•No alternatives to furloughs? Really? Really. •Public option? •Open letter to Kaua‘i County No alternatives to furloughs? Really? Really. Recently, in all the furor surrounding furloughs, some education officials have been quoted as saying that while “alternatives other than furloughing
•No alternatives to furloughs? Really? Really.
•Public option?
•Open letter to Kaua‘i County
No alternatives to furloughs? Really? Really.
Recently, in all the furor surrounding furloughs, some education officials have been quoted as saying that while “alternatives other than furloughing teachers were considered … none of them were viable options.” Really guys? Really. We can propose at least three ways to restore eleven or more instruction days and/or save money.
First, we can save money and increase instructional days by reducing the use of substitute teachers. On October 30th the Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that the DOE had deprived substitute teachers of $30 million to $40 million in pay over roughly five years. The DOE has said that it uses approximately a thousand substitute teachers per day (we calculate 1,100 using the numbers involved with the legal suit), roughly 10 percent of our classroom teachers. Based on the old 180-day school year, teachers were absent anywhere from 14 to 18 days. We know that this number is skewed due to teachers who suffer long-term illnesses or accidents. But we also know from our experience as the parents of two public school students that many of those substitute teacher days are not due to illness or personal reasons but are due to meetings, conferences, and training. All those controllable absences become much more glaring in light of the 17 days lost to furloughs. By cutting the use of substitute teachers in half we could save $11 million dollars per year or two furlough days. In addition, students would have that many more days with their trained, certified teachers in their classrooms rather than substitutes, preferable regardless of the excellence of our substitute teachers.
A second reduction in DOE expense can be achieved by furloughing principals, vice-principals (and even Complex Area Superintendents) during the summer. Four years ago, when the DOE decided to use a year-round school calendar, it also changed the principals contract from a 10- month to a 12- month contract. To compensate for this change the DOE gave principals a 24% salary increase. This amounts to $6 million per year in additional DOE expenditures. Now those same principals have to give up 24 work days (5 weeks) for furloughs. Why not just furlough them during the summer? Even if principals are at school on some days that teachers and students aren’t, they can make good use of that time.
The current DOE budget also shows millions of dollars allocated to convert vice-principals from 10-month to 12-month contracts so all this is true for them as well.
A third way in which we can reallocate funds is to stop gorging on testing. While the DOE has decreased instructional time by 9 percent, they have increased standardized testing by more than that. This year the DOE has added: Online field testing for both the annual HSAs and the quarterly HSAs; Algebra II tests; on-line field testing in science for grades 4, 8, 10 and biology students in grades 9, 11, 12. Additionally, the BOE has estimated that the HSA tests alone cost $25 – 40 million per year.
By cutting back on standardized testing, students will gain more time with their teachers and millions of dollars will be saved.
Altogether, the above proposals would give back 11 or more instructional days and save tens of millions of dollars. No viable alternatives other than furloughs. Really guys? Really.
Wendy and Jim Hoglen, Kalaheo
Public option?
Regarding the recent letter about the public option, most, well above 50 percent of U.S. citizens, do not want the so-called health care that is now working its way through Congress.
Most U.S. citizens do want some control via competition between insurance companies, they do want tort reform. But the vast majority of citizens do not want the so-called Obamacare. They are happy with the care we currently have.
What if every working person in the U.S. was a union member? Every time an employer had to meet the demands of his union workers he would need to raise the prices of whatever he makes or sells. Then the next union would need to get their members a raise which would cause that employer to raise his prices, so then the next union would need to get a raise for their members. And it continues on and on till everyone is in the same place as they were before they were unionized.
Union members don’t realize it but they and their union are very selfish, ‘cause they want higher wages, they want the owners to make less profit, even though those owners worked far and away harder than the union members even thought of working. Plus they put up their own money to start the business. Plus the union members want an unfair advantage over the non-union people.
Sure, they will tell you that they want those non-union people to have union membership, but then we are right back where we started from. Those raises have meant nothing except to raise inflation.
Getting back to the “public option” in health care, do you really want your health care determined by the same people who run the USPS? It is a great service, but it is way over the cost to run it than it takes in, the same is true of Amtrak. And the list goes on and on.
Gordon “Doc” Smith, Kapahi
Open letter to Kaua‘i County
I would like the county to answer a question about the reason for spraying with pesticides along the highway and in the parks.
Honeybees are disappearing from our island and yet the county continues to think only about what is expedient, ignoring what is dangerous to insects and to people’s health. Please reply. I will be looking forward to the answer.
Marilyn Pollock, Hanalei
