‘Decentralizing PSS monetary powers is feasible’

In response to a House of Representatives’ measure that would allow school principals to determine their school year budgets, local historian, veteran teacher, and former Board of Education chair Don Farrell said an alternative plan to decentralize the Public School System’s monetary powers is feasible.

A possible alternative, he said, is based on PSS’ guaranteed 25 percent share of the annual CNMI general fund revenues.

Farrell said that converting PSS’ fiscal year budget into a calendar year budget would bring the focus of available funds to the school level. He mirrored the issue of decentralization to that of the Department of Education in Hawaii.

According to Hawaii News Now, a privately funded research think tank called Education Institute of Hawaii found that 65 percent of Hawaii principals are afraid to speak up against the DOE for fear of retaliation in terms of decentralizing power.

Ray L’Heureux, former DOE assistant superintendent and a member of the think tank, is quoted as saying that in terms of Hawaii’s budgetary and school achievement predicament, “…it’s not just about decentralizing, it’s about changing the culture of the system.”

“The only way to get high performance and strong results is when decisions are made by the people who are actually doing the work,” according to Darrell Galera, 2010 Hawaii High School Principal of the year and 2004 Central Oahu District Principal of the year.

Rep. Felicidad Ogumoro, who authored the local bill, is now seeking input from parents and community members on her proposal to give principals a say in their respective budgets. Board of Education chair Herman Guerrero has opposed the bill.

In a letter to the Saipan Tribune yesterday, Farrell said that “if the bill is adopted and signed into law, there is no doubt the dedicated administration and faculties at each school, although already overburdened, will follow the law and create a model budget. There is also no doubt that when the individual school budgets reach the central office, the total will far exceed the overall budget and either be cut by central office or sent back to the schools to be redone, at the further expense of time and aggravation.”

This echoes the sentiments of school principals who were asked via email about their opinion on the issue. However, Farrell’s proposal offers flexibility that a fiscal year does not.

Farrell stated that during his time on the board from 1995 to 1999, no serious efforts at decentralization occurred but the minimizing of the central office powers and the focus of available funds were at the school level, allowing principals control.

He stated that leaving expenditure authority entirely up to PSS bosses only offers centralized freedom to decide on allocation, which is not always in the best interest of individual schools.

Farrell’s proposal for a calendar year instead of a fiscal year offers school-level power in terms of budget calculation, allocation and “if the CNMI annual revenues are underestimated, as they should be in a growing economy, then adjustments can be made at the end of each fiscal year, with a bonus for each school that lived within its budget,” he said.