Race to the Top - Hawaii Report, Year 1: School Year 2010-2011

8/3/2019 Race to the Top - Hawaii Report, Year 1: School Year 2010-2011

1/18

U.S. Department o EducationWashington, DC 20202

Hawaii Report Year 1: School Year 2010 2011

January 10, 2012


2/18Hawaii Year 1: School Year2010 2011Race to the Top 2

Race to the Top program review As part o the Departments commitment to supporting States as they implement ambitiousre orm agendas, the Department established the Implementation and Support Unit

(ISU) in the O ce o the Deputy Secretary to administer, among others, the Race to theop program. Te goal o the ISU is to provide assistance to States as they implementunprecedented and comprehensive re orms to improve student outcomes. Consistent withthis goal, the Department has developed a Race to the op program review process that notonly addresses the Departments responsibilities or scal and programmatic oversight, budesigned to identi y areas in which Race to the op grantees need assistance and support tomeet their goals. Speci cally, the ISU will work with Race to the op grantees to di erentisupport based on individual State needs, and help States work with each other and withexperts to achieve and sustain educational re orms that improve student outcomes.

Grantees are accountable or the implementation o their approved Race to the op plans,and the in ormation and data gathered throughout the program review help to in orm theDepartments management and support o the Race to the op States, as well as provideappropriate and timely updates to the public on their progress. In the event that adjustmentsare required to an approved plan, the grantee must submit a ormal amendment request tothe Department or consideration. States may submit or Department approval amendmenrequests to a plan and budget provided that such changes do not signi cantly a ect thescope or objectives o the approved plans. In the event that the Department determines thaa grantee is not meeting its goals, activities, timelines, budget, or annual targets or is not

ul lling other applicable requirements, the Department will take appropriate en orcemenaction(s), consistent with 34 CFR section 80.43 in the Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).2

State-speci c summary reportTe Department uses the in ormation gathered during the review process (e.g., throughmonthly calls, on-site reviews, and Annual Per ormance Reports (APRs)) to dra tState-speci c Race to the op reports.3 Te State-speci c summary report serves as anassessment o a States Year 1 Race to the op implementation, highlighting successesand accomplishments, identi ying challenges, and providing lessons learned romimplementation to date.

Executive Summary

Race to the Top overview The American Recovery andReinvestment Act o 2009 (ARRA)

provided $4.35 billion or theRace to the Top Fund, o whichapproximately $4 billion was used to undcomprehensive statewide re orm grantsunder the Race to the Top program. 1 In2010, the U.S. Department o Education(Department) awarded Race to the Topgrants to 11 States and the District o Columbia. The Race to the Top programis a competitive our-year grant programdesigned to encourage and rewardStates that are creating the conditions

or education innovation and re orm;achieving signi cant improvement in

student outcomes, including makingsubstantial gains in student achievement;closing achievement gaps; improving highschool graduation rates; and ensuringstudents are prepared or success incollege and careers.

Since education is a complex system,sustained and lasting instructionalimprovement in classrooms, schools,local educational agencies (LEAs), andStates will not be achieved throughpiecemeal change. Instead, the Raceto the Top program requires that Statesand LEAs take into account their localcontext to design and implement acomprehensive approach to innovationand re orm that meets the needs o theireducators, students, and amilies.

The Race to the Top program is built onthe ramework o comprehensive re ormin our core education re orm areas:

Adopting rigorous standardsand assessments that preparestudents or success in college andthe workplace;

Recruiting, developing, retaining,and rewarding e ective teachersand principals;

Building data systems that measurestudent success and in orm teachersand principals how they can improvetheir practices; and

Turning around the lowest-per orming schools.

1 The remaining unds were awarded under the Race to the Top Assessment program. More in ormation aboutthe Race to the Top Assessment program is available at www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment.

2 More in ormation about the ISUs program review process, State APR data, and State Scopes o Work can be oundat http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html.

3 Additional State-speci c data on progress against annual per ormance measures and goals reported in the Year 1 APRs can be ound on the Race to the Top Data Display at www.rtt-apr.us.



Hawaiis education re orm agendaTe Hawaii Department o Education (HIDOE) is the only State in thenation with a single, statewide K-12 school system that operates as both

the State educational agency (SEA) and the local educational agency (LEA). Tere ore, all 289 schools in Hawaii located on six o Hawaiiseight main islands, are participating in the States Race to the op plan.

As articulated in its Race to the op application, Hawaii has set theollowing goals or its education re orm agenda:

Raise overall K12 student achievement: By 2014, Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) scores will increase rom 65 percent to 90 percentpro cient in reading and rom 44 percent to 82 percent pro cient inmathematics. Additionally, Hawaii students National Assessment o Educational Progress (NAEP) scores will meet or exceed the nationalmedian score by the year 2018.

Ensure college and career readiness: By 2014, Hawaii will increasethe overall high school graduation rate rom 80 percent to 90 percentand ensure that all graduating students are earning the new Collegeand Career Ready (CCR) Board o Education diploma.

Increase higher education enrollment and completion rates: By 2018the college-going rate o high school graduates will increase rom

percent to 55 percent. Ensure equity and e ectiveness by closing achievement gaps: By

2014, Hawaii will reduce gaps between student groups and allstudents or HSA pro cient scores, graduation rates, and collegeenrollment rates by 50 percent.

Increase science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (S EM)pro ciency statewide and highly e ective S EM instruction in itleI Schools: By the 20112012 school year, Hawaii will ensure all newteacher hires in itle I schools or S EM subject areas and otherhard-to-sta subjects are highly quali ed.

Hawaii will use its $74,934,761 Race to the op allocation toimplement and expand innovative re orms in order to meet theseaggressive goals.

Local educational agency participation As a unitary SEA/LEA, all 289 schools and 178,208 students are participating in the Race to the op re orms. According to the States Year APR data, 47 percent o Hawaiis public school students live in poverty. Hawaiis immigration history has contributed to a high level o ethdiversity, and there is no majority population in the system. Approximately 11 percent o Hawaiis students are English learners.

Executive Summary

Category Statewide (#) Participating LEAs (#)as of June 30, 2011

LEAs 1 1

K-12 students 178,208 178,208

Students in poverty 84,107 84,107



Executive Summary

Hawaii Year 1 summary

Accomplishments

Tis past year, Hawaii signi cantly improved collaboration amongthe Governors O ce, the HIDOE, the State Board o Education,and Complex Areas4 in terms o planning, oversight, policy development, and public communications related to its Raceto the op e orts. Te State has lled all key positions within thecore HIDOE leadership team. Additionally, community partnershave been supportive o and engaged in Race to the op e orts,resulting in increased local philanthropic support or the Race tothe op re orm agenda. Te State also made progress in its statewidelongitudinal data system (SLDS) by creating a Data GovernanceO ce, providing access to principals, and planning or next steps.

Challenges

In Year 1, Hawaii did not meet major milestones across its approvedRace to the op plan. Hawaii ocused on capacity building and llingkey leadership positions. Te State aced di culties hiring quali edsta in a timely manner, and although leadership positions are now

lled, hiring o key Race to the op sta was not complete until theall o 2011. In addition, Hawaii experienced challenges arising rom

transitions within State government as the State was beginning toimplement its Race to the op re orms, although commitment to there orms remains strong. Hawaii elected a new Governor in November2010, and in April 2011, the Board o Education transitioned roman elected to an appointed board. Moreover, the inability o the Stateand Hawaii State eachers Association (HS A) to reach an agreementon several elements o the re orm agenda related to Race to the

op resulted in timeline delays and proposed changes in approach,especially within the Zones o School o Innovation (ZSI)5 that arepiloting critical initiatives.

Strategies or moving orward

Hawaii aced challenges implementing its Race to the op re ormsin Year 1. Te reorganization o the HIDOE to ensure a ocuson student outcomes throughout the State will be completedin December 2011, one year later than the original deadline.In addition, the State has proposed to move orward with anin ormal teacher and leader evaluation system in January 2012.Te State submitted many amendments to its Scope o Work or theDepartments consideration to realign timelines and implementationstrategies or all Race to the op projects.

4 A Complex Area is an organizational structure composed o two or three high schools and the intermediate/middle and elementary schools that eed into them, each headed by asuperintendent, which allows administrators to ocus on supporting the needs o their schools while providing meaning ul supervision and accountability expectations.

5 Hawaii designated two Zones o School Innovation (ZSI) that contain all but one o the lowest-achieving schools in the State.

.



State Success Factors

Per ormance managementDuring Year 1, Hawaii began reorganizing the HIDOE aroundthe Race to the op core education re orm areas. Te State createdthe O ce o Strategic Re orm (OSR) within the HIDOE tosupport the Race to the op education projects. Te State ully sta ed the HIDOE leadership team despite hiring challenges thatmade it di cult to build capacity and attract quali ed personsto ll specialized positions. Te State also implemented a ProjectManagement Oversight Committee comprising HIDOE leadershipand representatives rom the Governors o ce to regularly assessState-level progress in each core education re orm area. Additionally,the State has identi ed indicators or its Balanced Scorecard that willmeasure the quality and progress o Race to the op implementation.

LEA implementation and accountabilityHawaii is unique in that it is the only State in the nation that has a

single statewide K12 system. Te HIDOE operates as both the SEA and LEA. As such, the impact o Race to the op in Hawaii will reachall students within the States K12 system.

Stakeholder engagementKey activities and stakeholdersIn Year 1, the Race to the op team in Hawaii ocused on enhancingcollaboration among the Governors o ce, the HIDOE, and theState Board o Education, particularly in the areas o planning,oversight, policy development, and public communications relatedto the initiative.

Te Governors leadership and endorsement o Hawaiis Race tothe op plan has helped leverage resources across State agenciesand encouraged other members o the education community toalign their policy work to the States re orm e orts. According tothe State, legislative support o the Race to the op goals led to thepassage o key legislation in Year 1 that was necessary or Hawaiito have the legal authority to ul ll commitments in its plan in theareas o teacher licensure re orm, opening alternative pathways oreducational leaders, and increasing the Superintendent o Educationsauthority to reconstitute schools.6

Community partners have also supported the States Race to theop e orts. Te Harold K. L. Castle Foundation committed $10

million over our years to support the initiative and has realignedits work to mirror that o Race to the op. Additional unders and/

or partners include the Learning Coalition, Kamehameha Schools,the Hawaii Community Foundation, and the Hawaii P-20 Council.Te State has also expanded the Community A airs unit within theHIDOE that seeks to disseminate in ormation and build additionalcommunity partnerships.

Although Hawaiis Race to the op application received the supporto the HS A, the State and union did not reach agreement on amaster or supplemental contract or school year (SY) 20112012.

As o September 2011, the Hawaii Labor Relations Board wasreviewing the issues to determine the appropriate next steps.

According to the State, without a resolution, it cannot proceed with many o its Race to the op projects and initiatives as planned.Te State continues to work collaboratively with the HawaiiGovernment Employees Association (principals union).

Challenges and lessons learnedHawaii underestimated the time necessary to ully reorganize allo ces in the HIDOE and to hire key personnel. Tis, coupled with atransition to an appointed State Board o Education and the need oadditional legislation, resulted in signi cant delays. A ter Year 1, thState is reevaluating its project management structure with Complex

Areas and schools to leverage existing management structures.

Looking ahead to Year 2

Te State missed the majority o the key milestones that wereslated or completion in Year 1. As a result, the State will nish thereorganization o the HIDOE central o ce to ensure a ocus onstudent outcomes throughout the State in Year 2. Te State willalso ully implement the Balanced Scorecard to monitor programimplementation and work with an external evaluator to begin

ormally assessing the success o Race to the op initiatives in Yearather than Year 1.

6 Act 75, (SLH 2011), signed by the Governor on June 6, 2011; Act 134, (SLH 2011), signed by the Governor on June 20, 2011); Act 148, (SLH 2011), signed by the Governor onJune 21, 2011.



Student outcomes data


Student Pro ciency, NAEP Reading 2011

Baseline: 20082009

Actual: 20102011

Student Pro ciency, NAEP Mathematics 2011

Baseline: 20082009

Actual: 20102011

P e r c e n

t o

s

t u d e n

t s s c o r i n g p r o

f c

i e n

t o r a

d v a n c e

d

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade 8Grade 4

36.7%39.7%

25.3%30%

P e r c e n

t o

s

t u d e

n t s s c o r i n g p r o

f c

i e n

t o r a

d v a n c e

d

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade 8Grade 4

25.7% 27.2%22%

26%

The percentage o Hawaiis grade 4 students who were at or above Profcient in reading in 2011 was not signifcantly di erent than in 2009.

The percentage o Hawaiis grade 8 students who were at or above Profcient in reading in 2011 was signifcantly higher (p




Achievement Gap on Hawaiis ELA Assessment SY 20102011

Preliminary SY 20102011 data reported as o : October 13, 2011

White/Black Gap

Not Low Income/ Low Income Gap

Children withoutDisabilities/Childrenwith Disabilities Gap

Not Limited EnglishProfcient/LimitedEnglish Profcient Gap

Female/Male Gap

White/Hispanic Gap

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P e r c e n

t a g e p o

i n t d i f f e r e n c e

Baseline: 20092010 Actual: 20102011

21.3

14.313.212.4

53

38.1

20.9

15.114

9.5

55

42.2

Overall Pro ciency on Hawaiis ELA Assessment SY 20102011


P e r c e n

t p r o

f c

i e n

t

0

20

40

60

80

100

FemaleMaleLow

Income

Limited

EnglishPro cient

Children

withDisabilities

Two

or MoreRaces

WhiteNative

Hawaiianor OtherPaci cIslander

Hispanic

or Latino

Black

or African American

Asian American

Indian or AlaskaNative

All

Students

75%

66.2%71.3% 71.4%

65.9% 64.8%

54.6%

79.9%

69.2%

17.2%

28.2%

55.7%

71.1%

61.6%

Actual: 20102011

Subgroup

Target rom Hawaiis approved plan: 20102011

NOTE: Over the last two years, a number o States adopted new assessments and/or cut scores.For State-reported context, please re er to the APR Data Display at www.rtt-apr.us.





Achievement Gap on Hawaiis Mathematics Assessment SY 20102011


P e r c e n

t a g e p o

i n t d i f f e r e n c e

Baseline: 20092010 Actual: 20102011

20.817.116.8

6

42.6

28.4

19.2

1519

3.7

48.4

28.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60White/Black Gap

White/Hispanic Gap

Not Low Income/ Low Income Gap

Children withoutDisabilities/Childrenwith Disabilities Gap

Not Limited EnglishProfcient/LimitedEnglish Profcient Gap

Male/Female Gap

Overall Pro ciency on Hawaiis Mathematics Assessment SY 20102011

P e r c e n

t p r o

f c

i e n

t

0

20

40

60

80

100

FemaleMaleLowIncome

LimitedEnglishPro cient

ChildrenwithDisabilities

Twoor MoreRaces

WhiteNativeHawaiianor OtherPaci cIslander

Hispanicor Latino

Blackor African

American

Asian AmericanIndian or

AlaskaNative

AllStudents

64%

51.4%

51.1%

64%

44%48%

41.6%

63%55.8%

11%

28.5%

44.5%

56%52.3%


Actual: 20102011

Subgroup

Target rom Hawaiis approved plan: 20102011





Standards and Assessments

Adoption o college- and career-readystandards and high-quality assessmentsIn June 2010, Hawaiis State Board o Education voted unanimously to adopt the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Te Stateplans to adopt a statewide core curriculum or English language arts(ELA), mathematics, science, and social studies.

Supporting the transition to college-and career-ready standards andhigh-quality assessments

In its Year 1 APR, Hawaii noted that it has a record o rigorousacademic content standards and assessments that align with andrefect college- and career-ready standards. Te State has begun

work with entities such as the SMAR ER Balanced AssessmentConsortium (SBAC) and the Programme or International Student

Assessment (PISA) to enhance current student assessments that ocusnot only on college and career readiness but also on readiness tocompete internationally.

Transition to enhanced standardsHawaiis transition to the CCSS is a multi-part process that ocuseson amiliarization, understanding, and internalization o enhanced

standards in the State. In the all o 2010, the State developedcrosswalk documents to compare its existing standards to the CCSS.Next, HIDOE content specialists in ormed all principals across theState about the adoption o the standards. Between January andMarch 2011, content specialists in ELA and mathematics providedinitial training and pro essional development on the standards toprincipal and teacher teams rom all schools in the State, who thenpassed along the acquired in ormation to their respective colleaguesthrough a tri-level pro essional development system. Te State alsosurveyed all schools existing core curriculum programs in ELA and mathematics to determine alignment to the CCSS and usedthe results o that survey to provide all grades K2, 11, and 12teachers with pro essional development sessions that highlighted theconnection between current curriculum programs and the CCSS.In SY 20112012, the State expects teachers in grades K2, 11 and12 to implement the CCSS in ELA and mathematics. Te State will

ully implement the CCSS in SY 20132014.

At the high school level, the Board o Education voted ormally toimplement the College and Career Ready (CCR) diploma. Te CCR diploma establishes a set o rigorous graduation requirements thatalign with the CCSS and will help ensure that students are well-prepared or the work orce or college without need or remediation.Hawaii planned to start the project with students entering highschool in SY 20142015. However, the board unanimously voted

to implement the diploma two years ahead o schedule. Studentsentering high school in 20122013 will be the CCR diplomainaugural class.

Transition to quality assessmentsDuring SY 20102011, Hawaii transitioned to an online, computer-adaptive HSA. Te new HSA provides student scores uponcompletion, allowing teachers and administrators to immediately assess their students progress and modi y instruction. Hawaii is agoverning member o the SBAC and plans to implement the SBACassessments in SY 20142015. Te State also launched the Data orSchool Improvement (DSI) ormative assessment system prior to

receiving the Race to the op award in all 2010, which is availableto teachers throughout the State. Trough the DSI system, classroomteachers, administrators, and Complex Area superintendents haveaccess to an array o ormative assessment items that enable teachin tested grades and subjects to develop their own assessments, scorstudent responses, and store results securely on a central server. TeDSI project also includes coordinated pro essional development.

For the 20112012 school year, Hawaii developed CCSS-based report cards or students in grades K2 that are beingdisseminated to amilies this year. As part o the States

back-to-school e orts, all schools provided parents o K2students in ormation on the new report card.

Lessons learned A ter rolling out the DSI system in SY 20102011, the Statedetermined that it needed to populate the system with additional

ormative assessment items aligned to the CCSS to meet the demano teachers. Te State reallocated available resources in its Race tothe op budget to purchase and develop those items in Year 2. Inaddition, the State chose to change its assessment strategy related to

interim assessments in order to take advantage o the resources beindeveloped by the SBAC.

Looking ahead to Year 2In Year 2, the State plans to create and make available additionaltools and resources to enhance educators understanding o the CCSand expand the item bank in the DSI system. Te State will continueto provide pro essional development to school teams on transitioninto the CCSS.

Implementing rigorous college- and career-ready standards and assessments that prepare studentsor success in college and career is an integral aspect o education re orm in all Race to the Top States.



Data Systems to Support Instruction

Statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) and instructional improvement systems (IIS) enhancethe ability o States to e ectively manage, use, and analyze education data to support instruction.Race to the Top States are working to ensure that their data systems are accessible to key stakeholders

and that the data support educators and decision-makers in their e orts to improve instruction andincrease student achievement.

Fully implementing a statewidelongitudinal data systemIn Hawaii, Race to the op unding in Year 1 helped to enhance theStates existing longitudinal data system (LDS). In Hawaii, K12LDS data are accessible to users through a dashboards eature,

which provides at-a-glance, commonly requested in ormation suchas student attendance and achievement data. During SY 20102011,Complex Area sta and school administrators received trainingand were given access to the data dashboards. Te State solicited

eedback on the data dashboards rom small groups o teachersin each Complex Area to in orm the rollout system-wide.

Hawaii also created a Data Governance O ce to manage the useo data and to develop policies to regulate data-related matters withinthe HIDOE and across State agencies. Te State reported in its

Year 1 APR that its system includes all 12 elements o the AmericaCOMPE ES Act. Te nal element related to collecting in ormationon students in non-tested grades and subjects was completed duringSY 20102011.

In May 2011, the HIDOE entered into a Memorandum o Understanding with partner agenciesHawaii P-20 Partnerships

or Education, the University o Hawaii, and the State o HawaiiDepartment o Labor and Industrial Relationsto acilitate datasharing and to link additional data (e.g., wage records) to studentenrollment data.

Accessing and using State datao ensure access to data systems and resources in the State, Hawaii

is currently creating an in rastructure that supports technology,including high-speed internet access, in each o its schools. Teseupgrades include enhanced broadband, Wide Area Network (WAN),and network capabilities. Te State will upgrade the lowest-achieving

priority schools located in the ZSI rst. However, the State is behindschedule in its approved Scope o Work and has requested anamendment to adjust the timeline accordingly.

Using data to improve instructionIn the summer o 2011, the State Superintendent o Educationmandated that all schools establish teams to analyze student

achievement data throughout the school year and that teachersand principals use ormative assessments to in orm their practicein SY 20112012. o support educators in this e ort, the Statehired 16 data coaches to provide ongoing assistance to teachers andadministrators on how to analyze student data and use the results todi erentiate instruction in Year 2.

As previously mentioned, during SY 20102011, the State launchedthe DSI system to in orm and improve instruction. Hawaiiadministered the HSA online or the rst time. Now, teachers andadministrators can review assessment per ormance data immediatelyand modi y instruction, as needed.

Finally, the HIDOE is leading the e ort in the Hawaii Partnershipor Educational Research Consortium (HPERC) that includes local

universities and research organizations, such as Paci c Resources oEducation and Learning. In Year 1, the State developed a databasesystem to manage the review and approval o data and researchrequests in order to prioritize research that will ultimately improveinstruction and student success. However, other activities in thisproject are signi cantly delayed rom the approved Scope o Work.For example, the State did not recruit IHE partnership agencies andresearch organizations or prioritize research questions.

Lessons learnedTe State reallocated available resources in its Race to the op budgetto purchase and develop additional items or the DSI ormativeassessment system a ter determining that it needed to populate thesystem to increase its utility or teachers. In addition, as a result o tlate hiring o sta , the HPERC projects are delayed approximately oto two years.

Looking ahead to Year 2In the coming year, the State expects to include more longitudinaldata in the existing LDS and to continue the rollout o the system

or teacher use. Also, the State will continue in rastructure upgradeto ensure that all schools are able to support the most up-to-datetechnology and plans to establish single sign-on access to all key applications in the HIDOEs management system. ZSI schools willbe the States priority or network upgrades in Year 2. Te State willcontinue to support educators use o ormative assessment to in orinstruction through data coaches and school-level data teams.



Race to the Top States are developing comprehensive systems o educator e ectiveness by adoptingclear approaches to measuring student growth; designing and implementing rigorous, transparent,and air evaluation systems or teachers and principals; conducting annual evaluations that include

timely and constructive eedback; and using evaluation in ormation to in orm pro essional development,compensation, promotion, retention, and tenure decisions.

Providing high-quality pathwaysor aspiring teachers and principals

Te State did not implement new teacher and principal alternativecerti cation pathways in SY 20112012 as originally planned. At thestart o Year 1, the HIDOE did not have ull authority to implementthe alternative certi cation program or principals and viceprincipals as described in its Race to the op plan. As a result, theState legislature passed Act 75, which granted the HIDOE greaterfexibility in establishing alternative certi cation routes or principalsand vice principals. Alternative routes have not been a major pathway in Hawaii to recruit quali ed educators, with only about 10 percento teachers and no principals prepared through an alternative route.Te State has submitted amendments that are under Departmentconsideration related to the timeline and strategies or implementingthese initiatives.

Improving teacher and principale ectiveness based on per ormance

Although Hawaiis Race to the op application received the supporto the HS A, the State and union did not reach agreement on amaster or supplemental contract or SY 20112012, which ledto barriers related to the rollout o the teacher evaluation system.

According to the State, without agreement on the master orsupplemental contract, it cannot ormally implement the teacherevaluation system it proposed in its application. At the end o Year1, the State was signi cantly behind schedule in the completion o deliverables in its approved plan. Te State proposed implementing ateacher evaluation system that includes multiple measures, includingstudent growth, in ormally and alongside the existing evaluationsystem. eachers who participate in this process will receive in ormal

eedback on their per ormance drawing rom student growth dataand other indicators o teacher practice, but the rating rom thisin ormal process would not be their rating o record or be used to

in orm personnel decisions. Observation data, however, will beincorporated in the ormal evaluation. In Year 1, the State contracted with an expert in the eld to assist in the development o the entireevaluation ramework.

Ensuring equitable distributiono e ective teachers and principalsTe State directed much o its Year 1 e orts to increasing the numbeo highly quali ed teachers in the ZSIs. For the 20112012 schoolyear, the HIDOE changed its personnel practices and re erred only highly quali ed teacher applicants to its lowest-achieving schools,as well as allowed principals direct control over hiring. Additionallythe State authorized ZSI principals to travel outside o the State torecruit teachers, despite a previous State limitation on travel imposedue to budget restrictions. However, the State did not implement the

ull scope o recruitment and placement changes that were includein its approved plan. Moreover, the State reports that it did not havethe legal authority to implement incentives or teachers related torecruitment, placement, and becoming highly-quali ed, there ore imissed several milestones related to o ering these incentives. Finalthe State did not implement eCourse technology to expand access tohighly-quali ed teachers, deploy unds or pro essional developmsubsidies or S EM teachers, or nalize an equity plan.

Providing e ective support to teachers

and principalsTe State adopted new Induction and Mentoring Standards inSeptember 2011. Adoption o these standards was delayed by one year in order to gather more eedback and consensus romlocal educators on the statewide standards. Te State reportsthat the additional time allowed or better de nition o thestandards, a common understanding across the State, and clearexpectations o how Complex Areas will demonstrate meetingthe standards. Hawaii also noted that it hired two experts in the

eld o induction and mentoring to assist in the implementationo the orthcoming Induction and Mentoring Project in Year 2.Te State did not make progress implementing the Knowledgerans er/Pro essional Development Framework project, which

would establish a statewide system to manage and evaluate e ectpro essional development, provide technology-based support, anstandardize the planning process or pro essional developmentacross the State.

Great Teachers and Leaders



Great Teachers and Leaders

ChallengesHawaii experienced challenges meeting many o its milestones inits Great eachers and Leaders projects. Te inability to nalize the

master or supplemental contract between the State and the HS A created a challenging environment or adopting planned re ormsin this area and resulted in signi cant delays in meeting projectdeadlines. In addition, di culties hiring quali ed personnel and slow progress contributed to signi cant timeline delays and many missedmilestones in Year 1. Finally, the State needed additional legislationin the area o alternative certi cation o principals to grant them legalauthority to meet the commitments in its approved application.

Looking ahead to Year 2Hawaii submitted several amendments to the Department a ectingits Great eachers and Leaders work. Te State has proposed

moving orward with piloting an in ormal teacher evaluation systealongside the existing evaluation system because it does not yet havlegal authority to ully implement the system. Te per ormanceevaluation o Complex Area superintendents and assistantsuperintendents will be changed to incorporate student achievementin Year 2. Te State will also work with Complex Areas to ully institute its induction program as the new teacher Induction andMentoring Standards have been approved.



Race to the Top States are supporting LEAs implementation o ar-reaching re ormsto turn around lowest-achieving schools by implementing one o our schoolintervention models. 7

Hawaii created two ZSIs that contain all but one o the lowest-per orming priority schools in the State. Te intent is or the ZSIsto bene t rom intensive supports across the Race to the op planand pilot many initiatives, such as the new teacher evaluation system.In addition, the ZSIs are the priority or State initiatives relatedto the equitable distribution o teachers and enhanced pro essionaldevelopment and support. In Year 1, ZSIs ocused on planningand capacity building. State and ZSI leadership attended numerousmeetings with national and local experts to better understandthe school intervention and re orm processes and other re orminitiatives. According to the State, one o the most signi cant Year 1accomplishments in the area o turning around the lowest-achievingschools was the passage o Act 148 in June 2011. Te legislationgranted the Superintendent o Education the authority toreconstitute a school and recommend other interventions,including the revocation o a schools charter. Te developmento Hawaii Administrative Rules to implement this legislation will beapproximately two years behind the schedule in the approved Scopeo Work under a proposed amendment because the State requestedan additional planning year during SY 20112012. o date, oneschool has adopted the trans ormation model. Additional schoolshave been identi ed or interventions in SY 20112012.

Challenges As discussed above, Hawaiis contract issues have made or a

challenging environment to implement re orms, especially within theZSIs, where the State is proposing to pilot several key innovations,

such as the teacher evaluation system and using hiring incentives toattract highly quali ed teachers. Te State continues to collaborate

with teacher leaders and principals within the ZSIs, but the lack o agreement between the State and HS A poses ormal and in ormachallenges to re orm e orts and has resulted in signi cant projectdelays and a shi ting o resources.

Looking ahead to Year 2Te State will provide subsidies to low-income children to attendearly childhood programs using State education unds beginningin August 2011. In addition, the State will continue to work with aturnaround consultant to support the work in the lowest-achievingschools to implement one o the our intervention models.

Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools

7 Race to the Top States plans include supporting their LEAs in turning around the lowest-achieving schools by implementing one o the our school intervention models: Turnaround model: Replace the principal and rehire no more than 50 percent o the sta and grant the principal su cient operational fexibility (including in sta ng,

calendars/time and budgeting) to ully implement a comprehensive approach to substantially improve student outcomes. Restart model: Convert a school or close and reopen it under a charter school operator, a charter management organization, or an education management

organization that has been selected through a rigorous review process. School closure: Close a school and enroll the students who attended that school in other schools in the district that are higher achieving. Transformation model: Implement each o the ollowing strategies: (1) replace the principal and take steps to increase teacher and school leader e ectiveness,

(2) institute comprehensive instructional re orms, (3) increase learning time and create community-oriented schools, and (4) provide operational fexibility andsustained support.

School Intervention Models Initiated in Hawaiiin SY 20102011

School InterventionModel

Schools (#)Initiating Model

Trans ormation model 1



Charter Schools

Hawaiis Legislature passed two laws designed to strengthen charter school governance and accountability in June 2011. Act 148 gave HawSuperintendent o Education the authority to recommend actions, including the revocation o a schools charter, to the Charter School ReviPanel (CSRP). Act 130 established a task orce to clari y the relationships, responsibilities, and lines o authority and accountability amonstakeholders, including the charter school administration o ce, State Superintendent o Education, and State Board o Education.

Emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

As o June 30, 2011, Hawaii reported in its APR that it has laid thegroundwork or many S EM initiatives in Year 1 that will continueinto Year 2. Te State implemented the New ech High model in twoZSI secondary schools, Nanakuli High and Intermediate School and

Waianae High School. New ech High is a project-based learningand community involvement initiative that serves high-poverty indigenous communities. Te New ech High curriculum emphasizes

S EM to prepare students or careers in those elds and is based ona model in which teachers work as acilitators who guide rather thaninstruct students.

Looking ahead to Year 2Te State is nalizing S EM competencies to incorporate into theGeneral Learner Outcomes and to integrate with the CCSS in Year 2rather than Year 1 as originally planned. Also, the State is setting upthe S EM Network to provide S EM-related resources to teachersand students. Te State is working with the University o Hawaiis

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research project tode ne the unctions and protocols o the S EM Network. Finally,the State reports that it is making a concerted e ort to partner withinstitutions o higher education in Hawaii to recruit highly quali edand e ective S EM teachers.



BudgetFor the States expenditures through June 30, 2011, please see the APR data display at www.rtt-apr.us. For State budget in ormation seehttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/awards.html.

Progress Updates on Invitational Priorities

As o June 30, 2011, Hawaii reported the ollowing updates in its APR:

Innovations or improving

early learning outcomes Te Early Learning Council is currently collaborating with various

agencies to develop a Quality Improvement and Rating System that will measure program e ectiveness and service provider quality.

Te Hawaii State School Readiness Assessment, which is classroom-based, now has a separate individual school readiness component toprovide in ormation on kindergarteners readiness to succeed and theschools readiness to support their learning.

Te Hawaii P20 Partnership or Education has started planning toinclude select early childhood data in the P20 State LDS.

Te HIDOE is collaborating with the State Department o HumanServices on the Preschool Open Doors program to o er additional

early childhood programs to children in both ZSI schools. TePreschool Open Doors program provides State- unded subsidies tolow-income amilies so that three- and our-year olds can participatein preschool programs. Te program gives priority to children withspecial needs.

P-20 coordination, vertical,

and horizontal alignment Te HIDOEs Race to the op plan includes two projects to improve

horizontal alignment across schools, State agencies, and communitypartners: (1) the Community Engagement Project, which seeks tomobilize community resources through strategic advisory groups tosupport achievement o re orm goals and to build partnerships and(2) the HIDOE Assistance and Oversight Project, which providesservices or students in ZSI schools.

Te HIDOE participates in vertical alignment initiatives as amember o the Hawaii P20 Partnerships or Education. Initiativesinclude:

Five P3 demonstration projects in communities to promote a

cohesive continuum o early learning experiences or childrenbirth to age 8, through better alignment and integration o programs in the P20 educational pipeline;

Te Step-Up Campaign, in which 12,400 students have takenpart and pledged to take more rigorous course work to graduateand

A data governance needs assessment during spring 2011 thatprovided recommendations or an inter-agency data governanc

ramework to be implemented.



Glossary

Alternative routes to certifcation means pathways to certi cationthat are authorized under the States laws or regulations that allow theestablishment and operation o teacher and administrator preparationprograms in the State, and that have the ollowing characteristics(in addition to standard eatures such as demonstration o subject-matter mastery, and high-quality instruction in pedagogy and inaddressing the needs o all students in the classroom includingEnglish learners and students with disabilities): (a) can be providedby various types o quali ed providers, including both institutionso higher education and other providers operating independently

rom institutions o higher education; (b) are selective in acceptingcandidates; (c) provide supervised, school-based experiences andongoing support such as e ective mentoring and coaching; (d)signi cantly limit the amount o coursework required or haveoptions to test out o courses; and (e) upon completion, award thesame level o certi cation that traditional preparation programsaward upon completion.

Amendment requests: In the event that adjustments are needed toa States approved Race to the op plan, the grantee must submitan amendment request to the Department or consideration. Suchrequests may be prompted by an updated assessment o needsin that area, revised cost estimates, lessons learned rom priorimplementation e orts, or other circumstances. Grantees may propose revisions to goals, activities, timelines, budget, or annualtargets, provided that the ollowing conditions are met: such revisionsdo not result in the grantees ailure to comply with the terms andconditions o this award and the programs statutory and regulatory provisions; the revisions do not change the overall scope andobjectives o the approved proposal; and the Department and thegrantee mutually agree in writing to such revisions. Te Departmenthas sole discretion to determine whether to approve such revisionsor modi cations. I approved by the Department, a letter with adescription o the amendment and any relevant conditions will besent noti ying the grantee o approval. (For additional in ormationplease see http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/amendments/index.html.)

America COMPETES Act elements are (as speci ed in section6401(e)(2)(D) o that Act): (1) a unique statewide student identi erthat does not permit a student to be individually identi ed by userso the system; (2) student-level enrollment, demographic, andprogram participation in ormation; (3) student-level in ormationabout the points at which students exit, trans er in, trans er out,

drop out, or complete P16 education programs; (4) the capacity to communicate with higher education data systems; (5) a Statedata audit system assessing data quality, validity, and reliability; (6)yearly test records o individual students with respect to assessmentsunder section 1111(b) o the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)); (7)in ormation on students not tested by grade and subject; (8) ateacher identi er system with the ability to match teachers to

students; (9) student-level transcript in ormation, includingin ormation on courses completed and grades earned; (10) student-level college-readiness test scores; (11) in ormation regarding theextent to which students transition success ully rom secondary school to postsecondary education, including whether students enroin remedial coursework; and (12) other in ormation determinednecessary to address alignment and adequate preparation or succesin postsecondary education.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act o 2009 (ARRA) : OnFebruary 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the ARRA,historic legislation designed to stimulate the economy, support jobcreation, and invest in critical sectors, including education. TeDepartment o Education received a $97.4 billion appropriation.

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are K-12 English languagearts and mathematics standards developed in collaboration with avariety o stakeholders including States, governors, chie State sch

o cers, content experts, States, teachers, school administrators,and parents. Te standards establish clear and consistent goals orlearning that will prepare Americas children or success in collegeand careers. As o December 2011, the Common Core StateStandards were adopted by 45 States and the District o Columbia.

E ective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve acceptablrates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) o studentgrowth (as de ned in the Race to the op requirements). States,LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, providedthat teacher e ectiveness is evaluated, in signi cant part, by student growth (as de ned in the Race to the op requirements).Supplemental measures may include, or example, multipleobservation-based assessments o teacher per ormance.

Te Core education re orm areas or Race to the op are as ollows

1. Standards and Assessments: Adopting rigorous standards andassessments that prepare students or success in college and the

workplace;

2. Great eachers and Great Leaders: Recruiting, developing,retaining, and rewarding e ective teachers and principals;

3. Data Systems to Support Instruction: Building data systems thatmeasure student success and in orm teachers and principals how they can improve their practices; and

4. urning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools.

Highly e ective teacher means a teacher whose students achievehigh rates (e.g., one and one-hal grade levels in an academic year)o student growth (as de ned in the Race to the op requirements).States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, providedthat teacher e ectiveness is evaluated, in signi cant part, by student growth (as de ned in the Race to the op requirements).Supplemental measures may include, or example, multiple



observation-based assessments o teacher per ormance or evidenceo leadership roles (which may include mentoring or leadingpro essional learning communities) that increase the e ectiveness o other teachers in the school or LEA.

Instructional improvement systems (IIS) means technology-basedtools and other strategies that provide teachers, principals, andadministrators with meaning ul support and actionable data tosystemically manage continuous instructional improvement, includingsuch activities as instructional planning; gathering in ormation (e.g.,through ormative assessments (as de ned in the Race to the oprequirements), interim assessments (as de ned in the Race to the oprequirements), summative assessments, and looking at student work and other student data); analyzing in ormation with the support o rapid-time (as de ned in the Race to the op requirements) reporting;using this in ormation to in orm decisions on appropriate nextinstructional steps; and evaluating the e ectiveness o the actionstaken. Such systems promote collaborative problem-solving and actionplanning; they may also integrate instructional data with student-leveldata such as attendance, discipline, grades, credit accumulation, andstudent survey results to provide early warning indicators o a studentsrisk o educational ailure.

Invitational priorities are areas o ocus that the Department invitedStates to address in their Race to the op applications. Applicantsdid not earn extra points or addressing these ocus areas, but many grantees chose to create and und activities to advance re orms inthese areas.

Involved LEAs are LEAs that choose to work with the State toimplement those speci c portions o the States plan that necessitate

ull or nearly- ull statewide implementation, such as transitioning to

a common set o K-12 standards (as de ned in the Race to the oprequirements). Involved LEAs do not receive a share o the 50 percento a States grant award that it must subgrant to LEAs in accordance

with section 14006(c) o the ARRA, but States may provide otherunding to involved LEAs under the States Race to the op grant in a

manner that is consistent with the States application.

P-20 data systems integrate student data rom pre-kindergartenthrough higher education.

Participating LEAs are LEAs that choose to work with the Stateto implement all or signi cant portions o the States Race to the

op plan, as speci ed in each LEAs agreement with the State. Eachparticipating LEA that receives unding under itle I, Part A will

receive a share o the 50 percent o a States grant award that the Statemust subgrant to LEAs, based on the LEAs relative share o itle I,Part A allocations in the most recent year, in accordance with section14006(c) o the ARRA. Any participating LEA that does not receive

unding under itle I, Part A (as well as one that does) may receiveunding rom the States other 50 percent o the grant award, in

accordance with the States plan.

Te Partnership or Assessment o Readiness or College andCareers (PARCC) is one o two consortia o States awarded grantsunder the Race to the op Assessment program to develop next-generation assessment systems that are aligned to common K-12

English language and mathematics standards and that will accuratelmeasure student progress toward college and career readiness. (Foradditional in ormation please see http://www.parcconline.org/.)

Persistently lowest-achieving schools means, as determined by the State: (i) any itle I school in improvement, corrective action, orrestructuring that (a) is among the lowest-achieving ve percent o

itle I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring orthe lowest-achieving ve itle I schools in improvement, correctiveaction, or restructuring in the State, whichever number o schoolsis greater; or (b) is a high school that has had a graduation rate asde ned in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over anumber o years; and (ii) any secondary school that is eligible or, does not receive, itle I unds that (a) is among the lowest-achievin

ve percent o secondary schools or the lowest-achieving vesecondary schools in the State that are eligible or, but do not receiv

itle I unds, whichever number o schools is greater; or (b) is a hischool that has had a graduation rate as de ned in 34 CFR 200.19(bthat is less than 60 percent over a number o years. o identi y thelowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both (i) theacademic achievement o the all students group in a school in termo pro ciency on the States assessments under section 1111(b)(3) othe ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and(ii) the schools lack o progress on those assessments over a numbeo years in the all students group. (For additional in ormationplease see http://www2.ed.gov/programs/si /index.html.)

Quali ying evaluation systems are those that meet the ollowingcriteria: rigorous, transparent, and air evaluation systems or teachand principals that: (a) di erentiate e ectiveness using multiplerating categories that take into account data on student growth as asigni cant actor, and (b) are designed and developed with teacherand principal involvement.

Te School Improvement Grants (SIG) program is authorizedunder section 1003(g) o itle I o the ESEA. Funds areawarded to States to help them turn around Persistently Lowest-

Achieving Schools. (For additional in ormation please seehttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/si /index.html.)

School intervention models: A States Race to the op plan describeshow it will support its LEAs in turning around the lowest-achievingschools by implementing one o the our school intervention mode Turnaround model: Replace the principal and rehire no more than

50 percent o the sta and grant the principal su cient operationalfexibility (including in sta ng, calendars/time and budgeting) to

ully implement a comprehensive approach to substantially improvstudent outcomes.


18/18

Restart model: Convert a school or close and reopen it under acharter school operator, a charter management organization, or aneducation management organization that has been selected through arigorous review process.

School closure: Close a school and enroll the students who attendedthat school in other schools in the district that are higher achieving.

Transformation model: Implement each o the ollowing strategies:(1) replace the principal and take steps to increase teacher and schoolleader e ectiveness, (2) institute comprehensive instructional re orms,(3) increase learning time and create community-oriented schools,and (4) provide operational fexibility and sustained support.

Single sign-on is a user authentication process that permits a user toenter one name and password in order to access multiple applications.

Te SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) is oneo two consortia o States awarded grants under the Race to the op

Assessment program to develop next-generation assessment systemsthat are aligned to common K-12 English language and mathematicstandards and that will accurately measure student progress towardcollege and career readiness. (For additional in ormation please seehttp://www.k12.wa.us/SMAR ER/de ault.aspx.)

Te State Scope o Work is a detailed document or the State projectthat refects the grantees approved Race to the op application.Te State Scope o Work includes items such as the States speci cgoals, activities, timelines, budgets, key personnel, and annualtargets or key per ormance measures. (For additional in ormationplease see http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/state-scope-o -work/index.html.) Additionally, all participating LEAs arerequired to submit Scope o Work documents, consistent with Staterequirements, to the State or its review and approval.

Statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) enhance the ability o States to e ciently and accurately manage, analyze, and useeducation data, including individual student records. Te SLDS helpStates, districts, schools, educators, and other stakeholders to makedata-in ormed decisions to improve student learning and outcomes,as well as to acilitate research to increase student achievement andclose achievement gaps. (For additional in ormation please seehttp://nces.ed.gov/Programs/SLDS/about_SLDS.asp.)

Student achievement means

a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) a students score on the Statesassessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other measureo student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) o this de nition, provided they are rigorous and comparable acrossclassrooms.

b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures o studentlearning and per ormance such as student scores on pre-tests andend-o -course tests; student per ormance on English languagepro ciency assessments; and other measures o student achievemethat are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

Student growth means the change in student achievement (as de nein the Race to the op requirements) or an individual studentbetween two or more points in time. A State may also include othermeasures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

Value-added models (VAMs) are a speci c type o growth modelin the sense that they are based on changes in test scores over time.VAMs are complex statistical models that generally attempt to takeinto account student or school background characteristics in orderto isolate the amount o learning attributable to a speci c teacheror school. eachers or schools that produce more than typical orexpected growth are said to add value.

Documents

Race to the Top - Hawaii Report, Year 1: School Year 2010-2011