Letters to the Editor

Three changes are key to better education

I have been a teacher for 13 years. I am very disappointed with the governor's push for seven school boards. I do not understand why she feels this will help education.

Educators are working toward standardizing education so that all schools will be on "the same page" and so that all children have an equal opportunity to learn and succeed. We are doing this with little to no resources. However, we are committed to working hard toward this common goal — ultimately so that we can ensure all of Hawai'i's children receive the highest-quality education. Creating more school boards will only take away from these efforts. Can the governor ensure that every board will continue to allocate resources to support these standards? Who will be responsible for overseeing these boards and ensuring that there is equity among schools?

Why are we trying to follow "Mainland" models when our entire nation is struggling with educational reform? There are schools on the Mainland that are trying to centralize their school districts, not decentralize them — why don't we take a lesson from them? Let's follow the model of countries, such as Japan, that have a successful centralized school system.

If we truly want to see educational reform, we must:

1. Lower class size (30 students to one teacher does not work).
2. Provide every elementary school with a vice principal regardless of size.
3. Provide every elementary school with resource teachers such as for art, music, computer, science and PE. This will allow the classroom teachers to focus on reading, writing and math.

If we are really committed to student success and educational excellence, the three steps above will do it. If we create seven boards, we will be allocating money to management — not the students. I beg the leaders of this state to do what is right. Don't look for the "quick fix." Listen to the people who are in the trenches fighting for what's best for Hawai'i's students every day.

'Fake reform' bill is owing to unions

If you've ever wondered why, despite spending almost $2 billion a year on public education, we rank 50th out of 50 states on SAT tests, the scene on the Senate floor on a recent day was instructive.

The senators were about to debate the annual school "fake reform" bill (the one that won't improve SAT scores or any other objective measure of achievement), when the representatives for the unions controlling the school system — the HSTA and the HGEA — strolled into the empty gallery and sat down. The Democratic senators indebted to these unions then began to sing the praises of the shibai bill before them, while their masters took notes.

Of course, the union representatives were too subtle to go to the chamber floor afterwards and hand out checks — those will be written later, safely out of the view of the public — but the quid pro quo was apparent to any veteran of the legislative process. Perhaps we should make this process more transparent to the public picking up the tab for all this? May I suggest requiring that legislators wear NASCAR-style decals on their suits showing their largest campaign contributors?

Improving schools is hard without data

While I read the letters to the editor and generally follow the controversy regarding education reform, a few questions come to mind and I am alarmed by the lack of actual data provided to support the ideas.

Smaller class size is put forth as the answer to low test scores, but I have yet to see any data to support this thesis and I have yet to see anyone define just how small is smaller and provide correlating data to support the idea that fewer students equals higher test scores. Along this same line of thinking, I would like to know the average high school class size at Iolani and Punahou.

The teachers and the unions often cite lack of money as the reason for poor student performance. I would like to know how much money they believe it will take to raise student performance.

Teachers' salaries are also cited as a problem. The conflict I have is that we often hear we need to pay more to get better teachers. Yet Linda Lingle has said that the teachers are all excellent. Does this mean that they are "sand bagging" because they feel they are underpaid, or does this mean that they are not excellent? Would higher salaries mean better teachers could be hired and the ones we have now could be fired for poor performance?

One of the famous statements often heard in Hawai'i is that all public school teachers send their kids to private school. Oh really? Where's the data? If the teachers are underpaid, where are they getting the money to send their kids to private school? There are a lot of public school teachers and it is not possible that the private schools offer scholarships to all their children. Is it possible that this particular statement is not true?

Computers are often cited as something needed in the public schools. Are there any data showing just how many computers are in the public schools now? Are there any data showing the link between more computers and higher student achievement? Are there any data showing that student performance is higher at schools with more computers than at schools with fewer computers?

Linda Lingle seems to be very fond of charter schools, yet I have not seen any recent data on student achievement in the charter schools. I understand that Hawai'i currently has approximately 20 charter schools. I would like to see some data on student performance from all the charter schools, not just Lanikai.

The only thing I can conclude from following this debate is that there is a lot of opinion and very little data. I personally have a problem with my tax dollars going to solve a problem based on opinion rather than data.

Act 221 works, but it's only the first step

It is important to look at the big picture. Act 221's purpose is to help diversify Hawai'i's economy by creating an incentive for investors to fund our startup ventures.

Although the act can definitely be tightened up to ensure more solid and responsible investing in qualified companies, Act 221 has definitely fulfilled its goal and allowed our local entrepreneurs to build companies that attract venture capital investment from outside the state, as well as locally.

That is quite an accomplishment, and we should look to that success to see what can now be done to help keep our companies in Hawai'i.

As David Watumull pointed out in Sean Hao's article, the proposed tax-credit-based fund of funds is a necessary next step. The fund will build the much-needed venture capital that our budding companies need to keep growing here and to continue to attract capital from other sources. With more capital in Hawai'i and more venture and management expertise, our companies can stay here.

Firetide is a perfect example of the caliber of company that Hawai'i is producing (as a matter of fact, most of Firetide's investors are not Act 221 investors). The decision to move its headquarters is not yet made, nor is it a slam-dunk conclusion.

Regardless of where its headquarters is finally located, however, let us remember that we are demonstrating to Silicon Valley and the world that we can develop and get companies off the ground locally. Now let's go the next step with the fund of funds and help keep them here.

Let's not confuse the issues and muddy already murky waters. We need to diversify the economy. We need to fund that diversity, and it will take time. It's not a quick fix.

Waikiki blackout could have been prevented

On Wednesday morning all of Waikiki suffered a major power outage. This large blackout need not have occurred. As revealed in testimony before the Department of Land and Natural Resources on HECO's proposal to add an additional circuit to its existing transmission line on Wa'ahila Ridge, all of Waikiki, the engine of our island's economy, relies on two 40-year-old 138-kilovolt lines that supply power to the Pukele substation in upper Palolo Valley.

On Wednesday, when one of those two lines was out for needed maintenance, the other line tripped off and Waikiki went black. If HECO had been allowed to install a 138-kilovolt circuit on its existing Wa'ahila Ridge transmission line in a timely manner, this loss of power in this critical area would not have occurred.

Because a state agency, the DLNR, would not allow HECO to use this economically attractive and operationally desirable option to strengthen its East O'ahu transmission system, all of the residents, visitors, hotels and other businesses in Waikiki and Kapahulu were again exposed to an unnecessary risk.

Alan Lloyd

Polite call-taker put HECO in good light

Regarding the power outage last week that affected some 40,000 customers, I would like to tip my hat to HECO.

Shortly after the power went out, I tried calling HECO for quite a while but kept getting the busy signal. Finally, I got through. The gentleman who answered the call was very accommodating and nice! It was obvious they were being inundated with calls, yet he was patient and answered my inquiries. Not once did he make me feel rushed or that I was adding more stress to an already stressful morning.

Admittedly, I have had a couple of less-than-nice and -helpful people at HECO. However, right in the middle of that electrical chaos, that gentleman in the repair department put HECO in a much better light (no pun intended).

Don't roll back protections

Most of Hawai'i's residents would like to see our country move toward a cleaner, sustainable energy future, one that is based on renewable sources of energy and protects consumers from market rip-offs. Unfortunately, the energy plan Congress is currently debating, S. 2095, would not only continue our current dependence on dirty energy, but would also increase energy-related pollution and leave consumers vulnerable to market manipulation.

This bill would make these problems worse and is a disaster for anyone who breathes air, drinks water, or pays a utility bill. Sens. Inouye and Akaka should be applauded for opposing S. 2095 last November, and urged to oppose any new version of this budget-busting, polluting energy bill.

More than 130 million Americans live in areas where ground-level ozone, or smog, causes serious health problems, triggering asthma attacks, worsening chronic respiratory disease and sending more than 150,000 people to hospital emergency rooms each year, largely due to our dependence on fossil fuels. However, instead of taking steps to solve this problem, the energy bill would roll back key parts of the Clean Air Act that would delay pollution cleanups in areas with unhealthy air, meaning that people who live in these areas will breathe dirty air longer.

Instead of preventing future blackouts, the energy bill could actually increase the risk of blackouts by weakening industry accountability and subsidizing even more large centralized dirty power plants. The bill flies in the face of the findings of a recent report by the Department of Energy, which found that the main culprit of the blackout on the mainland last August was poor management of electric grids and poor communication between power companies, not a lack of power lines or large power plants.

Furthermore, the bill would actually repeal the main law on the books that protects consumers and investors from market manipulation, fraud, and abuse in the electricity sector, the Public Utility Holding Company Act. By repealing these consumer and investor protections, this energy bill would clear the way for more power companies to manipulate electricity markets as Enron did.

It's great that Sens. Inouye and Akaka voted against the bill last November. It is critical to Hawai'i's health and the rest of the country that they continue to reject last year's energy bill and instead work toward a smarter, cleaner, new energy future.