It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it? Learn - Discuss - Decide
Lessons learned from Act 51
This posting is kind of long, so I apologize in advance.
Act 51 was passed in 2004, purporting to “reinvent” Hawaii’s education system. After four years, the major provisions of Act 51 have still not been put into effect. There are lessons that can be learned from Act 51 that apply to any ConCon proposal to improve, reform, or restructure public education.
As 2004 began, public interest in education had risen to an unprecedented high level. The public demanded an improvement in the quality of public education, and the Legislature and the Governor were determined to respond.
As the 2004 Legislative session began, the Governor submitted a pair of bills designed to reform Hawaii’s public education system. She submitted HB 2331 / SB 2806 (the same bill) and HB 2332 / SB 2807 (the other bill), which were recommended by a committee that she had appointed with broad community representation.
HB 2331 / SB 2806 proposed a constitutional amendment that would have eliminated the statewide public school system, including the Board of Education, replacing it with a decentralized structure of at least seven independent school districts. (If the bill had been enacted, the proposed Constitutional amendment would have been taken to the electorate to be voted on.) Under the Governor’s proposal each district would be headed by a board composed of members elected by the voters of the district. Each board would have the exclusive authority to formulate education policy for the district and to select the principals of the schools in the district. The proposed constitutional amendment would have also created a commission to determine a formula for distributing operating funds to each school, and another formula for distributing capital improvement funds to the school districts.
HB 2332 / SB 2807 contained the statutory provisions to implement the constitutional amendment proposed by HB 2331 / SB 2806. In addition, HB 2332 / SB 2807 gave the commission the responsibility for setting statewide standards and for reporting student performance in all districts to the public. Also, the new formula for distributing operating funds was applied to charter schools, and the maximum number of charter schools that could be created was raised.
After lengthy hearings on both bills, the Legislature decided against them. Instead, the Legislature chose to use SB 3238 to address education reform, which it dubbed the “Reinventing Education Act.” SB 3238 was eventually enacted as Act 51.
Among other things, Act 51 required the Board of Education to determine a “weighted student formula” to distribute 70% of the DOE’s operating budget to the individual schools based on a school’s enrollment and the characteristics of each student. The idea was that students with disabilities, for example, would have greater weights than students without disabilities, so schools would receive more money to educate each disabled student than a student without disabilities. Other characteristics of students would also be taken into consideration in developing the formula. The idea behind the weighted student formula was to move as much of the money appropriated by the Legislature for education to the school level rather than have it used by the bureaucracy.
Act 51 also authorized each principal to expend funds allocated to the school by the weighted student formula. The idea behind this was to give principals the fiscal decision-making authority necessary to fulfill their responsibility to create quality schools.
In addition, the Act created a committee to plan for performance contracts for principals, which was to be implemented in the 2006-2007 school year. The idea behind this was to make principals accountable for their actions.
As Act 51 was going through the legislative process, a recommendation was made to the Legislative to give each principal the explicit discretion of determining how to expend the funds allocated to the school. This discretion would replace the vague authority given to principals by Act 51 to “expend” funds. However, this recommendation was rejected by the Legislature.
The Legislature passed Act 51. However, the Governor vetoed it because she determined that it was inadequate and ineffective. The Legislature then overrode the Governor’s veto.
Now it is four years after Act 51 was enacted. Public pressure to improve the quality of public education dropped soon after Act 51 was enacted, and has stayed at a low level. A weighted student formula has been implemented, but it is ineffective. Principals do not have the discretion of expending 70% of the DOE’s operating budget. The expenditure of much of the money allocated to schools is still predetermined. Technically speaking, principals “expend” the money allocated to their schools, but they have discretion over only a part of it. Performance contracts for principals have not been implemented.
Act 51 has little effect on the quality of public education. Standardized test scores are still miserably low, and the dropout rate is unacceptably high.
(These are just my recollections of Act 51, which create a picture that is far from complete, and, admittedly, biased. I hope that others will add relevant information or correct any errors. I also hope that someone from the BOE/DOE would stop by to give their perspective.)
There are a couple of lessons to be learned from Act 51 regarding the formulation of a Constitutional amendment proposal to improve public education. The first is that the Legislature has shown that it has some desire to improve the quality of public education, especially when the public demands it. But the Legislature has higher priorities. The result is feeble education legislation.
The second lesson is that the BOE/DOE will do whatever it wants to do, despite Act 51 or any other law passed by the Legislature. I’m not an attorney, but I think the BOE/DOE realizes that in order to be forced to obey a law, it would be the result of losing a lawsuit. The probability of such a lawsuit even being filed in court is next to nothing. So I think the BOE/DOE is not bothered at all by Act 51, which it seems to treat as a minor distraction.
Through Act 51 the Legislature required the BOE/DOE to take a few small steps toward actually “reinventing education.” But after four years the BOE/DOE hasn’t even completed those steps yet.
The formulation of any Constitutional amendment proposal to improve public education would have to consider the Legislature’s low interest in education, along with the power of the BOE/DOE to neutralize the Constitutional amendment where possible.
Act 51 was passed in 2004, purporting to “reinvent” Hawaii’s education system. After four years, the major provisions of Act 51 have still not been put into effect. There are lessons that can be learned from Act 51 that apply to any ConCon proposal to improve, reform, or restructure public education.
As 2004 began, public interest in education had risen to an unprecedented high level. The public demanded an improvement in the quality of public education, and the Legislature and the Governor were determined to respond.
As the 2004 Legislative session began, the Governor submitted a pair of bills designed to reform Hawaii’s public education system. She submitted HB 2331 / SB 2806 (the same bill) and HB 2332 / SB 2807 (the other bill), which were recommended by a committee that she had appointed with broad community representation.
HB 2331 / SB 2806 proposed a constitutional amendment that would have eliminated the statewide public school system, including the Board of Education, replacing it with a decentralized structure of at least seven independent school districts. (If the bill had been enacted, the proposed Constitutional amendment would have been taken to the electorate to be voted on.) Under the Governor’s proposal each district would be headed by a board composed of members elected by the voters of the district. Each board would have the exclusive authority to formulate education policy for the district and to select the principals of the schools in the district. The proposed constitutional amendment would have also created a commission to determine a formula for distributing operating funds to each school, and another formula for distributing capital improvement funds to the school districts.
HB 2332 / SB 2807 contained the statutory provisions to implement the constitutional amendment proposed by HB 2331 / SB 2806. In addition, HB 2332 / SB 2807 gave the commission the responsibility for setting statewide standards and for reporting student performance in all districts to the public. Also, the new formula for distributing operating funds was applied to charter schools, and the maximum number of charter schools that could be created was raised.
After lengthy hearings on both bills, the Legislature decided against them. Instead, the Legislature chose to use SB 3238 to address education reform, which it dubbed the “Reinventing Education Act.” SB 3238 was eventually enacted as Act 51.
Among other things, Act 51 required the Board of Education to determine a “weighted student formula” to distribute 70% of the DOE’s operating budget to the individual schools based on a school’s enrollment and the characteristics of each student. The idea was that students with disabilities, for example, would have greater weights than students without disabilities, so schools would receive more money to educate each disabled student than a student without disabilities. Other characteristics of students would also be taken into consideration in developing the formula. The idea behind the weighted student formula was to move as much of the money appropriated by the Legislature for education to the school level rather than have it used by the bureaucracy.
Act 51 also authorized each principal to expend funds allocated to the school by the weighted student formula. The idea behind this was to give principals the fiscal decision-making authority necessary to fulfill their responsibility to create quality schools.
In addition, the Act created a committee to plan for performance contracts for principals, which was to be implemented in the 2006-2007 school year. The idea behind this was to make principals accountable for their actions.
As Act 51 was going through the legislative process, a recommendation was made to the Legislative to give each principal the explicit discretion of determining how to expend the funds allocated to the school. This discretion would replace the vague authority given to principals by Act 51 to “expend” funds. However, this recommendation was rejected by the Legislature.
The Legislature passed Act 51. However, the Governor vetoed it because she determined that it was inadequate and ineffective. The Legislature then overrode the Governor’s veto.
Now it is four years after Act 51 was enacted. Public pressure to improve the quality of public education dropped soon after Act 51 was enacted, and has stayed at a low level. A weighted student formula has been implemented, but it is ineffective. Principals do not have the discretion of expending 70% of the DOE’s operating budget. The expenditure of much of the money allocated to schools is still predetermined. Technically speaking, principals “expend” the money allocated to their schools, but they have discretion over only a part of it. Performance contracts for principals have not been implemented.
Act 51 has little effect on the quality of public education. Standardized test scores are still miserably low, and the dropout rate is unacceptably high.
(These are just my recollections of Act 51, which create a picture that is far from complete, and, admittedly, biased. I hope that others will add relevant information or correct any errors. I also hope that someone from the BOE/DOE would stop by to give their perspective.)
There are a couple of lessons to be learned from Act 51 regarding the formulation of a Constitutional amendment proposal to improve public education. The first is that the Legislature has shown that it has some desire to improve the quality of public education, especially when the public demands it. But the Legislature has higher priorities. The result is feeble education legislation.
The second lesson is that the BOE/DOE will do whatever it wants to do, despite Act 51 or any other law passed by the Legislature. I’m not an attorney, but I think the BOE/DOE realizes that in order to be forced to obey a law, it would be the result of losing a lawsuit. The probability of such a lawsuit even being filed in court is next to nothing. So I think the BOE/DOE is not bothered at all by Act 51, which it seems to treat as a minor distraction.
Through Act 51 the Legislature required the BOE/DOE to take a few small steps toward actually “reinventing education.” But after four years the BOE/DOE hasn’t even completed those steps yet.
The formulation of any Constitutional amendment proposal to improve public education would have to consider the Legislature’s low interest in education, along with the power of the BOE/DOE to neutralize the Constitutional amendment where possible.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard Wilson on -
Reforming education requires the elimination of the present overlapping board, executive, legislative, and departmental lines of authority. An appointed state board and elected district boards will only work if such boards have total authority. Reformed education also needs to eliminate hostage funding policies, such as No Child Left Behind. And, reformed education would not have a business paradigm as its guiding principle, as in the case of Student Weighted Formula and Act 51. Education is a human endeavor, not a business.
-
Permalink Reply by John Mussack on -
Aloha jk!
Thank you for the information about the history of Act 51. I think this history is something we need to learn from.
Even though the narrative you provided is, as you admit, sketchy, one big theme I see in it is the monolithic nature of the establishment that is preventing improvement. By "monolithic" I mean all the involved power blocks are united and there is no opposition power, other than the governor, who is in a relatively weak position. You mentioned the legislature and the BOE/DOE as having a common obstructionist motive. I might add the AG's office and the unions. And I'm sure all of the statewide institutions are bonded together with each other with the common purpose of retaining the status quo.
That's why I think a break-up of this statewide block of institutional powers is appropriate. I mean, the AG's office should be divorced from the BOE/DOE, the legislature should not have such a cozy relationship with the individuals running the school system, the legislature should be more independent of the unions, and so on. You know, I'm talking about the "checks and balances" philosophy which our founding fathers created, where the powerful institutions are checked by other institutions that are competing with each other. If we just keep the current power arrangements, where all the institutions are chummy with each other, then there is almost no chance for improvement.
Mahalo for a thought-provoking commentary on Act 51!
About
Badge
Photos
© 2009 Created by Peter Kay on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
