STATE OF HAWAII
BOARD OF EDUCATION
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT COMMITTEE
Queen Liliuokalani Building
1390 Miller Street, Room 404
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Committee Chairperson Cox detailed that Board Chairperson Catherine Payne selected an evaluation team to evaluate Lei Hoʻolaha’s application. The evaluation team issued its report and based its recommendation on the Board’s approval criteria. She noted that the evaluation team’s recommendation report was attached as Exhibit A in the Committee’s meeting materials. Committee Chairperson Cox stated that the evaluation team is recommending that the Board deny Lei Hoʻolaha’s application for chartering authority.
Committee Chairperson Cox introduced the evaluation team members, including Jim Williams, Team Lead; Alice Kawakami; and Rand Yamasaki. She noted that Stephanie Klupinski, Evaluation Team Member, is a national expert and does not live in Hawaii so was unable to attend the meeting. Committee Chairperson Cox noted that no one from the applicant’s team opted to attend.
Williams detailed the evaluation team’s biographies. He detailed Klupinski’s authorizing work and highlighted that she was an invaluable member. He commended the evaluation team, Board Chairperson Payne, and Board Office staff. Williams stated that the evaluation team’s report is in the Committee’s meeting materials and asked if Committee members had any questions.
Williams stated that that the evaluation team recommends that the Board deny the applicant’s application. He reviewed the executive summary and noted that it emphasizes the negative aspects of the application because the evaluation team was explaining its recommendation. He stated that one portion of the evaluation team’s report highlights the applicant’s passion, commitment, and willingness to come forward. He emphasized the importance of recognizing these positive aspects and strengths. Williams stated that applicants could improve their applications and reapply in a future cycle. He noted that he does not want the positive aspects to get lost in the evaluation team’s report although the evaluation team is not recommending approval of the application.
Committee Member Brian De Lima agreed with Williams’ comments. He emphasized the importance of the evaluation team conducting the first application cycle in a way which is comprehensive and identifies strengths, weaknesses, and needs. He stated that the application cycle begins again in May 2020 and agreed with Williams’ comments regarding applicants improving applications and reapplying. He stated that he believes the applicant recognized that improvements were necessary because they did not appear at the Committee’s meeting nor were they critical of the evaluation team’s report to where they felt the need to submit reasons as to why the Board should approve the application. Committee Member De Lima stated that he is hopeful that future applicants would address deficiencies and legislation would provide financial support for multiple authorizers. He stated that the evaluation team’s report could serve as a roadmap for future approval. He highlighted that the evaluation’s team report was structured in a way in which it was easy to read, follow, and understand.
Committee Vice Chairperson Kili Namauʻu asked if the evaluation team received any indication that the applicant would be interested in using the report as a roadmap, addressing concerns, and reapplying in the next cycle. Williams explained that the evaluation team did not have this conversation with the applicant. He stated that the evaluation team interviewed the applicant and noted that the interview was the highlight of the entire process because it allowed the evaluation team to have an important conversation in a relatively informal setting. He detailed that the evaluation team did not draft its recommendation report until after the interview and had not made a decision at the time of the interview. Thus, the evaluation team did not engage in discussions with the applicant regarding next steps.
ACTION: Motion to approve the evaluation team’s recommendation to deny the application for chartering authority from Lei Hoʻolaha (De Lima/Payne). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.
Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Payne noted that the Legislative Ad Hoc Committee is concerned regarding where the funding for new authorizers would come from and wants to ensure that funding for authorizers would not divert funds from educational purposes or the State Public Charter School Commission (“Commission”) and that any legislation that occurs has a dedicated funding stream. She noted that the Legislative Ad Hoc Committee also wants to support proposed legislation that clarifies how the Commission and other authorizers fit into the charter school system, the Board’s role in this system, and recognizes the Board’s authority over operations and interactions between and among authorizers. She emphasized the importance of legislation that clarifies the multiple authorizer institutions but does not divert funding from current programs that are already not fully funded.
ACTION: Motion to adopt the policy positions described in Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Payne’s memorandum dated February 6, 2020 and incorporate them into the policy positions the Board adopted at its September 19, 2020 general business meeting for the 2020 Legislative Session, as shown in Exhibit B attached to Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Payne’s memorandum (De Lima/Uemura). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.
Committee Chairperson Cox adjourned the meeting at 9:42 a.m.