STATE OF HAWAII
BOARD OF EDUCATION
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT COMMITTEE
Queen Liliuokalani Building
1390 Miller Street, Room 404
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Committee Chairperson Halagao called for further testimony. There was no additional testimony at this time. Written testimony was also received and provided to the Board members. The following is a listing of the people that submitted written testimony before testimony deadline arranged in the order received.
|Robert G. Buss||Executive Director||Hawaii Council for the Humanities||C3||Support|
|Dawn Johnson||Ntl. Education Mgr.||OPTERRA||NGSS||Support|
|Dr. Amber Makiau||Director Curriculum & Research||UH Uehiro Academy for Philosophy & Ethics in Education||C3||Support|
|Dr. Jim Shon||Director||Hawaii Educational Policy Center||NGSS||Comment|
|Stanley Bento, Jr.||Public||NGSS||Comment|
|Lila B. Berg, Ph.D.||Founder & Former State Rep.||Kids voting Hawaii / Rep. 18th District (2004 - 2010)||C3||Support|
|Susan Griffin||Executive Director||Natl. Council for the Social Studies||C3||Support|
|Dennis M. Tynan||Individual||Public||C3||Support|
|Brenda S. Barr, Ph.D.||Director||The National Geographic||C3||Support|
|Robert Sternthall||Social Studies Teacher||Lahainaluna High School||C3||Support|
|Lorey Ishihara||Social Studies Teacher||Kahauku High & Intermediate||C3||Support|
|Jenny Lee||Public Policy Director||Hawaii Appleseed Ctr. for Law & Economic Justice||BP 101.7||Opposed|
|Martha Guinan||Chair||SEAC||BP 101.7||Support|
|Keith Hayashi||Principal||DOE||BP 101.7||Support|
Lauren Kaupp, Department of Education’s (“Department”) Educational Specialist for Science, presented on the NGSS framework. She described how NGSS standards incorporate crosscutting concepts for teaching science and engineering and how it complements other standards such as Common Core State Standards (“Common Core”) and the Comprehensive Student Support System (“CSSS”). She presented on how NGSS meets the needs of teachers and students by making science learning and teaching more engaging, practical, and innovative. She also spoke to how NGSS supports the Department’s goals under the strategic plan, has national and local support and that, to date, fifteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted the framework.
Kaupp is conducting professional development sessions and webinars about NGSS so that the Department has a transition plan in place should the Board approve the framework.
Student Representative Brennan Lee thanked Kaupp for attending the last Hawaii State Student Council (“HSSC”) meeting to present on NGSS. Student Representative Lee commented that he liked how NGSS connected science, math, and English.
Committee Chairperson Halagao asked Kaupp if the Department is ready to implement the framework, to which Kaupp responded yes. She is setting the foundation so that schools can be ready to use the framework the day after it is adopted.
Suzanne Mulcahy, Assistant Superintendent, Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Support, shared that schools have expressed interest in the framework and are eager to adopt.
Board Vice Chairperson Brian De Lima (participating ex officio) asked about the cost of implementation and if there is a budget for NGSS. Kaupp explained that they currently have a budget to conduct outreach across the Department in order to understand it before it is adopted. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima asked if the Department is looking at how much it costs other states and what it would cost Hawaii to implement. Additionally, Mulcahy asked if the framework requires textbooks.
Kaupp commented that teachers do not want an additional textbook; they want to be able to put together their own teaching material. Moreover, textbook publishers have not been quick to publish NGSS textbooks because too few states have adopted this framework at this time.
Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that teacher input and supporting teachers in implementing the framework must be considered. He provided an example of the robotics field where teachers and students are engaged but there was no sustainable support for teachers or students.
Committee Member Asselbaye asked if the Department will work on making connections with science based agencies at the national level as it has been done in other areas of science such as with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Kaupp responded that these types of connections can be made.
Committee Member Margaret Cox expressed her enthusiasm and support for the adoption of the NGSS framework.
Committee Chair Halagao invited Kaupp back for a follow-up presentation so that the Board can take action on the NGSS framework at a later date.
B. Update on Department of Education’s Scorecard (measuring progress against the desired outcomes of the Board of Education and Department of Education’s joint Strategic Plan) for Goal 1 (Student Success): Overview, alignment with Strategic Plan, purpose, and function
Stephen Schatz, Deputy Superintendent, and Tammi Chun, Assistant Superintendent, Office of Strategy, Innovation, and Performance gave an overview of Department’s Score Card and the components for measuring student success. Schatz and Chun explained that the metrics in the scorecards are reviewed by the executive team and Superintendent Kathryn Matayoshi. The Department will present more detailed information to the Board regarding results on these metrics on September 15, 2015.
Committee Member Cox asked how the Department measures attendance in secondary school and Chun responded that they have a methodology that can be provided.
Committee Member Hubert Minn asked about the make-up of the Department’s executive team, to which Schatz responded that the team consists of the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, and assistant superintendents.
Committee Member Minn asked about student participation in extracurricular activities and if the data is going to be included on the scorecard. Chun clarified that the scorecard measures participation in athletics but also asks for data on extracurricular activities which take place outside school hours and these are harder to track. The Departments is in the process of determining how to collect this data.
Committee Member Minn also asked about General Learner Outcomes (“GLOs”) and if these are included in the scorecard. Schatz responded that GLOs are measured at the elementary school level and could be included in this scorecard.
Board Chairperson Lance Mizumoto (participating ex officio) asked about a timeline for determining metrics as they are in the third year of the strategic plan and metrics are still being defined. Schatz responded that some metrics are taking longer to figure out and they may need to revisit how to measure certain metrics. Board Chairperson Mizumoto followed up by suggesting a shorter timeline.
Committee Chairperson Halagao asked about missing data on the scorecard and how the Department is planning to fill in the data or carryout an assessment to measure these areas. Chun responded that they will need to run new data and determine which measures are important to collect; they will consult with the Committee and the Board as this develops. She also commented that they will be presenting to the Board on September 15, 2015 with the results for Goal 1.
Before moving on to the next agenda item, Committee Chairperson Halagao called for public testimony. There was no public testimony at this time.
C. Update on status, process, and timeline for Committee review of Board policies presently assigned to the Committee
Committee Chairperson Halagao stated that the written submittal for the agenda item listed the policies that the Committee was planning to consider at its October Committee meeting. She also stated that the Board office is working on getting the history and status of Board policies up on the Board website by the end of the week.
Rosanna Fukuda, Educational Specialist for Social Studies, presented an overview of the C3 Social Studies Framework, the purpose of social studies as school subject, and feedback from students and teachers about adopting the framework. Fukuda gathered feedback through a meeting with HSSC where most students expressed wanting their social studies classes to be more engaging, creative, and fun.
At the national level, states such as New York and Connecticut have successfully adopted the framework and there is a lot of interest and excitement for the framework locally. Fukuda stated that the C3 Social Studies Framework is not a new way of teaching, but it is a way of making social studies teaching more inquiry-based and focused on the students and civic education. As part of her outreach, she plans to host additional professional development workshops and presentations about the framework.
Committee Member Minn asked if student feedback was only collected at the HSSC and commented that this data may vary from students across the state. Fukuda confirmed that student feedback was collected through the HSSC and stated that in general all students would agree that social studies should be more engaging.
ACTION: Motion to recommend the Board approves the C3 Social Studies Framework as a guide for updating state social studies standards (Williams/Cox). The motion was approved unanimously with all members present voting aye.
B. Committee Action on recommendations concerning new Board Policy 101.7, School Climate and Discipline
Committee Vice Chairperson Williams acknowledged and thanked community stakeholders, former and current Board Members, and Department staff who collaborated to draft the original policy. Committee Vice Chairperson Williams prefaced the discussion with saying that he supported the policy as it was originally drafted. The revisions were made with the intent of preserving the intent of the original proposed policy while taking into account concerns expressed by school principals.
Chun presented an overview of the revisions and shared some of the feedback they gathered from over 50 principals regarding the revised policy.
Committee Vice Chairperson Williams read over the proposed changes to the policy, the language that was retained, and reasoning behind the recommended revisions, referencing Exhibit B of the memorandum from Committee Chairperson Halagao and Committee Vice Chairperson Williams dated September 1, 2015 (“September 1, 2015 Memorandum”). The September 1, 2015 Memorandum is available at: http://www.hawaiiboe.net/Meetings/Notices/Documents/2015-09-01%20SAC/SAC%202015-09-01%20Committee%20Action%20on%20School%20Climate%20and%20Discipline%20(Memo%20from%20Chair%20and%20Vice%20Chair).pdf
The first sentence is an overarching policy statement that everyone agrees on.
The second sentence, “[a] critical component of a strong and positive climate is a school-wide discipline policy that honors the civil rights of our students, sets high expectations for behavior and provide clear, developmentally appropriate, and proportional consequences for misbehavior” was moved to the rationale, which is still part of the policy.
The third sentence requires a school to develop school climate goals and take actions to improve school climate when the school’s data indicates significant concerns. Committee Vice Chairperson Williams commented that this sentence takes feedback received into consideration and is a positive statement on school climate that currently exists.
The second paragraph is a direct quote from Hawaii Administrative Rules; Title 8, Department of Education; Subtitle 2, Education; Part 1, Public Schools; Chapter 19 (“Chapter 19”). Committee Vice Chairperson Williams stated that this direct quote from Chapter 19 was included because schools are subject to Chapter 19 for disciplinary matters.
The second sentence in the third paragraph, “[s]chools should remove students from the classroom as a disciplinary consequence only as a last resort and only for appropriately serious infractions” was deleted as a matter of balance. When the entire policy is taken into account, suspension is not the first option. Removal of this language also takes into account the impact of the student’s behavior on other students.
The last paragraph relating to school based law enforcement officers was deleted and the recommendation was to move this language to Board Policy 303.5 because the language needs a preface, otherwise more questions are raised. Committee Vice Chairperson Williams stated that revised Board Policy 303.5 with this language from the last paragraph added should be considered at the Committee’s October meeting.
There was extensive discussion among the Committee members about the proposed revisions to the policy.
Committee Vice Chairperson Williams asked about school academic plans as they would relate school climate and discipline and how principals would go about including these goals in their school’s academic plan. Mulcahy, as a former Complex Area Superintendent, provided information on creation, content, and review of school academic plans. Since academic plans are based on a comprehensive needs assessment, not just academics, this is where the school climate goals would be placed. She explained how principals and teachers work together to development academic plans in which school discipline and climate may be a priority need.
Committee Member Cox expressed her disagreement with the addition of the third sentence regarding school climate goals because the language that sounds like the Board is telling schools what to do. This kind of language belongs in the Department’s implementation plan, not Board policy.
Committee Member Cox made a motion to remove procedural language from the policy. There was no second and the motion failed. There was no further discussion on procedural language.
There was discussion round the concept of student suspension as a last resort, principal feedback around leaving or taking out this language in the policy, and seeking out the best long term interest of the youth at risk of suspension and other students. Student Representative Brennan Lee commented on the developmental stage of teenagers’ brains and the serious potential impact of the decisions they make as teenagers on the rest of their adult lives. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that he was in favor of the revisions to the policy, but as a lawyer he meets with parents whose children are suspended and his experience has been that schools have been using suspension as a last resort. He noted that this policy contains a number of sensitive issues, but it codifies practices and recognizes how the student population can best be served. He also clarified that Chapter 19 and this policy give the principals discretion in discipline matters.
Committee Member Asselbaye commented that she approves of the language regarding school based law enforcement officers being placed in another policy, but expressed concern with including language from administrative rules in the policy because of possible inconsistencies with other Board policies. She also questioned whether schools with discipline issues will really take the time to realize there is an issue and include school climate goals in their academic plans; she advocated for requiring all schools to create school climate goals. In advocating for this, she also referenced data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey where a majority of students said that bullying was an issue on their campus.
Committee Member Asselbaye made a motion to reinsert the language from the first paragraph of the original policy and delete the newly inserted sentences at the end of the paragraph. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Cox. Committee Member Asselbaye restated the motion to provide that the paragraph would include language that the schools shall identify school climate goals in their academic plans; there being no objection, the motion was restated. The motion failed with Committee Members Asselbaye and Cox voting in favor of the motion, Committee Members Chun, Williams, and Halagao opposing, and Committee Member Minn abstaining.
There was discussion among Committee member around making school discipline as mandatary goal in every schools academic plan. Committee members disagreed with this idea. Naguwa was asked for his input in the room and stated that every school differs in their areas of priority and therefore their academic plans will differ.
Committee Chair Halagao asked Naguwa about looking at suspension data based on ethnic groups and if his school has analyzed this data. Naguwa responded that he has not looked at the data in this way but as a whole and typically not by ethnic groups.
ACTION: Motion to recommend the full Board approve Board Policy 101.7, School Climate and Discipline as shown in the memorandum from Committee Chairperson Halagao and Committee Vice Chairperson Williams dated September 1, 2015 (Williams/ Halagao). Motion was approved with four voting aye (Halagao, Williams, Chun, and Asselbaye) and two voting nay (Cox, Minn).
ACTION: Motion to recommend the full Board allow the Department return to the Student Achievement Committee in 90 days with an implementation plan (Williams/Halagao). Motion passed unanimously with all members voting aye.
Committee Vice Chairperson Williams observed that since May, stakeholders and school administrators have been providing input to the Board on this policy, but the Department needs to reach out to judicial stakeholders as well. Committee Member Cox stated that this should be something that is included in the implementation plan.