STATE OF HAWAII
BOARD OF EDUCATION
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT COMMITTEE

MINUTES

Queen Liliuokalani Building
1390 Miller Street, Room 404
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Thursday, December 6, 2018

PRESENT:
Margaret Cox, Committee Chairperson
Patricia Bergin, Committee Vice Chairperson
Brian De Lima, Esq.
Kili Namau‘u
Catherine Payne
David Texeira (student representative)

EXCUSED:
None

ALSO PRESENT:
Phyllis Unebasami, Deputy Superintendent
Kathleen Dimino, Baldwin-Kekaulike-Maui Complex Area Superintendent
Wendy Heyd, Resource Teacher, Baldwin-Kekaulike-Maui Complex Area
Catherine Kilborn, Principal, Baldwin High School
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Board Private Secretary
Irina Dana, Secretary

I. Call to Order

The Student Achievement Committee (“Committee”) was called to order by Committee Chairperson Margaret Cox at 12:04 p.m.


II. *Public testimony on Student Achievement Committee (“Committee”) agenda items

Committee Chairperson Cox called for public testimony. The following people provided oral testimony.

Name
Organization
Agenda Item
Position
Pilimai TraubHakipuʻu Learning Center IV.B. Update on status of multiple charter school authorizer system Comment
Abigail WrightHakipuʻu Learning CenterIV.B. Update on status of multiple charter school authorizer systemComment
Charlene HoeNâ Lei CollaborationIV.B. Update on status of multiple charter school authorizer systemSupport/Comment
Gene ZarroPublic IV.B. Update on status of multiple charter school authorizer systemSupport/Comment
Ipo Torio-KauhanePublic IV.B. Update on status of multiple charter school authorizer systemComment

Pilimai Traub, Hakipuʻu Learning Center, testified on the importance of the Board of Education (“Board”) establishing a multiple charter school authorizer system. She detailed her experience working with charter schools and emphasized challenges for staff, including traveling costs. Traub explained that a multiple charter school authorizer system would mitigate these challenges.

Abigail Wright, Hakipuʻu Learning Center, testified on the importance of a multiple charter school authorizer system and described the anxiety she felt when the State Public Charter School Commission (“Commission”) came to assess her school.

Charlene Hoe, Nâ Lei Collaboration, testified in support of a multiple charter school authorizer system and emphasized the importance of the Board expediting its timeline. She detailed best practices for authorizers and explained the challenges the Commission faces as the only authorizer in the state. Hoe offered to help the Board in its efforts to establish a multiple charter school authorizer system and detailed the importance of reviewing whether it should create a shorter timeline.

Committee Vice Chairperson Patricia Bergin asked what would be a reasonable timeline. Hoe stated that a yearlong process to develop and design documents and framework would be reasonable. She stated that this would allow new authorizers to begin authorizing in 2020.

Gene Zarro, member of the public, testified in support of a multiple charter school authorizer system and detailed best practices for authorizers, including portfolios. He described the challenges that the Commission faces and explained how a multiple charter school authorizer system would mitigate these challenges.

Committee Member Brian De Lima encouraged the public to review drafts of documents for a multiple charter school authorizer system once they are available. He stated that the Legislature set forth a process for the Board to review additional authorizers and the Board is in the midst of that process. Committee Member De Lima noted that five entities indicated interest in becoming an authorizer, and it is important to consider when they would be ready to submit applications. He noted that the Board is in the midst of drafting documents and would be approving documents this fiscal year. He emphasized the importance of the public providing the Board feedback on the first draft of documents.

Zarro stated that he could review draft documents before they come before the Board to vet issues ahead of time.

Committee Member De Lima stated that he would be okay with this and noted that once the Board approves documents, it would need to review applications and make decisions the following fiscal year. Following that, it would need to establish a process for schools to transfer to new authorizers. He stated that he is anxious to move the process forward but simultaneously needs to be realistic.

Zarro stated that he understood and emphasized the importance of the Board moving in the right direction.

Committee Member De Lima stated that the purpose of updating the public on the status of the multiple charter school authorizer system is to show the public that the Board understands that it needs to move the process forward.

Ipo Torio-Kauhane, member of the public, testified on the importance of the Board including the public in the establishment of a multiple charter school authorizer system. Torio-Kauhane stated that the charter school movement is based on relationships and detailed the importance of the charter school community engaging in the formulation of drafts beyond providing feedback. Torio-Kauhane stated that the charter school community would like to move forward with solidarity, acknowledgement, and respect.


III. Approval of Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2018

ACTION: Motion to approve the Student Achievement Committee Meeting minutes of November 1, 2018 (De Lima/Bergin). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.


IV. Discussion Items

Phyllis Unebasami, Deputy Superintendent, introduced Kathleen Dimino, Baldwin-Kekaulike-Maui Complex Area Superintendent (“CAS”). She stated that the presentation is a continuation of the Committee’s request to understand the direction CASs are setting for special education and English learners (“EL”).

Dimino introduced Wendy Heyd, Resource Teacher, Baldwin-Kekaulike-Maui Complex Area, and Catherine Kilborn, Principal, Baldwin High School

Dimino stated that the complex area is comprised of 20 schools, including 13 elementary schools, four intermediate schools, and three high schools. She reviewed student demographic highlights. She noted that the complex area has 13,204 students in general education classrooms, 1,442 students receive special education services, 164 students receive both special education and EL services, and 1,289 students receive EL services.

Dimino reviewed special education demographics for School Year (“SY”) 2017-2018, including the five most prevalent eligibility categories. She highlighted that the complex area provides support to students with disabilities in all categories. Dimino detailed that the five most prevalent eligibility categories are specific learning disabilities, other health impairments, developmental delays, autism, and intellectual disabilities. She stated that students with specific learning disabilities comprise 37.56% of the student population and are the largest population that the complex area serves. Dimino reviewed how many students receiving special education services spend 80% or more of their day in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). She noted that 43.56% of special education students spend 80% or more of their day in the LRE and stated that the complex area recognizes that this is 20% less than the national average.

Dimino reviewed the multitude of languages spoken by students receiving EL services. She stated that 25% of these students speak Ilokano, 14% speak Marshallese, 12% speak Spanish, 10% speak Pohnpeian, 8% speak Tagalog, and 30% speak 30 other languages. Dimino noted that Maui has been identified as having the largest population of EL students in Hawaii.

Dimino reviewed the percentage of students who met English language arts (“ELA”) and math standards by subgroup and year. She noted that the complex area’s progress correlated with schools’ commitment to targeting interventions that meet the unique needs of individual students.

Dimino stated that the complex area ensures that it meets students’ needs and noted that it provides students with remediation of skills that they might require. She detailed differentiation within general education settings and further detailed how schools attend to the unique needs of each student through the response-to-intervention (“RTI”) framework, such as providing computer assistance instruction as well as targeted instruction. Dimino highlighted that schools review data carefully and examine programs they have in place that impact student achievement. She further highlighted that one school redesigned its test environment and increased scores. Other schools are reviewing pacing and realigning to ensure that students are learning concepts. Dimino reviewed exit data and noted that 26.58% of students receiving special education services exited special education programs because they transferred to general education classrooms. These students underwent reevaluations, and schools found that they were no longer eligible for special education services. Dimino noted that this does not mean that schools stop monitoring students once they exit special education programs. She added that schools monitor students on a daily basis using formative assessments and daily schoolwork. Schools also use universal screening to monitor progress in reading and math, and teachers and counselors monitor grades and credits and send mid-quarter reports to parents.

Dimino reviewed teacher demographics for SY 2017-2018, including how many teachers in general education and special education programs are licensed and how many are first-year teachers. She stated that out of 974 general education teachers, 96.4% are licensed and 6.8% are first-year teachers. Out of 169 special education teachers, 92.3% are licensed and 12.4% are first-year teachers. Dimino reviewed the complex area’s inclusion efforts and stated that there is evidence students receiving EL and special education services progress when schools provide them with opportunities to receive instruction with their peers. She noted that the complex area has had multiple failed efforts in implementing effective inclusion models for one of its schools on Maui. She highlighted that the complex area is excited that the Department provided the complex area with a model that includes systematic approaches. Dimino highlighted several of the complex area’s inclusion efforts, including samples of instruction, project-based learning, and art integration. She further highlighted that Baldwin High School made changes in order to implement inclusion successfully.

Kilborn stated that inclusion specifically speaks to special education, but Baldwin High School wants to ensure that it gives every student equal opportunity to maximize potential. She stated that schools traditionally provided special education services in a secluded format. However, inclusion benefits all students, including students in general education and special education classrooms. In order to facilitate change, Baldwin High School made changes to how it approaches special education.

Kilborn noted that schools traditionally create master schedules by focusing on students in general education classrooms and then fit in students who receive EL and special education services. Baldwin High School no longer creates master schedules in this manner. Every year, Baldwin High School reviews each student individually and asks what each student needs to be included and successful. She highlighted that Baldwin High School places students who receive EL and special education services first and then builds a master schedule around these students.

Kilborn stated that one kind of instructor traditionally serves students, such as a special education teacher. However, best practices recognize that many formats allow students to succeed. She highlighted that Baldwin High School asks whether students need advanced support, peer support, paraprofessionals, classrooms with two teachers, or special education resource rooms. Kilborn highlighted that Baldwin High School is attempting to increase inclusion while simultaneously reviewing students’ needs. This year, Baldwin High School is creating a peer assistance and leadership program that it will have in place next year using students who have aptitude and a desire to assist students receiving special education services. Kilborn stated that in addition to academics, inclusion at Baldwin High School includes the school reviewing social and emotional needs. She stated that Baldwin High School has created programs in order to integrate students socially. The result of its efforts is that its school community sees belonging rather than differences.

Dimino stated that the complex area is creating meaningful change, but it is challenging. When reviewing data, the complex area asks whether it is providing equitable opportunities for students to build schools. She stated that it is vital that students have choices and not feel forced into careers because they do not have the skills to pursue careers they want.

Dimino stated that students in the complex area are progressing, including students who receive EL and special education services. However, the complex area is largely dependent on RTI to meet individual needs. The complex area needs a long-term plan so that upper grade levels can focus on their intended content. Dimino stated that the complex area’s long-term plan is to target lower grades so that students meet proficiency in ELA and math by sixth grade. She highlighted that the complex area is using the hexagon tool to plan core reading instruction, math projects, and inclusion implementation. The hexagon tool helps states, districts, and schools systematically evaluate new and existing interventions via six broad factors, including need, fit, resources, evidence, readiness, and capacity. It is also focusing on early literacy and math specifically to affect student achievement for all students in grades six through 12. She highlighted that a cohort of schools implemented targeted early literacy reading the previous year. In order to measure impact, the complex area is using this first cohort as a sample. By the time students in this cohort reach third grade, they will have received instruction in lower grades. She stated that the first cohort outperformed the second cohort, which started the program this year, in baseline scores. These scores and cohorts include students who receive EL and special education services.

Heyd reviewed the complex area’s model that it uses for early literacy instruction. She stated that the model is evidence-based and provides deliberate practice for all students. It includes a series of teaching outlines designed to increase effectiveness and is used for enhancement and intervention. Heyd detailed that the outline provides students with opportunities to learn skills and concepts. Furthermore, it is engaging and interactive. She highlighted that the tool challenged at-risk students’ beliefs about themselves as readers and convinced them that they could sound like fluid readers.

Dimino stated that math teams celebrated progress that schools are making after reviewing math scores. However, the complex area agrees that scores are low and is not satisfied. She noted that, similar to ELA, the complex area needs to target core instruction in math in order to have substantial long-term progress for all students.

Heyd stated that the complex area convened a math taskforce the previous year to review complex area data and draft a plan for improving the teaching and learning of math. The taskforce was comprised of teachers, administration, and complex area staff. The taskforce addressed kindergarten through twelfth grade continuum and focused on the belief that intervention needed to be teachable, learnable, doable, readily assessed, scalable, and practiced if it was to be used effectively to reach all students. Heyd noted that the taskforce understood that it did not have the capacity in one year to support all schools in the complex area. She stated that the complex area used data and had discussions with administration about projects, and schools and teachers decided on projects with administrative staff. Heyd highlighted that the complex area is also having discussions with students regarding math instruction and asking them which concepts they remember and why they think they remember these concepts. The complex area is collecting information from these discussions and sharing it with principals and the taskforce.

Heyd highlighted that the complex area started the elementary project with summer math camp. Students were exposed to sessions three times per week to build a sense of numbers and math discourse, and teachers received ongoing professional learning and coaching. In intermediate schools, all math teachers embraced an outlined process and participated in planning, teaching, and collaborative reflection. Heyd detailed that professional learning communities reviewed essential learning and how to ensure math experience in middle school matches math experience in high school. High school teachers are engaged in lesson studies and teachers collaboratively plan lessons for classrooms and then get together to teach, learn, debrief, and reflect. Heyd highlighted that the complex area’s vision is to transform classrooms into learning spaces where students are engaged in tasks, persevering through problems, talking to one another about mathematics, and demonstrating understanding.

Dimino reviewed the complex area’s engagement with family and community partners. She highlighted the complex area’s various community partners, including the Maui Police Department, the Children’s Justice Center, the Department of Health, the Maui Arts and Cultural Center, and Read across America. Dimino detailed that this year the complex area reached out to community organizations to introduce and provide community focus for instruction. Dimino highlighted the Board Policy E-3, entitled “Nâ Hopena Aʻo” (“H”), framework and stated that it supports the outcomes that the complex area wants for its students, staff, and communities. She detailed the complex area’s implementation of the H framework and stated that the complex area uses the H framework as a universal design for learning and a model of support for all of its schools. The complex area is reviewing how to provide support in conjunction with student voice, school design, and teacher collaboration. Dimino stated that the complex area is working to support initiatives and put together systems that are evidence-based and target the needs of all students, including students receiving EL and special education services. She further detailed that the complex area is providing support to students in the form of short-term interventions and is soliciting schools’ input on long-term solutions for higher levels of achievement, including higher-level math literacy, systematic support, and professional development regarding class strategies.

Committee Member Kili Namau‘u asked how long Baldwin High School has been implementing its master schedule changes. Kilborn stated that it has been doing so for two years. Committee Member Namau‘u asked if its implementation has been successful and accommodating and whether students are able to interact. Kilborn detailed that the school reviewed data in its inclusion classes and noted that students grew three to four grade levels. While students may not be testing proficiently on tests as of yet, the school knows that they are growing. She stated that it has not been an easy transition because it requires teachers to develop a philosophical belief and understanding, but students have expressed satisfaction. Committee Member Namau‘u stated that she would like to visit Baldwin High School and see its processes in action.

Committee Member Namau‘u asked if other schools are implementing a similar process. Dimino stated that some schools have inclusive practices but different structures and use other ways to include students. She added that Maui High School would be joining the next cohort. Dimino highlighted that the complex area has been sharing Baldwin High School’s practices with other schools because if a high school of that size can accomplish these practices, then other schools can also successfully implement similar practices. She noted that it was a huge task for Baldwin High School to turn its master schedule around.

Committee Chairperson Cox stated that she is a firm believer that schools need to implement consistent vocabulary and other instruction from kindergarten through twelfth grade because students do not make connections unless schools help them make connections. She stated that students in lower grade levels should be receiving specific instruction so that it is easier for them to move into the high school level. Dimino noted that ten schools are using the Stetson model. Kilborn stated that Baldwin High School worked closely with intermediate schools and is involved in individualized education program meetings for eighth graders transitioning to the high school. Baldwin High School is engaged in direct conversation and changed the ways in which it introduces students to the high school culture. She highlighted the school’s math project and further highlighted that schools used the kindergarten through twelfth grade approach for the math project so that students have similar vocabulary and experiences.

Committee Chairperson Cox asked if the complex area is persuading other high schools to use similar practices. Dimino stated that the complex area wants to ensure that it implements programs and practices the right way so that each school is successful.

Committee Chairperson Cox asked if Baldwin High School provides teachers who teach in inclusion classrooms with planning time. Kilborn stated that master scheduling is not just for students. She noted that the school dedicates planning time during the day and provides 40-minute blocks for special education teams to meet. In addition, teachers have opportunities to meet and plan during floating periods. Kilborn highlighted that the school’s vice-principal is dedicated to monitoring and ensuring that planning takes place.

Committee Chairperson Cox noted that it takes funding in order for inclusion and planning to occur and asked if the school’s special education funding is sufficient. Kilborn explained that the school uses special education funding specifically for personnel and does not use it for additional supplies. The school sees special education funding as intended for students. Kilborn highlighted that the school created an RTI resource room for students to meet with case managers and work on math and reading skills in order to support inclusion. This means that the school needs to pay for those periods, but it causes compression of other classes. Committee Chairperson Cox asked if the school receives special education funding for supplies. Kilborn confirmed that it does not. Committee Chairperson Cox asked if this is the complex area’s decision. Kilborn explained that it is a weighted student formula decision. Committee Chairperson Cox asked whether special education funding is specifically for personnel or whether schools could decide how to use special education funding. Kilborn explained that special education funds are categorical. She noted that if the school needs special education teachers, there is no additional funding for supplies. Committee Chairperson Cox explained that she is trying to understand if the problem is that schools do not have enough funding to do what they need to do.

Committee Member De Lima asked if the complex area fills all of its special education positions. Dimino stated that sometimes it has vacancies. Committee Member De Lima asked if funding is returned to the state in the case of vacancies and whether the complex area is able to utilize salary savings. He asked how long Dimino has been in her position. Dimino stated that she has been in her position for one year and two months.

Committee Member De Lima stated that the Board and Department plan to reprogram funding this year and stated that there should be discussion regarding how the Department should reprogram funding if there are vacancies, such as using reprogrammed funding for supplies. He stated that these discussions could also occur at the complex area level, and CASs should provide input when meeting with the Superintendent.

Committee Member De Lima expressed concern over the percentage of students with specific learning disabilities. He stated that the most common learning disability is reading and stated that his concern is whether the complex area is utilizing special education resources for literacy coaches or literacy interventions rather than taking resources that should be for severely handicapped children. Dimino confirmed that this is what the complex area is doing and detailed special education and EL data that the complex area reviews. She stated that the complex area is trying to enhance core instruction to meet student’s needs.

Committee Member De Lima commended the complex area’s inclusion efforts and asked if ten schools are participating in Stetson. Dimino confirmed that ten of the complex area’s schools are participating in Stetson. Committee Member De Lima asked if the complex area has received positive feedback from schools. Dimino stated that the complex area is using the Department’s model. She detailed that it is structured, and it focuses on planning and students’ needs. Dimino stated that the model has made a huge difference, and schools do not need to figure out what to do. Committee Member De Lima stated that the Stetson model helps schools, and asked if schools would train their own individuals to replicate the model. Dimino explained that trainers are already in the process of training individuals so that next year’s cohorts would have someone to work with to continue the process.

Committee Member De Lima stated that the complex area faces many challenges and asked how long each individual has been a part of the complex area. Dimino stated that Heyd has been a resource teacher for some time. Committee Member De Lima asked if the complex area has anecdotal feedback regarding whether there has been a commitment or attitude change. Dimino stated that there has been a mindset change and detailed Baldwin High School’s commitment to changing its master schedule. Committee Member De Lima stated that attitude is important to success. Dimino stated that schools believe in inclusion and need the skills to implement inclusion. Committee Member De Lima stated that inclusion would benefit students and schools in the end.

Committee Chairperson Cox asked about inclusion at Kekaulike High School. Dimino explained that Kekaulike High School is not using the Stetson model, but it incorporates inclusive practices. She stated that it has tried a co-teaching model and is trying to find the right model to implement.

Committee Chairperson Cox stated that there have been delays in completion of the multiple authorizer system due to other Board priorities taking precedent and complications related to the current structure of the charter school system, specifically the lack of centralized support for charter schools provided by a non-authorizing entity. She detailed that the Board must establish a system that permits the creation of multiple charter school authorizers. Even though the Board has other priorities, it should continue to make a good-faith effort to meet its obligations. The Board and its staff have put forward effort on work related to the multiple authorizer system, but key documents have taken a backseat.

Committee Chairperson Cox stated that Board staff released a request for information (“RFI”) in April to gauge which parties are interested in becoming new charter school authorizers. Five interested parties, including three nonprofit organizations and two postsecondary institutions, submitted responses to the RFI. Estimated dates of when they would be ready to begin the application process ranged from December 2018 to Fall 2019.

Committee Chairperson Cox stated that she is issuing a new general timeline for the development of the multiple authorizer system. The timeline is based on the latest estimated date the interested parties provided for being ready to begin the application process. She noted that she would inform the Committee if the Board Chairperson determines that there is not enough time for staff to meet the new timeline because of other Board priorities. She added that testifiers offered support to move the process forward and noted that she understands that everyone would like the process to move faster, but the Board may be unable to complete the process faster. Committee Chairperson Cox stated that the Committee should review whether it could move forward at a faster rate.

Committee Vice Chairperson Patricia Bergin expressed appreciation for testifiers and their offers of support. She noted that the buy-in would be more palatable if the Committee included charter school leaders in discussions as it drafted documents. She stated that she has had the opportunity to attend the National Association of Charter School Authorizers conferences.

Committee Chairperson Cox stated that Committee Vice Chairperson Bergin could provide the Committee with information she learned from conferences in the future.

Committee Member De Lima stated that the timeline sets a foundation, but documents necessary for approval and review could be completed sooner, which might decrease the timeline by a couple of months, but additional cuts to the timeline may not be possible. He stated that it is important to be vigilant and complete the process as soon as possible to meet the legislative mandate. He stated that charter schools, especially new ones, need support and resources that present statute does not permit. He noted that the Commission is limited in its ability to provide support to charter schools. Committee Member De Lima stated that there have been discussions regarding how the Commission could support schools, and these discussions need to continue. He noted that there would always be a need for resources, and it is important to be cognizant of this. As the process moves forward, the Committee should be cognizant of what is occurring regarding that need. He noted that some charter schools have matured and existed for so long that they do not necessarily have a need for technical support. Committee Member De Lima stated that he agrees with the current timeline and is supportive of Board staff working with charter schools that are interested in providing input so that the result is a product that everyone is able to support.

Committee Vice Chairperson Bergin agreed with Committee Member De Lima and stated that she is supportive of Board staff because they have many other priorities that they need to address as well and noted that support from charter school leaders may be helpful in accomplishing this difficult task.


V. Adjournment

Committee Chairperson Cox adjourned the meeting at 1:10 p.m.