ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

It’ll be reverse deja vu when voters go to the polls in November to decide whether to give up electing state board of education members and let the governor appoint them instead.

More than 40 years ago, just after statehood, Hawaii voters did just the opposite, rejecting an appointed board in favor of an elected one. Two attempts to reverse that decision at the polls since then have failed.

In 1964, the Hawaii State Legislature voted to let the public decide whether to abolish the state’s appointed board, inspired in part by the idea of becoming more like the other states, which had elected boards. Voters chose change, and in 1966, Hawaii’s first elected board of education was selected and took office.

The rhetoric that led to the change sounds eerily similar to what we’re hearing today. Only then, it was parents arguing that an elected board would bring more accountability for education. Today, with many frustrated over Furlough Fridays and the apparent inability of leaders to resolve the crisis, three former Democratic governors are among those leading the charge for an appointed board, claiming that it would — yes — improve accountability.

In the early ’60s, it was the Democratic Party and the Hawaii Congress of Parents and Teachers attacking the appointed-board for a number of reasons, including:

• Lack of accountability
• Being out of touch and not engendering parental and community support
• Being unqualified
• Using students as political pawns

Parents wanted more accountability. Students were underperforming, parents and voters had no say in who controlled educational policies and many felt the appointed board wasn’t listening to parents’ concerns. To top it off, many parents felt that the board appointments were based on politics rather than qualifications.

An elected board, the parents and teachers reasoned, would increase accountability by both serving as the ultimate educational policymaker and by bringing the schools and school policies “closer to the people,” according to an Oct. 19, 1964 article in The Honolulu Advertiser.

An earlier 1961 article included among a list of “pros” for an elected board: “Will attract candidates with better qualifications.”

Opponents, on the other hand, predicted an elected board would only lead to confusion and fragmentation of the school system. The use of students as political pawns, they said, would only intensify if candidates had to campaign for their seats.

The period between the passage of the amendment and the installation of the first elected board seemed to confirm parents’ worst fears.

The last appointed board tried to block the appointment of a new superintendent of curriculum, said former Superintendent R. Burl Yarberry, according to an Advertiser story on April 12, 1966.

Yarberry accused the board and the Legislature “of partisan political purposes so cynical, so hypocritical as to reduce the education of Hawaii’s children to nothing more than a vehicle upon which intrenched (sic) politicians can ride to victory at the polls.”

Twice since then, voters have had the choice to return to an appointed board, and twice they voted it down. The 1970 constitutional amendment proposal didn’t come close to passing. It received just over 70,000 votes while nearly 116,000 voted against it . A similar 1994 proposal came closer, but was again rejected, this time with a vote of about 80,000 in favor and 109,000 opposed.

The latest attempt stems from the efforts of three former governors. Like their party in 1964, which argued for an elected board, the governors and their allies argue that there are insufficient means for holding the board accountable for things like poor student achievement. Only this time, their solution is to return to an appointed board.

Given the conflicting views over the years, the words of R.P. Nolan, a representative for the Hawaii Congress of Parents and Teachers in 1964, sound prescient. He reminded parents and Legislators that the passage of an elected-board amendment would not be a cure-all for the education system’s ailments.

“We have said repeatedly that neither method of selecting the board will have the desired effect unless the schools receive more support from the people,” he said, according to an Advertiser article from Oct. 19, 1964.

The catalyst for the latest constitutional amendment seems to have been Furlough Fridays, which raised the ire of many in the public and led to as-yet unresolved finger-pointing among politicians. Such “buck passing” is a direct result of having an elected board, say former Govs. Ben Cayetano, George Ariyoshi and John Waihee.

“The governor, Legislature and elected school board all share responsibility for education,” they wrote on their . “Shared power means no one is accountable, and each group blames the others for failures.”

An appointed board would make one single person — the governor — ultimately responsible for educational outcomes, say the three former governors. Gov. Linda Lingle wants to go further, arguing that the governor should have the power to appoint the superintendent and the board of education should be eliminated.

Board of Education Chairman Garrett Toguchi opposes the amendment. The board now appoints the superintendent.

“When you look at what’s going on outside the Legislature, you don’t see parents, teachers or administrators saying we need an appointed board,” he said.

The public would lose touch with an appointed board and would have less influence over it, Toguchi said. Appointees might feel obligated to act on behalf of the politicians — under the amendment, the Legislature would confirm the appointees — who selected them, he warned. At least elected board members, he said, answer directly to the parents, teachers and administrators.

“We have a certain amount of autonomy, because we live and die by the decisions we make.”