P.O. Box 2360
Honolulu, HI 96804(808) 586-3332
Fax: (808) 586-3433
Email the BOE
BOE Home
About the BOE
Document Library
Meeting Notices
Meeting Minutes
Submit Testimony
Ombudsman
Member Profiles
Media Library
Site Map
Members
| Board of Education Committee Meetings |
APPROVED
STATE OF HAWAII
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Committee of the Whole on Regular Education, K-12
(Performance Standards; Assessment and Accountability; Student Discipline;
Guidance and Counseling; Career and Technical Education; Hawaiian Education)
Tuesday, June 8, 2004
Minutes
Attendance
Board of Education
Sherwood Hara, Chairperson
Denise Matsumoto, Vice Chairperson
Shannon Ajifu
Mary Cochran
Carol Gabbard
Breene Harimoto
Shelton Jim On
Karen Knudsen (Excused)
Bryce Mendez
Shirley Robinson
Laura Thielen
Garrett Toguchi
Herbert Watanabe (Excused)
Randall Yee
Galen Onouye, Executive Director
Alison Kim, Analyst
Department of Education
Patricia Hamamoto, Superintendent of Education
Dr. Claudia Chun, Assistant Superintendent, OHR
Katherine Kawaguchi, Assistant Superintendent, OCISS
Wendell Staszkow, Personnel Director, OHR
Dr. Elaine Takenaka, Educational Administrative Services Director, OCISS
Anthony Calabrese, Arts, Sciences and Technology Section, Instructional Services Branch, OCISS
Judy McCoy, Languages Section, Instructional Services Branch, OCISS
Brian Mizuguchi, Honolulu Personnel Regional Office, OHR
Dr. Marian Crislip, Languages Section, Instructional Services Branch, OCISS
Bernice Kihara, Languages Section, Instructional Services Branch, OCISS
Dr. Gloria Kishi, Languages Section, Instructional Services Branch, OCISS
Kathy Nishimura, Arts, Sciences and Technology Section, Instructional Services Branch, OCISS
Barbara Smith, Languages Section, Instructional Services Branch, OCISS
Helene Tom, Languages Section, Instructional Services Branch, OCISS
Others
Arlene Lee, Hawaii State Teachers Association
Maurice Morita, Hawaii State Teachers Association
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Committee of the Whole on Regular Education, K-12 (Committee) was called to order by Committee Chairperson Sherwood Hara at 3:02 p.m. in the Board Room, Queen Liliuokalani Building.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Gabbard moved, and Mr. Harimoto seconded, to approve the minutes of the Committee of the Whole on Regular Education, K-12, meeting held on May 11, 2004.
The motion carried.
III. PRESENTATION ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 35 OF ACT 51, SESSION LAWS OF HAWAII 2004, REINVENTING EDUCATION ACT OF 2004, ON CLASS SIZES IN KINDERGARTEN, GRADE ONE, AND GRADE TWO
Mr. Staszkow referred to a memorandum dated May 28, 2004, from the Superintendent to the Board. He indicated that regarding the class size cap of 25 students in each class for kindergarten, grade one, and grade two, the Department is looking at all students in each classroom and counting them. For example, if there are 20 regular education students and 6 special education students, the count would be 26 students in the classroom, which would be a determinant as to whether the grade level deserves another teacher. Therefore, the students would not be “weighted,” and every child would could as one student.
Mr. Staszkow said it becomes a three-part process. The Department will look at each classroom and give an allocation based on the 20:1 ratio in grades K-2 and 27:1 ratio in grades 3-6. The Department will then look at the special education students and the regular education students, or Article 6, or the extra teachers who are given because of special education students being in regular education. Then the Department will look at sheer numbers, i.e., more than 26 students in the classroom, and then be able to allocate resources this way. Therefore, along the way, every class in K-2 will be 25 students or less. Due to the class size cap of 25 in grades K-2, it appears that other grades will also benefit from the cap.
In response to Ms. Cochran, Mr. Mizuguchi said that Act 51, Session Laws of Hawaii (SLH) 2004, targets smaller elementary schools, or schools that have 74 students or less in kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2.
IV. UPDATE ON THE STANDARDS-BASED REPORT CARD
Ms. Kawaguchi indicated that the Department has just completed the first year of the Standards-Based Report Card pilot, in which ten schools were involved. She said that the project first started in the Planning and Evaluation Branch, but moved to the Instructional Services Branch, Office of Curriculum, Instruction and Student Support (OCISS).
Ms. Nishimura summarized the Standards-Based Report Card Implementation Timeline as follows:
· 2003-2004 Elementary School Paper/Pencil Pilot (10 schools)
· 2004-2005 Elementary School Electronic Pilot
Secondary Electronic Pilot of New SIS with Current Report Card (2 schools). (The two schools are Kahuku High School and Waianae Intermediate School)
· 2005-2006 Statewide Elementary Schools Implementation, Phase I
Secondary Electronic Pilot with Standards-Based Report Card
(2 schools)
· 2006-2007 Statewide Elementary Schools Implementation, Phase 2
Statewide Secondary Schools Implementation, Phase 1
· 2007-2008 Statewide Secondary Schools Implementation, Phase 2
Ms. Nishimura also referred to a standards-based grading timeline, as follows:
Standards-Based Grading Standards-Based Report Card
2005-2006 All elementary schools Phase I elementary schools
implement standards- implement electronic standards-
based grading based report card
2006-2007 All secondary schools All elementary schools
implement standards- implement electronic standards-
based grading, based report card
therefore,
All schools will implement Phase I secondary schools
standards-based grading implement electronic
standards-based report card
2007-2008 All schools implement All schools implement
standards-based grading electronic standards-based
report card
The ten pilot elementary schools are: Alvah Scott, Haaheo, Haiku, Iroquois Point, Kalaheo, Maili, Maunawili, Mililani Ike, Mountain View, and Wilson.
Ms. Kawaguchi clarified that grade point averages (GPA) will still be issued, along with the standards-based report card.
Ms. Nishimura directed the Committee to Board Policy 4510, Reporting Student Progress, and Department of Education Regulations 4510.1, Reporting Student Progress. In response to teachers who have inquired about the standards-based report card, Ms. Nishimura outlined the following in using the standards-based report card, the importance of: (1) Understanding Hawaii’s system of standards; (2) Completing curriculum mapping and ensuring coherency of grade-level and course curricula to the standards; (3) Teaching with the standards as a focus; (4) Assessing work for evidence of meeting the standards; (5) Having students self-assess and practice providing status reports to the teacher and parents; (6) Understanding standards-based grading—know that it is different from traditional grading practices; and (7) Learning to effectively use the standards-based report card.
Two types of standards-based reports were discussed: (1) Progress Report (1st and 3rd quarters), which will provide student and parent information about the student’s progress in meeting Hawaii’s standards and what can be done to improve performance. This report includes attendance, General Learner Outcomes, content area (progress towards standards achievement), recommended actions, and comments (teacher, student, parent); and (2) Status Report (2nd and 4th quarters—end-of-semester), which is a summary report of each student’s achievement of the standards for the reporting period. This report includes attendance, General Learner Outcomes, content area grades, and comments.
The standards-based report card grading scale for the elementary level is: E = Exceeds Proficiency; M = Meets Proficiency, All Standards; S = Meets Proficiency, Majority of Standards; N = Needs Improvement/Approaches Proficiency; U = Well Below Proficiency; and SC = See Comments.
The standards-based report card grading scale for the secondary level is: A = Exceeds Proficiency; B = Meets Proficiency, All Standards; C = Meets Proficiency, Majority of Standards; D = Approaches Proficiency; F = Well Below Proficiency; NA = Not applicable at this time or incomplete; and SC = See Comments.
Ms. Thielen asked whether there was enough planning regarding notifying parents ahead of the transition and change to the standards-based report card, and the expectations for students. Mr. Toguchi indicated that he also had brought up the need to effectively plan to make parents and students aware of the upcoming change to a standards-based report card. Mr. Jim On suggested the use of hotlines and Mr. Toguchi suggested the use of a professional public relations firm to communicate the change to a standards-based report card.
V. UPDATE ON BOARD OF EDUCATION POLICY 2010, LITERACY POLICY
The Department spoke about the following initiatives:
(1) Under Reading Initiatives—Instruction, Assessment, and Professional Development Programs: REA Grant (58 Title I Schools statewide); Reading First Program Grant (20 schools (2003-05); 25 schools (2004-06)); and Pihana Na Mamo (Native Hawaiian Special Education Project, Heluhelu (24 schools; 5,000 students);
(2) Under Supplemental Instruction and Professional Development Program: Literacy Tutor Training Program (94 trainers of tutors; 130 tutors trained); and
(3) Under Professional Development: Teacher Reading Academies (TRA) (60 trainers of teachers; 500 teachers trained).
Ms. McCoy said that the Literacy Tutor Training Program is a “home-grown” effort that was developed to train tutors of students in grades K-3. There are 94 trainers of tutors and 130 tutors who have been trained.
Ms. Kawaguchi indicated that the Reading Excellence Act (REA) Grant will sunset on June 30, 2004, but the Reading First Program Grant will continue.
Ms. Tom said that 58 Title I schools (13,885 students served), in grades K-3, were awarded the REA Grant. Hawaii was awarded $18.7 million as part of the REA. Funds are for SY 2001-2002 through SY 2003-2004. The grant is authorized by an amendment to Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The project is entitled the Hawaii Reading First Initiative. Funds allocated to state and schools can be used for professional development sessions or other activities to strengthen research-based instructional practices.
REA workshops for 2002-2003 were: Institute on Beginning Reading (8 days) Conferences for 1,150 participants, Building Foundation Reading Skills for Diverse Learners (4 days) on Oahu and Hawaii for 153 participants, Anita Archer’s Summer Reading Camp (2 days) on Oahu for 157 participants, Early Reading Intervention (1 day) on Oahu and Hilo for 32 participants, and Literacy Tutor Training (4 days) for 71 trainers.
REA workshops for 2003-2004 are: Building Foundation Reading Skills for Diverse Learners (4 days) on Oahu, Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai for 162 participants, Anita Archer’s Vocabulary and Comprehension Development (2 days) for 167 participants, Read Well K-1 Workshop (3 days) in Kona for 32 participants, Early Reading Intervention (1 day) on Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii for 76 participants, Anita Archer’s Summer Reading Camp (2 days) for 161 participants, QuickReads Fluency Development (1 day) on Oahu and Hawaii for 58 participants, Literacy Tutor Training (4 days) for 23 trainers, Coaches Training by CORE (3 days) for 30 participants, and REWARDS Training (1 day) for 110 participants.
Dr. Crislip showed a comparison of non-Title 1 schools, Title I non-REA schools, and Title I REA schools with regard to having met and not having met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Ms. Thielen noted that it appeared that Title I REA schools did worse than the Title I non-REA schools. Dr. Crislip responded that it has only been a year since REA went into the schools, with most of the focus on, and gains made in, the kindergarten and grade 1 level. Ms. Kawaguchi clarified that the Title I REA schools were lower performing than the Title I non-REA schools prior to becoming REA schools.
Dr. Crislip referred to DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) data, which are subtests that measure essential components in beginning reading instructions.
Ms. Smith indicated that the Department just completed the first year of the Reading First Program in Cohort A. The NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act) Hawaii Reading First Grant helps schools finance the cost of: (1) developing and implementing a standards-based K-3 reading instruction and assessment, validated by scientifically-based reading research, to ensure that all students can read by the end of third grade; and (2) providing professional development to K-3 instructional staff on scientifically research-based reading methods. Currently, 7,313 K-3 students are being directly served through SBRR reading programs and the DIBELS Assessment in the 20 Reading First schools in Cohort A. An additional 25 schools will receive funding next school year.
Ms. Smith indicated that REA provided funding to only Title I schools that were in need, whereas the Reading First Program Grant does give priority to Title I schools, especially those that are in improvement status that have not received funding. However, the Department has tried to reach as many schools as possible, such as schools that had at least 30 percent of the students who scored below benchmark level on the Hawaii state assessment and at least 20 percent of the students on free and reduced lunch.
In response to Mr. Toguchi, Ms. Smith indicated that the application was open to all schools, including REA schools. Research shows that it takes three to five years to show improvement in reading.
Ms. McCoy and Dr. Kishi presented the Curriculum Framework for Beginning Reading Instruction, which is intended to serve as a guide in implementing the Board’s Literacy Policy. The document provides a framework for designing school-wide K-3 reading instruction that addresses the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards and meets the requirements of the NCLB Reading First Act.
Ms. Gabbard suggested that future discussion include the feasibility of multi-track teachers in maintaining the standards of getting professional credits and development. In response, Ms. Kawaguchi said that the Department is contracting to provide a series of online courses that would be recognized and used toward re-licensure.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:29 p.m.