Over the past forty years we have had a gradual hardening of the arteries of the Hawaii school system. The only operation that can remedy this is a bypass--of the DOE.

Real charter schools are one way to do it. Thirteen U.S. states have spawned over 450 real charter schools in the last three years. Hawaii has none. We have two of what we call 'child-centered' schools. These are sort of pretend charter schools--not the real thing.

Real charter schools are ones where parents and teachers have joined together with a plan for independence and sought and won certification for independent funding. Typically, such schools nationally are free from collective bargaining constraints not only for teachers but also for staff members such as janitors and food preparers. Real charter schools are essentially one-school school districts.

Make no mistake, Hawaii's K-12 educational system is awash in money. Not for the way our DOE bureaucrats wish to spend it--but more than enough to give our children a superior education.

The $5,900 we spend annually per child is nearly $150,000 per classroom of 25 students. A teacher costs only $40,000, so where does the rest of it go? As New York's Teacher of the Year puts it, "We are currently wasting 75 cents out of every school dollar on grotesquely bloated administrative budgets, on phony 'coordinators' and an army of other non-teaching teachers, on useless materials, political handouts, and a dozen other boondoggles." As another example, in most foreign countries 75% or more of education staff are teachers. In the U.S. it is only 50%.

Contrary to popular belief charter schools across the nation are not for the affluent--they are more likely to be found in the inner city. A recent Hudson Institute survey of charter school students by former Assistant Secretary of Education Chester Finn shows that 63% are minority group members, 55% were poor, 19% had limited English proficiency, 4% were former dropouts and 19% had disabilities that affected their education. According to a survey by the Education Commission of the States, "half the charter schools were designed to serve 'at risk' youngsters."æ

It is a great shame that the teachers' unions locally and nationally mislead us as to what real charter schools could do for both teachers and parents. However, a decentralized school system would take power away from the unions and the bureaucracy. They will fight any loss of power.

The fact is that the teachers' union does not really represent the teachers. For example, it endorsed Milton Holt over Suzanne Chun-Oakland in the last election; try finding a teacher that did so. As another example, allowing for inflation, teachers' salaries nearly doubled between 1940 and 1970. Then the Legislature passed collective bargaining requirements and teachers had to be union members. Since then teachers salaries have actually declined in real money even though the expenditure per student has increased by over 80%. The union has been too busy promoting bureaucracy over books and teachers.

Real charter schools would allow parents and teachers choices of both locations and teaching methods. Charter schools tend to hire teachers who truly believe in a particular school's philosophy. Thus, schools, teachers and parents tend to all mesh together in their beliefs in the methods used; they do not have the one-size-fits-all approach.

Such choice is important. At the moment, "in Russia ... parents now have more freedom to choose the schools their children will attend than American parents do."

If Hawaii parents want charter schools it is important that they let their legislators know it. As the Heritage Foundation said in their recent review of charter schools nationally, "the legislative success of charter school legislation can be attributed to America's parents, no longer willing to tolerate substandard education for their children."

A penny saved is a penny earned. You probably heard that from your mother or shared it with your children. Although it may not be economically precise, those who espouse this practice usually wind up with more money.

Some of the most successful investors made their way to the top by following similar "grass-roots" advice. For example, Warren Buffett, renowned for his financial acumen, admits that his success has come not from precision market timing, but rather from buying quality stocks and being patient.

Investment guru Peter Lynch agrees. "Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for market corrections or trying to anticipate corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves," he says.

Buying value is the basis of success, and there's a lot of down-home advice to support that idea. Benjamin Graham, economist and author of The Intelligent Investor, says, "When selecting a stock to buy, select one you think you will never have a reason to sell." Put in simpler terms, "Better to pay a fair price for a good company than a cheap price for a loser."

Mark Twain offered sound advice on poor value and its partner, speculation. "There are two times in a man's life when he should not speculate: when he can't afford it and when he can." For some, that might be too strict. "Only speculate with what you can afford to lose" applies to most investors.

Buffet says patience is more important than market timing, and patience is most important during stock market "corrections," a Wall Street euphemism meaning "when stocks go down." "In a correction, the market goes down much faster than it goes up, as panicked investors stampede to get out."

Graham advises that investors should be prepared financially and psychologically for the possibility of poor short-term results. For example, in the 1973-74 decline, investors would have lost money on paper. Those stuck with their investments would have recouped their losses in 1975-76 and earned a 15 percent return for the five-year period. This is a classic illustration that patience neutralizes risk.

Another piece of common-sense advice is that successful investing usually does not come from inside information and tips. Joseph Kennedy walked away unscathed from the stock market crash of 1929. He is alleged to have attributed his remarkable timing to bailing out of the market based on tips he received at a shoeshine stand. That may or may not be true. But what is true is that investors have made some of the worst investments based on tips and inside information. You're better off realizing that "nobody can accurately predict short-term market movements." And whatever happens with the market, "don't follow the crowd, it's usually wrong."

Some of the best advice is some of the oldest advice. It has passed the test of time because it's common sense, and it works. If you like the few pieces of advice in this article, you'll probably enjoy a whole lot more compiled by Robert H. Thomas in his book, Wall Street Wit and Wisdom.

One final bit of advice: "An investor's worst enemy is not the stock market, but oneself."

Crime is a hot issue in Hawaii. Conservatives want to punish criminals. A justifiable idea. Liberals want to rehabilitate criminals. A noble idea. Now isn't there a way to accomplish both objectives without ignoring the victims?

Yes. It is called restitution. Requiring criminals to provide restitution to victims is a good way to combine both punishment and rehabilitation. While attempting to restore the losses of the victim, the criminal realizes the consequences of, and the responsibility for, his or her actions.

Evaluating the loss of a victim is not easy. Surely robbery, rape, murder, or other crimes of force and fraud involve more than money. But a financial evaluation of the loss can help to repair, to compensate, and to console the victim-especially if it must come from the criminal, himself or herself. Currently, it is usually the taxpayer who pays the bills for damages, for prosecution, for incarceration-and that only compounds the crime on innocent people.

A rich criminal should fully pay for all of these costs. But what of the poor criminal? He, or she, can and should pay as well if a secure industrial center is located next to every prison. Any business should be allowed to hire these criminals in the center and pay them the market rate for labor. These should not be subsidized with privileges, as with some federal programs, nor prohibited from competing in the market.

The earnings can be garnished to pay restitution to the victims of their crimes, to pay their room and board in the prison, and to pay the legal costs of putting them there. The benefit to the criminal is that they learn responsibility, they develop employment skills, and a savings account that will help them survive outside of prison when they are released, and they serve their time without burdening the taxpayer. The lifestyle of a prisoner will be constrained by their own earning potential, not that of the taxpayers.

Restituion should be the highest priority of criminal law. But what about people who are arrested as criminals when there is no real victim? Ah, then there is no real crime. People should not be arrested and punished for simply living a lifestyle that is disapproved of by others. The government should not make a victim out of the taxpayer, least of all when it depletes scarce public security resources for use against real crime.

Declared John Stuart Mill, "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm of others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

Why is it important to define the proper role of government action? So that the government, itself, does not become the criminal and the citizentry the victims.