back, the legislative auditor tested a computerized budget-tracking program that the auditor's office believed would offer a more detailed and accurate accounting of how and where the public dollars for education were being spent.

The "Cascade Model" determined that 16 percent was being spent in administration. But that included school-level costs, paid centrally, such as substitute teachers' pay and the cost of school utilities. When the school-level expenses were subtracted, the cost of administration stood at only 6 percent. The author of the study was incredulous, saying a system of our size typically has administrative costs of 12 percent.

The "cut bureaucracy" campaign also proposes a law to limit the cost of DOE administration. Such a law already exists. Since 1995, the DOE has been required to keep administrative costs under 6.5 percent and has done so. In fact, Hawai'i has one of the smallest percentages in the nation when it comes to professional staff in administrative roles. In the 1999-2000 school year, 2.2 percent of Hawai'i's professional staff performed administrative functions. This compared with a national average of 3.9 percent. Among four states with characteristics similar to Hawai'i, the percentages of administrators ranged from 3.3 percent to 4.1 percent.

Education Week, in its 2002 annual Quality Counts report, ranked Hawai'i second in the nation in the percentage of total staff who are teachers. On the one hand, this shows that our limited education dollars are already getting to classroom teachers. On the other hand, it shows that as a system we do not provide the same level of administrative support for our classrooms as practically every other state.

Before taking such a drastic step as multiplying the bureaucracy with up to 15 separate boards of education, shouldn't we do some research? No one has presented evidence that such efforts would make administrative services more effective or, most importantly, that they would improve student achievement.

It's certain, though, that costs would rise. Plans for decentralizing education in Hawai'i would greatly expand administrative spending, leaving less to spend in the classrooms.

For example, currently the state has a single curriculum specialist for each of the academic areas of the Hawai'i Content & Performance Standards.

With multiple and separate school boards, each district would have to maintain its own curriculum specialists and support staff. Each little bureaucracy would have to be housed in separate and costly office facilities. And each local board would have to be adequately funded to allow for frequent trips to the Honolulu-based Legislature in order to lobby and compete against the other boards for the limited pool of education dollars.

In this competition for education dollars, there would be winners and losers based on the political successes or failures of the individual boards. Of course, some students would benefit from increased support while others would suffer reduced support. For Hawai'i's students, it is unacceptable to have winners and losers based on the political skills of competing boards.

A move to multiple competing school boards would be counterproductive. Why would we want to go to a system that promotes greater inequality, adds a new layer of bureaucracy, and greatly increases government costs?

Elections come and go. Campaign rhetoric rises and subsides. But the work of the school system must be steady and continuous.

Let's give our students, teachers, and administrators the chance they deserve to fulfill the challenge, and keep their lives interesting in a positive way.