Race to the Top Hawaii Report Year 2 (School year 2011-2012)

7/29/2019 Race to the Top Hawaii Report Year 2 (School year 2011-2012)

1/23

Hawaii ReportYear 2: School Year 2011 2012

U.S. Department o EducationWashington, DC 20202

February 1, 2013


2/23

Hawaii Year 2: School Year 2011 2012Race to the Top 2

Race to the Top overview

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act o 2009 (ARRA),

historic legislation designed to stimulate the economy, supportjob creation, and invest in critical sectors, including education.

ARRA provided $4.35 billion or the Race to the Top und, o

which approximately $4 billion was used to und comprehensive

statewide reorm grants under the Race to the Top program.1

In 2010, the U.S. Department o Education (Department) awarded

Race to the Top Phase 1 and Phase 2 grants to 11 States

and the District o Columbia. The Race to the Top program is

a competitive our-year grant program designed to encourage

and reward States that are creating the conditions or education

innovation and reorm; achieving signicant improvement in

student outcomes, including making substantial gains in student

achievement, closing achievement gaps, and improving high

school graduation rates; and ensuring students are prepared or

success in college and careers.

Since the Race to the Top Phase 1 and 2 competitions, the

Department has made additional grants under Race to the Top

Phase 3, Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge, and Race

to the Top District. In 2011, the Department awarded Phase

3 grants to seven additional States, which were nalists in the

2010 Race to the Top Phase 1 and Phase 2 competitions. Also

in 2011, the Department made seven awards under the Race to

the Top Early Learning Challenge to improve quality and expand

access to early learning programs, and close the achievement

gap or children with high needs. In 2012, our more States

received Early Learning Challenge grants. Most recently, in 2012,

the Department made awards to 16 applicants through the Race

to the Top District competition to support local educational

agencies (LEAs) implementing locally developed plans to

personalize and deepen student learning, directly improve student

achievement and educator eectiveness, close achievement gaps,

and prepare every student to succeed in college and career.

The Race to the Top program is built on the ramework o

comprehensive reorm in our education reorm areas:

Adopting rigorous standards and assessments that prepare

students or success in college and the workplace;

Building data systems that measure student success and inorm

teachers and principals how they can improve their practices;

Recruiting, developing, retaining, and rewarding eective

teachers and principals; and

Turning around the lowest-perorming schools.

Since education is a complex system, sustained and lasting

instructional improvement in classrooms, schools, LEAs, and

States will not be achieved through piecemeal change. Race to

the Top requires that States and LEAs participating in the States

Race to the Top plan (participating LEAs)2 take into account their

local context to design and implement the most eective and

innovative approaches that meet the needs o their educators,

students, and amilies.

Executive Summary

Race to the Top program review

As part o the Departments commitment to supporting States as they

implement ambitious reorm agendas, the Department established the

Implementation and Support Unit (ISU) in the Oce o the DeputySecretary to administer, among others, the Race to the op program.

Te goal o the ISU is to provide assistance to States as they implement

unprecedented and comprehensive reorms to improve student

outcomes. Consistent with this goal, the Department has developed

a Race to the op program review process that not only addresses the

Departments responsibilities or scal and programmatic oversight,

but is also designed to identiy areas in which Race to the op grantees

need assistance and support to meet their goals. Specically, the ISU

works with Race to the op grantees to dierentiate support based on

individual State needs, and helps States work with each other and with

experts to achieve and sustain educational reorms that improve student

outcomes. In partnership with the ISU, the Reorm Support Network

(RSN) oers collective and individualized technical assistance andresources to Race to the op grantees. Te RSNs purpose is to support

Race to the op grantees as they implement reorms in education policy

and practice, learn rom each other, and build their capacity to sustain

these reorms.

Grantees are accountable or the implementation o their approved Race

to the op plans, and the inormation and data gathered throughout

the program review help to inorm the Departments management and

support o the Race to the op grantees, as well as provide appropriate

and timely updates to the public on their progress. In the event that

adjustments are required to an approved plan, the grantee must submit

a ormal amendment request to the Department or consideration.

States may submit or Department approval amendment requests toa plan and budget, provided such changes do not signicantly aect

the scope or objectives o the approved plans. In the event that the

Department determines that a grantee is not meeting its goals, activities,

timelines, budget, or annual targets, or is not ullling other applicable

requirements, the Department will take appropriate enorcement

action(s), consistent with 34 CFR section 80.43 in the Education

Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).3

1 The remaining unds were awarded under the Race to the Top Assessment program.More inormation about the Race to the Top Assessment program is available atwww.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment.

2 Participating LEAs are those LEAs that choose to work with the State to implement allor signicant portions o the States Race to the Top plan, as specied in each LEAsMemorandum o Understanding with the State. Each participating LEA that receives undingunder Title I, Part A will receive a share o the 50 percent o a States grant award that theState must subgrant to LEAs, based on the LEAs relative share o Title I, Part A allocationsin the most recent year, in accordance with section 14006(c) o the ARRA.

3 More inormation about the ISUs program review process, State APR data, and StateScopes o Work can be ound at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html.


3/23


Executive Summary

State-specic summary report

Te Department uses the inormation gathered during the reviewprocess (e.g., through monthly calls, onsite reviews, and Annual

Perormance Reports (APRs)) to drat State-specic summaryreports.4 Te State-specic summary report serves as an assessmento a States annual Race to the op implementation. Te Year2 report or Phase 1 and 2 grantees highlights successes andaccomplishments, identies challenges, and provides lessons learnedrom implementation rom approximately September 2011 through

September 2012.

States education reorm agenda

Hawaii is the only State in the nation with a single, statewide

kindergarten through twelth grade (K-12) school system that

operates as both the State educational agency (SEA) and the LEA.

Tereore, all 255 schools operated by the Hawaii Department o

Education (HIDOE) in Hawaii are participating in the States Race

to the op plan.

As articulated in its Race to the op application, Hawaii has set the

ollowing goals or its education reorm agenda:

Raise overall K12 student achievement: By 2014, Hawaii StateAssessment (HSA) scores will increase rom 65 percent to 90percent procient in reading and rom 44 percent to 82 percentprocient in mathematics. Additionally, Hawaii students National

Assessment o Educational Progress (NAEP) scores will meet orexceed the national median score by the year 2018.

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

Increase higher education enrollment and completion rates:By 2018, the college-going rate o high school graduates willincrease rom 51 percent to 62 percent.

Ensure equity and eectiveness by closing achievement gaps:By 2014, Hawaii will reduce gaps between student sub-groups,specically or Native Hawaiian students and gaps based onsocioeconomic status, and all students or HSA procient scores,graduation rates, and college enrollment rates by 50 percent.

Increase science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (SEM)prociency statewide and highly eective SEM instruction initle I schools: By school year (SY) 20112012, Hawaii will ensureall new teacher hires in itle I schools or SEM subject areas andother hard-to-sta subjects are highly qualied.

Hawaii will use its $74,934,761 Race to the op allocation to implement

and expand innovative reorms in order to meet these aggressive goals.

State Year 1 summaryIn Year 1, Hawaii improved collaboration among key stakeholders to

plan, oversee, and communicate its Race to the op reorm agenda.

Although it lled all key leadership positions, HIDOE aced diculties

hiring qualied sta in a timely manner and did not complete this

hiring until the end o Year 1. Additionally, leadership transitions

presented challenges, such as the election o a new governor and

the change rom an elected Board o Education to an appointed

body. Te lack o agreement between Hawaii and the Hawaii State

eachers Association (HSA) on several elements o their contract

had signicant impact on the reorm agenda, including delays in

the implementation o several projects, such as the development

o the States educator evaluation system. HIDOE submittedseveral amendments to the Department to realign timelines and

implementation strategies in response to these delays. HIDOE did

make progress in Year 1 on its statewide longitudinal data system

(SLDS), creating a Data Governance Oce and providing principals

with access to SLDS data.

High-risk status

On December 21, 2011, the Department placed Hawaiis Race to the

op grant on high-risk status due to unsatisactory perormance during

the rst ourteen months o the grant. Based on the Departments

Year 1 onsite program review and monthly calls, the Department

determined that the State had experienced major delays and made

inadequate progress across its plan. In addition, the scope and breadth

o the amendment requests indicated a potentially signicant shit in

the States approved plans. As a condition o high-risk status, the State

was placed on a cost-reimbursement basis, which required the State to

submit receipts or expenditures to the Department prior to drawing

down grant unds. In addition, the State was required to submit

documentation prior to obligating unds to ensure unds were spent

in alignment with the approved Scope o Work. Finally, the State was

required to submit a revised Scope o Work and budget in January

2012 to refect amendments through December 2011.

In March 2012, the Department conducted an onsite review o

Hawaiis Race to the op program, including interviews with State,Complex Area5, and school personnel. While there was evidence

that Hawaii had taken action to address a number o the concerns

that placed the grant on high-risk and cost reimbursement status,

the Department determined in May 2012 that the State had not

4 Additional State-specic data on progress against annual perormance measures and goals reported in the Year 2 APRs can be ound on the Race to the Top Data Displayat www.rtt-apr.us.

5 As a unitary SEA, Hawaii has a single statewide LEA and does not have traditional school districts. A Complex Area is an organizational structure composed o two or three highschools and the intermediate/middle and elementary schools that eed into them, each headed by a superintendent, which allows administrators to ocus on supporting the needs otheir schools while providing meaningul supervision and accountability expectations.


4/23


Executive Summary

yet demonstrated the substantial progress necessary to remove

the high-risk designation. Te State remains on high-risk status,

but as o June 2012, the Department removed Hawaii rom cost

reimbursement status because the State met the conditions outlined

in the December 2011 letter to submit a revised Scope o Work andbudget refecting amendments approved through December 2011.

State Year 2 summary

Accomplishments

During Year 2, Hawaii worked to revise its Race to the op plan

to align with approved amendments and accelerate its orward

trajectory in response to the Department placing the States grant on

high-risk status. Te HIDOE central oce reorganized in January

2012, drated a new Strategic Plan, and revised program-specic

communications plans. In March 2012, HIDOE began planningand training to establish Academic Review eams (ARs) in each

Complex Area and school or SY 2012-2013.

Te State began its transition to the Common Core State Standards

(CCSS) with a directive that teachers in grades kindergarten through

second grade (K-2) and 11-12 implement CCSS-based instruction in

SY 2011-2012. Te State developed curricular rameworks or grades

three to eight (3-8) in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics

or SY 2012-2013 and provided proessional development or

educators on CCSS curriculum materials, CCSS instructional shits,

and alignment o instructional materials. Using the Smarter Balanced

Assessment Consortiums (Smarter Balanced) tool, HIDOE also

conducted a technology needs assessment to assess Complex Area

readiness to implement new online assessments in SY 2014-2015.

HIDOE built capacity or a new SLDS by upgrading its

technological inrastructure, executing a contract or a single sign-on

system, and building a system to actively monitor schools network

access. Every principal used new data dashboards in Year 2, and the

State began to add new dashboards to promote teacher use. Te

State added 20,000 items to its Data or School Improvement (DSI)

ormative assessment item bank and conducted training or educators

on using ormative assessment practices.

During SY 2011-2012, the Board o Education approved three

new educator eectiveness policies that require measures, supports,

and consequences or teacher and leader perormance. Te policiesrequire a perormance based system o probation and tenure, and

evaluation and compensation, beginning in SY 2014-2015. From

January to May 2012, HIDOE piloted elements o a new educator

evaluation system without consequences in the Zones o School

Innovation (ZSI), which include 18 schools and 932 K-12 teachers.

Te pilot included student growth percentile data (including the use

o roster verication sotware, to ensure students were assigned to the

correct teacher), educator observation protocols, and student survey

tools. Trough newly established alternative pathways to teacher

and principal certication, the State recruited cohorts o 6 aspiring

principals or residency-based preparation and 104 teachers or

placement in SY 2012-2013. HIDOE supported Complex Areas in

implementing standards-based induction programs or all rst- and

second-year teachers. A new Human Resources Inormation System

(HRIS), eHR, enabled Complex Areas and principals to moreeciently prioritize highly qualied teachers in hiring decisions.

Low-perorming schools in the ZSI received extensive Year 2 support

through specialized personnel such as data coaches and student

success coaches. Te State also worked to improve instructional

opportunities or students in the ZSI through HIDOE coordinators

acilitating wraparound services or children in low-achieving schools,

providing 276 our-year olds with preschool programs, and providing

ater-school extended learning opportunities. Te State met an

important milestone in reaching an agreement with HSA to provide

extended learning time and additional proessional development

in SY 2012-2013 or students and educators in all schools in the

ZSI and at the Hawaii School or the Dea and Blind. Seven o the9 schools in one ZSI made adequate yearly progress (AYP) or SY

2011-2012; 8 o the 18 total ZSI schools met AYP in SY 2011-2012.

Challenges

While the State took several steps in the right direction ollowing

its designation as a high-risk grantee, Hawaii continues to ace

challenges and delays. HIDOE developed a new strategic plan, which

delayed the creation o metrics to measure progress against the

Race to the op plan and the strategic plan at the State, Complex

Area, and school levels. In addition, ater a one-year delay, the State

is only in the beginning phases o creating systematic structures

and processes to gather inormation about implementation rom

schools and Complex Areas. Now called Academic Review eams(ARs), these structures have additional importance in the ZSI where

HIDOE is piloting many new strategies.

During Year 2, HIDOE realized a need or clearer communication to

internal stakeholders, such as teachers and principals. For example, there

was conusion among some educators about expectations or using

CCSS-based instruction in SY 2011-2012 and in upcoming school years.

Te State postponed deployment o a comprehensive communications

plan to coincide with the July 2012 release o the new strategic plan. In

summer 2012, the State made changes to its communications strategies,

but it is too early to tell i the strategies will be successul.

Ongoing delays in securing a collective bargaining agreement withHSA, in addition to Year 1 hiring and contracting delays, impacted

the States ability to move orward with its educator evaluation

system, and the States ability to meet commitments in its equitable

distribution o teachers plan and compensation reorm plan. While the

State is moving orward with its pilot evaluation system, it reports that

it still does not have authority to implement new incentive structures

and compensation reorm in SY 2014-2015. Te State successully

negotiated a memorandum o understanding (MOU) with the Hawaii

Government Employees Association (HGEA) or a principal evaluation

pilot in SY 2012-2013 but planning the pilot has been challenging.


5/23


Executive Summary

Looking ahead to Year 3

In Year 3, Hawaii will make routine new perormance management

and monitoring processes, as well as changes to its communications

plan. Te State will continue its transition to the CCSS by vettingcurricular materials to inorm statewide purchases, providing job-

embedded proessional development or all teachers, and monitoring

CCSS implementation using new tools. Te State will also begin

implementation o the CCR diploma, which will apply to incoming

reshmen in SY 2012-2013. Te State will work to increase the use

o data dashboards in its SLDS and continue upgrading schools

technological capacity to use new data systems. Six principal

candidates will participate in a new alternative principal certication

program. Educators in 81 schools will participate in the second

year o the educator evaluation system pilot to ully develop allthe tools and training or the system, including a pilot o Student

Learning Objectives (SLOs). Te State will also pilot a new principal

evaluation system. Finally, under a one-year supplemental agreement,

students in the ZSI will benet rom extended learning time and

educators will have additional proessional development days.

State Success Factors

Building State capacity to support

Complex AreasTe States lack o progress in Year 1 and high-risk designation

were an urgent call to action in Year 2. HIDOE worked to amend

timelines throughout its Race to the op plan and to align its

budget with those changes. Te State also worked to routinize

processes across all projects in Hawaiis Race to the op plan,

including establishing the Strategic Project Oversight Committee

(SPOC). SPOC is composed o HIDOE leadership, including

the Superintendent, a representative rom the Governors oce,

and assistant superintendents. In Year 2, SPOC reports provided

HIDOE with qualitative and quantitative assessments o Race to

the op project implementation and an opportunity to interact

with program sta to address concerns and make decisions.HIDOE added a Harvard Strategic Data Fellow to build its

capacity to eectively analyze and use data, which will assist the

State in developing the Balanced Scorecard tool and metrics or

ARs at the Complex Area and school levels (see below).

Hawaii reorganized the HIDOE central oce in January 2012,

which directly aected about 91 sta positions. Te reorganization

aimed to improve resource allocation, communication, fexibility,

and alignment o HIDOE unctions. It also reduced the number

o direct sta reporting to the Superintendent and assigned the

Deputy Superintendent as Chie Academic Ocer with direction

and supervision o Complex Area Superintendents and curricular

matters. Te Oce or Strategic Reorm led by a new assistantsuperintendent now leads the States Race to the op work and

reports directly to the Superintendent in the reorganized structure.

In Year 2, HIDOE and the Board o Education undertook a

revision o the States 2011-2018 strategic plan, which was

completed in June 2012 and presented to educational leaders

throughout Hawaii in July 2012. Te plan centers around three

goals: student success, sta success, and system-wide supports.

Te plans perormance indicators are the basis o the Balanced

Scorecard, a dashboard displaying metrics aligned to the States

reorm goals. Tough the State completed an initial version o

a Balanced Scorecard tool in December 2011, HIDOE did not

incorporate it into the States perormance management routines

due to anticipated updates to the strategic plan. Te State began

planning or the development o revised Balanced Scorecard

metrics that align to the strategic plan and provide actionable goals.

Te complete tool will not be operational as a part o HIDOEs

regular perormance management structures or routines until

the middle o Year 3, representing a delay o about one year. Te

State reports that the student success measures rom the initial

Balanced Scorecard ormed the basis or quarterly evaluation

reviews between the Deputy Secretary and individual ComplexArea Superintendents and have been incorporated in Academic

Leadership eam meetings since spring 2012.

Troughout Year 1 and the beginning o Year 2, HIDOE struggled

to eectively communicate its Race to the op reorm plan to

educators and the public. For instance, when members o the

HSA voted not to ratiy the tentative agreement between HSA

and the State in January 2012, HIDOE recognized the need to

communicate more clearly with educators about the educator

evaluation system, including its components and impacts. HIDOE

has since engaged the services o communications advisors to

develop an internal communications plan, leading to the release o

the 2011-2018 strategic plan and messaging related to the contract

negotiations and extended learning time in the ZSI (see TurningAround the Lowest-Achieving Schools). In January 2012, Hawaiiexecuted a contract or a vendor to enhance a public reporting and

community access portal and to develop comprehensive strategic

communications, interactive marketing, and a branding plan.


6/23



65.8%

70.3%

Grade 3

67.9%71.8%

Grade 4

66.8%

70.9%

Grade 5

66.8%

72.9%

Grade 6

65.6%

69.9%

Grade 7

66.7%

71.8%

Grade 8

66.1%

69.9%

Grade 10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PercentProcient

Actual: SY 20112012Actual: SY 20102011

63.6%67.2%

Grade 3

61.1%63.2%

Grade 4

58.3%62.4%

Grade 5

52.2%

58.6%

Grade 6

52.1%

56.4%

Grade 7

53.7%

58.8%

Grade 8

39.8%

45.6%

Grade 10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Actual: SY 20112012Actual: SY 20102011

PercentProcient

Student Prociency on Hawaii's ELA Assessment

Student Prociency on Hawaii's Mathematics Assessment

Preliminary SY 20112012 data reported as o: September 17, 2012

NOTE: Over the last two years, a number o States adopted new assessments and/or cut scores.

For State-reported context, please reer to the Race to the Top APR at www.rtt-apr.us.





7/23


8/23



Stakeholder engagement

Key activities and stakeholders

Hawaii continued to engage with a variety o stakeholders,including the State legislature, Board o Education, the

philanthropic community, and community-based organizations.

Te State, however, struggled to implement a cohesive and

comprehensive communications strategy or internal and external

stakeholders to understand HIDOEs reorm work. In July 2012,

HIDOE released a new branding plan, called Strive HI, which

uses a color scheme and logo to package the strategic plan and

Race to the op initiatives. HIDOE keeps media, stakeholders

and the general public inormed through news releases, media

advisories, a reorm-ocused website, and e-newsletters. HIDOE is

also on track to develop an online community access portal with

support rom a vendor.

Internally, HIDOE struggled to communicate clear plans and

expectations to internal stakeholders regarding the States reorm

work. For example, the January 2012 vote not to ratiy the

tentative agreement revealed a need or better communication

about the States educator evaluation system. Additionally,

HIDOE provided conusing inormation regarding the timeline

or ull implementation o CCSS. Te States Race to the op

plan and training and other communications indicated CCSS

should be ully implemented by SY 2013-2014 to account

or instructional shits and the use o bridge assessments.

However, the States website indicated that CCSS must be ully

implemented in SY 2014-2015 to account or the Smarter

Balanced assessments. Te State reported they addressed thisdiscrepancy during summer leadership meetings and will continue

to reinorce it through the Academic Leadership eam structure.

HIDOE also communicated with internal stakeholders through

bi-monthly Race to the op updates or HIDOE leadership and

progress updates or Complex Area superintendents to share with

their principals and teachers. Te State is working with a vendor

to design a comprehensive communications plan that addresses

the States reorm eorts, aligned to its 2011-2018 strategic plan

and all Race to the op projects.

Programmatically, several schools worked with local oundations

to support CCSS-transition training and curriculum development.

In addition, HIDOE worked with a local oundation to support

bridge activities associated with their statewide induction and

mentoring program.

Continuous improvement

Within HIDOE, SPOC meetings serve as the primary way to

monitor progress and implementation. Hawaiis project managers

and project sponsors present status reports on each project to SPOCevery ve weeks. HIDOE revised SPOC meetings and materials

in Year 2 to improve decision-making processes and resolve issues

in a timely manner. Further, monthly project manager meetings

are mandatory or all Race to the op sponsors, portolio managers,

project managers, and key project sta. Tese meetings help

HIDOE actively identiy problems, collaborate across projects, and

elevate issues to SPOC. In addition, HIDOEs Oce o Strategic

Reorm created a Stoplight Report, a version o the States

approved Scope o Work that tracks progress towards completion o

Race to the op tasks.

Project-specic mechanisms also drive continuous improvement in

Race to the op implementation. HIDOE assesses CCSS trainingsessions or educators by collecting sign-in sheets, agendas, and

participant evaluations (see Standards and Assessments). At regulardata coach meetings with educators and monthly meetings between

data coaches, the groups assess implementation and discuss possible

solutions or adjustments in response to challenges (see Data Systemsto Support Instruction). Te Great eachers Great Leaders ask Force,

the Complex Area Superintendent Roundtable, and the eacher

Leader Workgroup provide eedback on the development o the

educator evaluation system (see Great Teachers and Leaders).

In May 2012, the States external evaluator provided preliminary

ndings and an interim report or the rst phase o program

evaluation in Year 2. Te report was inormed by administrator

interviews and teacher ocus groups with research questions

pertaining to each aspect o the States Race to the op plan. Te

State reports that they have a plan in place to respond to each

challenge raised in the external evaluators report, which brought

to light overarching communications concerns and knowledge

gaps regarding the States CCSS work plan, among other things.


9/23



Successes, challenges, andlessons learned

Hawaii accelerated its Race to the op work in Year 2 ater

signicant Year 1 delays. HIDOE successully reorganizedits internal structures to reduce duplication and increase

administrative eciency. In addition, HIDOE presented its new

strategic plan to the Board o Education and began work to create

aligned metrics or its Balanced Scorecard tool, which will not be

complete until Year 3. SPOC meetings became a regular practice

to track implementation and ensure that projects are moving on

time and with quality. In Year 2, HIDOE got many projects back

on track and executed several delayed contracts. However, in

light o the delays, HIDOE must maintain this eort to ensure

amended timelines are met, and continue to rene processes to

gather inormation about implementation at the Complex Area

and school levels. As project implementation transitions rom the

State level to Complex Areas and schools, it will be increasingly

important to have recurring State oversight that monitors

quality and delity o implementation and provides sucient

implementation support. As o September 2012, more time isneeded to determine how well the AR structure will inorm State

implementation o Race to the op projects and reveal the need or

dierentiated supports.

During Year 2, the State improved communications and raised

expectations, especially or internal stakeholders, such as educators

and principals. Te challenging collective bargaining situation

requires clear messaging about key projects. Te State appears

to have taken preliminary steps to address the communications

barriers by engaging the services o consultants and vendors,

as evidenced by the presentation o the new strategic and

branding plans.

Achievement Gap on Hawaii's ELA Assessment

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

54

60

55.3

20.8

55.5

12.1

8.89.5

46.7

55.4

13.2

21.7

15.3

9.5

Percentage

poin

tdifference

Actual: SY 20102011 Actual: SY 20112012



Numbers in the graph represent the gap in a school year between two subgroups on the States ELA assessment. Achievement gaps were

calculated by subtracting the percent o students scoring profcient in the lower-perorming subgroup rom the percent o students scoring

profcient in the higher-perorming subgroup to get the percentage point dierence between the profciency o the two subgroups. I the

achievement gap narrowed between two subgroups, the line will slope downward. I the achievement gap increased between two subgroups,

the line will slope upward.


White/Black gap

White/Hispanic gap

Children without

Disabilities/Children

with Disabilities gap

Not Limited English

Profcient/Limited

English Profcient gap

Not Low Income/

Low Income gap

Female/Male gap


10/23



Achievement Gap on Hawaii's Mathematics Assessment

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

54

48.8

32.7

18.420

15.1

3.7

50.8

41

16.7

20.2

14.5

4.4

Percentage

pointdifference

Actual: SY 20102011 Actual: SY 20112012

White/Black gap

White/Hispanic gap

Children without

Disabilities/Children

with Disabilities gap

Not Limited English

Profcient/Limited

English Profcient gap

Not Low Income/

Low Income gap

Female/Male gap

College Enrollment Rates

0%

10%

20%30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

61.1%60.9%

Co

llegeenrollmentrate

Actual:

SY 20112012

Target from

Hawaiis

approved plan:

SY 20112012

Actual:

SY 2010201152%





Numbers in the graph represent the gap in a school year between two subgroups on the States ELA assessment. Achievement gaps were

calculated by subtracting the percent o students scoring profcient in the lower-perorming subgroup rom the percent o students scoring

profcient in the higher-perorming subgroup to get the percentage point dierence between the profciency o the two subgroups. I the

achievement gap narrowed between two subgroups, the line will slope downward. I the achievement gap increased between two subgroups,

the line will slope upward.



11/23


Standards and Assessments

Implementing rigorous college- and career-ready standards and assessments that prepare students or

success in college and career is an integral aspect o education reorm in all Race to the Top States.

Supporting the transition to college- andcareer-ready standards and high-qualityassessments

In June 2010, Hawaiis Board o Education voted unanimously to

adopt the CCSS. Hawaii is a governing member o Smarter Balanced

and will administer those assessments in SY 2014-2015.

During SY 2011-2012, Hawaii teachers in K-2 and 11-12 were

directed to ully implement the CCSS. Educator eedback indicated

that Hawaiis training and outreach built a clear understanding o

expectations or CCSS implementation among educators in grades

K-2 and 11-12. All K-2 students received standards-based reportcards based on the CCSS in Year 2. Still, evidence rom a sample o

Complex Areas indicated that implementation varied among Complex

Areas and schools or these grade levels. Some Complex Areas

implemented the CCSS in designated grades, while others sought

to address their school-specic context and needs, or example, by

developing instructional materials to support uture implementation.

In an eort to get better data about school-level implementation,

HIDOE designed implementation rubrics and surveys, in addition to

proessional development evaluation tools, or use in SY 2012-2013.

Although implementation expectations were clear or SY 2011-

2012, the States messaging or expectations around uture years

was inconsistent, especially regarding the timeline or ull CCSS

implementation in all grades and subjects. While the States

approved plan called or ull implementation in SY 2013-2014, in

March 2012 the States Standards oolkit website and proessional

development materials indicated ull implementation or SY 2014-

2015 to account or the Smarter Balanced assessments. In response,

in July 2012, the Superintendent released a memo to the eld and

HIDOE presented explicit timelines or proessional development,

adoption o common curriculum, and assessments over the next

two years. Te State used a July 2012 Educational Leadership

Institute, proessional development materials and sessions, and

principal meetings to reinorce the timeline or ull implementation

in SY 2013-2014, with the consortiums assessments available in

SY 2014-2015.As part o the States comprehensive assessment system, HIDOE

secured a contract to administer end-o-course examinations in

Algebra I, Algebra II, expository writing, and U.S. History. Tese

State- and vendor-developed assessments will be eld tested in

spring 2013 and eventually become part o students' course grades.

Students were administered an existing Algebra II end-o-course

examination in spring 2012. Te State also secured a contract to

redesign the Hawaii State Assessment or a CCSS bridge assessment

to be administered in SY 2013-2014.

Dissemination o resources andproessional development

HIDOE makes resources available to educators primarily through

the Standards oolkit website and provides various opportunities or

proessional development. Curriculum rameworks were available

or educators in grades K-2 and 11-12 in ELA and mathematics or

SY 2011-2012. HIDOE also created ELA and mathematics resource

documents, including crosswalks, curriculum rameworks, webinars,

and sample perormance tasks. Te Standards oolkit website also

includes a variety o resources, including curriculum rameworks

and assessment items rom other States. Some Complex Areas

and schools urther supported their own implementation throughpartnerships with local oundations. In summer 2012, HIDOE

completed and released CCSS-aligned curriculum rameworks

or grades 3-8 in ELA and mathematics to assist in gradual

implementation in SY 2012-2013.

During SY 2011-2012, HIDOE used awareness trainings to

introduce the CCSS to Complex Areas and schools. It held statewide

secondary department chair meetings on the CCSS in mathematics

and ELA in November 2011, and 135 teachers attended a session on

the CCSS and the Algebra II end-o-course examination. Program

sta used participant evaluations to assess the reach and quality o

CCSS training sessions. As o September 2012, all principals were

trained in CCSS. In addition, HIDOE embeds CCSS-alignedproessional development in its Assessment Literacy and Data or

School Improvement work (see Data Systems to Support Instruction).

In preparation or SY 2012-2013, HIDOE developed a series o

protocols that principals are using to provide job-embedded training

or teachers on CCSS instructional shits.

Te State is planning or the adoption o statewide common

instructional materials, slated or spring 2013. Te Curriculum and

Research Development Group at the University o Hawaii urther

developed existing criteria or selection o CCSS-based instructional

materials. With this resource in hand, in addition to the publishers

criteria developed by Student Achievement Partners, HIDOE

developed a request or proposals (RFP) and selected a contractor to

vet CCSS instructional materials. Tis analysis will inorm the States

plan or adoption and purchase o statewide CCSS curricula.


12/23


Standards and Assessments


During Year 2, Hawaii made progress in training and providing

resources to educators as they transition to CCSS. In SY 2011-2012, the State phased in implementation in grades K-2 and 11-12

but with varied levels o implementation. Te State prepared or

statewide CCSS implementation in SY 2012-2013 by developing

curricular rameworks or grades 3-8 and oering training to sub-sets

o educators according to grade and subject area. By the end o the

year, the State made additional training and curriculum rameworks

or teachers in all grades and subjects.

On an approved amended timeline, the State successully procured

a vendor to assist with the process to select statewide common

instructional materials, slated or completion by the end o SY 2012-

2013. Te State must work to meet the ambitious timeline set orth

in the contract to ully leverage its unique unitary structure or ull

CCSS implementation in SY 2013-2014. Te State also procured

end-o-course examinations in key subject areas.

While progress was made, the State must be clear and consistent

about CCSS timelines. Tis becomes especially important as

implementation shits entirely to the school and classroom levels

in the upcoming school year. In addition, the State must increase

interactions at the Complex Area and school levels to ensure support

and delity o CCSS implementation and to understand the impact

o State-provided resources and assistance. Te States new rubrics,

surveys, and protocols data have the potential to assist the State in

learning rom implementation as it happens and provide supports

as necessary.

Data Systems to Support Instruction

Statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) and instructional improvement systems (IIS) enhance the

ability o States to eectively 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 eorts to improve instruction and increase

student achievement.

Fully implementing an SLDS

Hawaii used SY 2011-2012 to monitor its SLDS systems use and

develop new dashboards. Educators can access SLDS data through

dashboards that include data rom the Comprehensive Student

Support System, the Student Inormation System, School Quality

Surveys, and the Human Resources system. HIDOE provided online

SLDS training in Year 2.

Te State ound that while all principals had accessed the SLDS

during the school year, teacher usage was very low. HIDOE worked

with resource teachers, school renewal specialists, and Complex Area

educational specialists to solicit eedback rom schools to develop

a strategy to increase usage among classroom teachers. In Year 2,

HIDOE added data elements based on user eedback to make the

systems more valuable to users and began to rame new reports to

promote teacher use.

Hawaii continued to update HIPASS, an interim pre-kindergarten

through college (P-20) longitudinal data system (LDS) that will

operate or three to our years. In spring 2012, Hawaiis P-20

Partnerships or Education (Hawaii P-20) executed a contract

to develop reports linking K-12 LDS data to higher education

and workorce data. Tis project is now progressing on an

amended timeline.

Accessing and using State data

o prepare schools to access the new data systems, Hawaii is

upgrading the technological inrastructure across the State. It

completed the rst stage o its wide area network upgrades, outtting

schools in the ZSI, and on Maui and Kauai with broadband access.

HIDOE and its contractor conducted site assessments and logistical

planning or upgrading the States ber optic network. In addition,

HIDOE is building a data inrastructure that enables it to actively

monitor school connections and bandwidth, and identiy technology

problems. Tis will enable HIDOE to ensure that schools can

access the system rather than wait or schools to report network

access problems.

Hawaii executed a contract to develop a single sign-on system in Year

2. HIDOE personnel will be able to use the single sign-on system

as one entry point to the States online systems, including time and

attendance, the State proessional development portal, e-mail, and

the student inormation system. Most o the single sign-on work will

take place in Year 3, representing a delay o approximately two years.


13/23


Data Systems to Support Instruction

Using data to improve instruction

In Year 2, HIDOE added 20,000 test items to its DSI ormative

assessment system and conducted educator trainings on data use

best practices. Four cohorts o instructional leaders completedintensive training, and in turn, these leaders were expected to share

their knowledge with classroom teachers. Te State updated the DSI

site with online training materials, 13 resource documents based

on user eedback, and conducted trainings at the Complex Area

and school levels. Although the system is in place, some Complex

Areas noted that network access problems hindered their ability to

ully leverage the DSI. In addition, some schools chose to use their

own ormative assessment systems instead o the DSI. In response,

HIDOE developed a readiness matrix to determine the consistency

o Complex Areas implementation o ormative assessment practices.

HIDOE urther promoted data-inormed instruction through

intensive training sessions or 16 State data coaches on assessmentliteracy, data team processes, data analysis, eective teaching, and

using technology as a tool or proessional development. Te coaches

are based at two partner schools within a Complex Area with the

goal o supporting the development o data team structures and

processes at the partner schools and replicating best practices at

other schools in the Complex Area. During Year 2, the coaches met

with teachers, principals, and Complex Area sta to review eedback,

data, and progress reports to assess implementation and make

adjustments to Complex Area- and classroom-level work.

Te Hawaii Partnership or Educational Research Consortium

(HPERC) held its second annual research symposium in Year 2

to engage stakeholders in collaborating on research to improve

instruction and student outcomes. Over 20 HIDOE sta and more

than 50 researchers rom various organizations participated, and the

eedback HIDOE collected rom attendees was positive. HPERC

members established a quarterly meeting schedule to acilitate

inormational exchange and provide training opportunities. In

addition, HPERC developed a database to collect and support

research requests.

Trough an approved amendment request, Hawaii reallocated

$2.78 million in HPERC unds to other projects. Tese unds were

originally slated or data system development, which will now be

supported through other sources. HPERC aced signicant delays in

Year 1 that aected progress in Year 2. With increased collaboration

between HIDOE and its partners, the project is on track with itsamended timeline into Year 3.


Te State has deployed its interim SLDS and DSI systems to promote

data-driven decision making, but must continue to work on increasingmeaningul use o the systems. New data dashboards developed in

direct response to educator eedback have the potential to make the

States SLDS more useul. o help educators generate useul classroom-

level ormative data, HIDOE added 20,000 items to the DSI system

and provided extensive data training; however, connectivity issues and

low usage remain as challenges.

HIDOEs cadre o data coaches signal a commitment to using

data to drive instruction, but the State learned that it had to dene

the coaches responsibilities to ensure consistent implementation.

HIDOEs readiness matrix may help the State assess Complex Areas

use o ormative assessment practices and adjust data coach training

and expectations. Given the partner school model, the State must alsoconsider how to support the replication o promising practices within

the Complex Areas and throughout the State.

Te States P-20 LDS reporting capabilities and single sign-on system

projects experienced delays in Year 2. However, with contracts put in

place during Year 2, the State must closely manage to the amended

timelines to move the work moving orward. As the State increases

its technological capacity, it has begun to develop systems to track

bandwidth and proactively identiy connectivity problems to increase

reliable access to the internet at the Complex Area and school levels.


14/23


Great Teachers and Leaders

Race to the Top States are developing comprehensive systems o educator eectiveness by adopting

clear 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 inormation to inorm proessional development,compensation, promotion, retention, and tenure decisions. In addition, Race to the Top States are

providing high-quality pathways or aspiring teachers and principals, ensuring equitable distribution

o eective teachers and principals, improving the eectiveness o teacher and principal preparation

programs, and providing eective supports to all educators.

Providing high-quality pathways oraspiring teachers and principals

Te State amended its timelines and candidate targets or its

alternative certication or teachers programs, and or its newalternative certication or principals program, but still intends to

meet the objectives o these activities. In Year 2, Hawaii executed

contracts with two vendors to create alternative certication

programs or teachers that will prioritize mid-career changers and

recent college graduates. Te programs will ocus on recruiting

teachers or shortage subject areas like SEM and or student

populations such as English learners and special education students.

With the vendors, HIDOE conducted nine outreach sessions to

attract candidates and placed 104 teachers or SY 2012-2013, well

above the Year 2 target o 66 teachers.

Having experienced delays in Year 1, the State nalized new

administrative rules to allow HIDOE to create an alternativeadministrator certication program. Te State executed a contract

in May 2012 with a partnership o a local university and a national

turnaround partner to establish the program and ater a short

recruitment period, HIDOE accepted six o 58 applicants or the

rst cohort or training and placement in SY 2012-2013. Tis is six

candidates short o the States target o 12 candidates.

Improving teacher and principaleectiveness based on perormance

Evaluation system development

Troughout Year 2, Hawaii worked to accelerate progress in piloting

a new teacher evaluation system ater signicant challenges in Year 1.

Te State continues to communicate with the State teachers union,

HSA, to involve educators in development o the tools, and to

prepare or negotiations or the 2013-2015 contract period when the

evaluation system will impact educators. In January 2012, teachers

voted not to ratiy the tentative agreement, which included a mutual

agreement regarding the evaluation system and related impacts. Te

vote revealed a lack o clear communication with educators about

the details o the evaluation system, in addition to other aspects o

the contract.

Te State asserts it has ull authority to use the new evaluation

system design in determining each teachers rating o record

beginning in SY 2013-2014, and has stated that it has authority

to implement many o the eects described in the States approved

Scope o Work (e.g., termination, retention, step increase based on

perormance). In April 2012, the Board o Education passed three

separate policies on educator evaluation, compensation, and tenure

that clariy and reinorce the design and eects o the perormance

evaluation system.6 Te State reports that these policies direct

HIDOE to implement the perormance based evaluation system

and secure HIDOEs authority to ully implement the educator

evaluation system. However, the State reports it must bargain orauthority to implement new consequences o the new system, such

as incentives based on perormance and alternative compensation

systems (see Ensuring equitable distribution o efective teachers and

leadersbelow). Trough an approved amendment request, the State

procured services to develop and pilot the teacher evaluation system

in spring 2012 and SY 2012-2013.

Te Hawaii teacher evaluation system pilot took place in spring

2012 in 18 schools in the ZSI. Te pilot eatured elements o

the evaluation system, including: a student growth percentile

component, classroom observations, and student surveys. HIDOE

held a variety o training sessions on each component o the pilot

and provided supports to schools as necessary. Having selected theCharlotte Danielson observation ramework, principals conducted

over 500 observations and, according to the State, achieved a high

rate o inter-rater reliability. Principals also conducted conerences

with teachers and used online tools to provide eedback rom the

observation using the Danielson ramework. HIDOE administered

6 In the spring 2012 legislative session, the Governor introduced a bill to elaborate on existing statute that would, according to Hawaii, clearly articulate the States legal authorityor perormance based education evaluation with a ull range o consequences, consistent with the States Scope o Work. Late in the legislative session, the bill ailed to make itto conerence.


15/23



the RIPOD student survey in March and April 2012 and released

the survey data to teachers and principals in May 2012. Schools

used classroom roster verication sotware to conrm their rosters in

preparation or release o student growth percentile data, which was

provided to leadership in the ZSI and Year 3 pilot schools in summer2012 in conjunction with training on how to use that data to guide

instructional improvements. Tis data will be released to classroom

teachers in Year 3 with a protocol and training.

In preparation or the second pilot year in SY 2012-2013, HIDOE

developed an implementation plan and guidance or a pilot o SLOs

in all grades and subjects. wenty-two schools signed on to develop

rst generation SLOs or elementary, middle and high school grade

spans. Te State also repurposed an existing contract to provide a

technology base to connect classroom observation ndings, student

survey data, and SLOs. Te Hawaii Business Roundtable donated

nearly 200 iPads to administrators to access this system during the

SY 2012-2013 pilot year. An additional 63 schools signed on toparticipate in the SY 2012-2013 pilot year, exceeding the States

target o 40 schools.

Te State did not pilot or implement a new principal evaluation

system in Year 2 as planned, resulting in a two-year delay. While the

State negotiated an MOU with the HGEA in April 2012 to pilot

such a system in SY 2012-2013, the parties are still working on a

ramework or tool or the new system. Te State reports that the

Deputy Superintendent conducted Complex Area Superintendent

evaluations in summer 2012 based on leadership practice and

student achievement outcomes.

Stakeholder outreach

Beginning in 2012, HIDOE and education stakeholders leveraged

new structures to design and implement the teacher evaluation

system pilot. In January 2012, the Governor reconstituted the Great

eachers Great Leaders ask Force, made up o representatives rom

the business, philanthropy, labor, and education sectors. Te ask

Force advises the Superintendent on strategic personnel management

approaches, or example, by meeting on educator evaluation

and student growth models. Te Complex Area Superintendent

Roundtable provides an opportunity or leaders at the Complex

Area level to advise on the evaluation system, particularly by

recommending supports or schools and assessing schools readiness

to implement evaluation systems. Members o this group now

include superintendents rom all Complex Areas participating in thesecond year pilot. Finally, the eacher-Leader workgroup provides

input on the overall model and suggests potential improvements and

ways to avoid implementation challenges.

Ensuring equitable distribution oeective teachers and principals

During Year 2, Hawaii made progress in parts o its equity plan,

but was unable to execute some components due to collectivebargaining issues. In February 2012, the Superintendent approved

the States equity plan, which refects programmatic changes to

support ZSI schools and systems to recruit and hire new personnel.

HIDOE revised several policies with intended impact on the SY

2012-2013 recruitment and placement cycle. A December 2011

memorandum rom the Superintendent requires principals to hire

only highly qualied teacher applicants. o provide administrators

more fexibility to match teacher qualications to school needs,

teacher candidates can now identiy only an island preerence on

their application orms, rather than one o 42 geographic locations.

Further, ZSI schools received a two-week head start to hire highly

qualied teachers. Schools in the ZSI received additional human

resources support to assist with hiring and proessional development,

as well as to help teachers create proessional development plans to

become highly qualied. In Year 2, 67 teachers in the 18 ZSI schools

had completed such plans and 14 became highly qualied.

HIDOE redesigned and deployed a new human resource

inormation system, called eHR, in Year 2. Te eHR system has

automated and streamlined a number o previously manual human

resource processes that emphasize and prioritize hiring o highly

qualied and highly eective personnel. Te system also tracks

educators proessional development plans. HIDOE intends to

analyze initial hiring and highly qualied teacher data to assess

eHRs success in reerring highly qualied applicants to vacant

positions.

HIDOE developed a project plan or eSchool technology, which is

scheduled to launch in Year 3. Te project will oer high-demand

courses via distance learning or students in hard-to-sta schools

to access highly qualied teachers. HIDOE surveyed principals

in hard-to-sta schools to determine which courses to oer. o

ensure that schools can take advantage o the courses, HIDOE

oces coordinated resources in Year 2 to expand videoconerencing

capabilities in remote and rural locations.

During Year 2, Hawaii implemented new policies to attract teachers

to low-perorming schools. Previously, HIDOE had made a $1,500

bonus available to recruit and retain educators who teach in ZSIschools; however, the State learned that it needs to better publicize

the bonus so educators are more likely to take advantage o it as

a relocation incentive. Te State also began oering out-o-State

teachers up to six years o credit on the salary schedule or their

past service and issued guidelines or when out-o-State principals

can receive such credit. In the past, neither principals nor teachers

received credit or years o service elsewhere. Due to collective

bargaining issues, Hawaii did not award bonuses to highly eective

principals who chose to work in the ZSI in Years 1 and 2.


16/23



Te State still does not have authority to execute against some o

its other Race to the op commitments, resulting in delays o up

to two years. Tese policy commitments include compensation

and incentives or teachers and leaders based on perormance, and

bonuses or teachers and leaders who choose to work in the ZSI.

Improving the eectiveness o teacherand principal preparation programs

In Year 2, HIDOE modied an existing contract or monitoring,

evaluating, and providing eedback to educator preparation programs

to include an evaluation o teachers who complete the programs and

their corresponding student achievement data, as well as a teacher

and principal eedback report. HIDOE established an electronic link

between students, their teachers, and teacher preparation programs

to run a beta test o the eedback report in January 2012 using

data rom 11 teacher preparation programs and the New PrincipalsAcademy (a State-operated initiative). In February and May 2012,

HIDOE solicited eedback rom teacher education programs

through the eacher Education Coordinating Committee, which

is composed o preparation program representatives throughout

the State. HIDOE will continue to collaborate with institutions

o higher education to ensure that the eedback report contains

inormation that will be useul to preparation programs, such as time

to licensure, highly qualied status, geographic placement o teachers,

teacher retention statistics, and student achievement data.

Hawaii initially planned to publish evaluation reports o teacher

preparation programs at the end o Year 1, but educator eectiveness

data were not available. In response, HIDOE has incrementallyexpanded the eedback reports as data become available.

Providing eective support to teachersand principals

Te Superintendent adopted the Hawaii eacher Induction

Standards in September 2011. Adoption was delayed by one year

in order to build consensus among local educators on the statewide

standards. With oundation unding, the State procured services

to oer training in January 2012 or lead induction coordinators

at each o the States 15 Complex Areas. In April 2012, HIDOE

procured the services o Te New eacher Center to provideinduction support to beginning teachers over a two-year period. Te

State developed a rubric to measure Complex Area induction plans

and provided assistance to create gold standard plans aligned to

the newly adopted standards. HIDOE made receipt o itle II unds

to support the teacher induction plans contingent on submission

o an aligned induction plan, and by the end o the school year, all

Complex Areas had submitted an aligned plan or execution in SY

2012-2013. Te State reports that about 500 mentors have been

assigned to approximately 1,500 new teachers or SY 2012-2013.

Trough the New Principals Academy, new Hawaii principals

began receiving one day per month o job-embedded mentoring

and one day per month o programmed curricula. Year 2 survey

data inormed improvements to the program or Year 3 to prioritize

supports or instructional leadership, use o data, and humanresource management. According to the State, the principal

induction program now includes a stronger emphasis on mentors

being able to provide job-embedded leadership coaching and support

using acilitative coaching strategies to assist new principals.

Te State is working on a Knowledge ranser System and

Proessional Development Framework as part o a statewide system

to manage and evaluate eective proessional development, provide

technology-based support, and standardize the planning process

or proessional development across the State. In Year 2, the State

solicited eedback on the system rom a cross-stakeholder group.

HIDOE completed the Proessional Development Framework

design in February 2012, eight months behind schedule. Te Oceo Human Resources created design specications and tested key

components or the Knowledge ranser System, which HIDOE will

nalize in collaboration with a contractor in Year 3.


While the State experienced signicant setbacks in its teacher

and leader work in Year 2, the State has worked to get most o its

projects back on track. Te dicult collective bargaining situation

has increased awareness o the importance o clear and consistent

communication between HIDOE and educators on implementationo the evaluation system during the pilot years. Te spring 2012 pilot

o the teacher evaluation system was an opportunity or HIDOE

and the Complex Areas in the ZSI to work with some elements o

the proposed system and adjust implementation in anticipation

o the larger second year pilot. Since January 2012, stakeholder

groups have created an important venue to generate eedback and

problem solve implementation challenges. As the evaluation system

enters its second pilot year, HIDOE must ensure it has processes

and systems in place to gather inormation about implementation,

and make timely corrections and provide dierentiated supports, as

necessary. It continues to be a signicant concern that the State does

not have authority to execute against the entire scope o impacts o

its educator evaluation system, and that the State has yet to pilot aprincipal evaluation system.

In Year 2, Hawaii worked to create and solidiy pathways or new

teachers and principals. HIDOE established a new alternative

certication program or principals and recruited the rst cohort

o six candidates to begin training in Year 3. As a new program,

the State must ensure quality implementation to make the route

a viable option in the long-term. In Year 3, Hawaii will continue

to develop its eedback report or existing teacher and principal


17/23


preparation programs and connect it with work led by Hawaii

P-20 (see Data Systems to Support Instruction). Te States inductionwork with Complex Areas to develop strong induction plans, and

with a vendor to build internal capacity, have prepared the State or

implementation in SY 2012-2013.

Hawaii made progress on its equity plan by making policy changes

to provide greater hiring fexibility to principals in the ZSI. Te

States new eHR system has streamlined previously manual practices

and enabled Complex Areas to prioritize highly qualied teacher

applicants. HIDOE has also put the pieces in place to make courses

available to students who do not have access to highly qualied

teachers, and has developed plans to put the States remaining 870

teachers who are not highly qualied or one or more subjects on

track to become highly qualied. Te State will continue to analyzethe impact o these policy changes on SY 2012-2013 hiring and

make adjustments as necessary. Although progress has been made,

the State struggles to meet the ull scope o its equity plan due to

collective bargaining challenges.

Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools

Race to the Top States are supporting LEAs implementation o ar-reaching reorms to turn around

lowest-achieving schools by implementing one o our school intervention models.7

Support or the lowest-achievingschools

Hawaii created two ZSI that contain all but one o the lowest-

perorming schools in the State. In Year 2, the ZSI received

intensive supports across the States Race to the op plan and

piloted components o the new teacher evaluation system. Te

ZSI are also the priority or State initiatives related to the equitable

distribution o teachers and enhanced proessional development

and support. For example, principals in the ZSI benetted rom

recruitment and placement policy changes or SY 2012-2013 hiring,

and students in the ZSI will be targeted or eCourse technology toincrease access to highly qualied teachers (see Great Teachers andLeaders). Troughout Year 2, HIDOE provided various supports and

programs or students, teachers, and leadership in the ZSI.

State assistance and oversight

Te State engaged with the ZSI Complex Areas in several academic

and nancial planning processes to support implementation o

various reorms in SY 2011-2012. Each Complex Area revised its

comprehensive needs assessments and Academic and Financial Plans

or State review. Te State reports that these planning documents

underwent a rigorous review by HIDOEs School Improvement

eam to ensure alignment with the States existing strategic plan and

the States Race to the op plan. During SY 2011-2012, Hawaii

monitored ZSI implementation through periodic monitoring visits

rom HIDOE leadership. Trough these On-Site School Reviewvisits and reports, HIDOE leadership engaged with Complex Areas

on each schools progress on their AABC Quarterly Reports (see

State Success Factors) and implementation o Race to the op projects.

Te State did not implement its School Improvement Grant (SIG)

program with delity in SY 2011-2012 and struggled to provide the

oversight and supports required by the SIG program. SIG program

interventions are one o the oundational supports or Hawaiis

persistently lowest-achieving schools.

Te State met a signicant milestone in its ZSI plan by successully

negotiating a supplemental contract with teachers in the ZSI and the

Hawaii School or the Dea and Blind to implement an extended

learning time program in SY 2012-2013. Te agreement includesour hours per week o additional instructional time or students and

12 additional proessional development days.


7Race 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 othe sta and grant the principal sucient operational fexibility (including in stang,calendars/time and budgeting) to ully implement a comprehensive approach tosubstantially improve student outcomes.

Restart model: Convert a school or close and reopen it under a charter schooloperator, a charter management organization, or an education managementorganization that has been selected through a rigorous review process.

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

Transformation model: Implement each o the ollowing strategies: (1) replacethe principal and take steps to increase teacher and school leader eectiveness,(2) institute comprehensive instructional reorms, (3) increase learning time andcreate community-oriented schools, and (4) provide operational fexibility andsustained support.

School Intervention Models Initiated in Hawaiiin SY 20112012

School InterventionModel

Schools (#)Initiating Model

Transormation model 2

This data represents schools that initiated (that is, school(s) in the

frst year o implementation o) one o the our intervention models in

SY 2011-2012.


18/23


Supports or teachers and leaders in the ZSI

HIDOE provided data coaches and student success coaches to work

with groups o schools in the ZSI to assist with data analysis, work

with classroom teachers on assessment literacy strategies, and lead

data teams and proessional learning communities. HIDOE and

a turnaround partner also provided training specically or data

coaches in the ZSI on the DSI and SLDS (see Data Systems to

Support Instruction). In addition, HIDOE deployed human resourcespersonnel to support principals in the ZSI with recruitment, hiring,

induction, and training (see Great Teachers and Leaders).

Each ZSI established a leadership team to assist their schools

in executing their reorm plans. For example, the Instructional

Leadership eam at one Complex Area serves as the decision-

making body or Complex Area and school supports, and has several

committees that address issues such as CCSS implementation. In

another Complex Area, each Implement Perect Sustain (IPS)

teams provide teacher supports in each school. Since ZSI schools arethe only schools involved in the rst year o the educator evaluation

pilot, leadership in the ZSI played a key role in inorming State-level

decisions on implementation o the system.

Supports or students in the ZSI

Te State established two extended learning time initiatives to

support ZSI students in Year 2. Students had access to several

voluntary extended learning programs including Ater School All

Stars or academic support and ater-school athletics programs.

Since ZSI schools are in rural parts o the State, the State provided

transportation services to increase student access and participation.

Under an approved amendment, the State also provided a voluntarysummer extended learning opportunities program in summer

2012 or students at risk o ailing. Te courses available included

academic enrichment programs and athletics options.

Te ZSI continues to work with external partners to develop a

community school ramework to leverage services and resources or

children living in poverty. New personnel specializing in wraparound

services, community engagement, and health services helped schools

identiy and address students academic, emotional, and social

needs. In addition, the State awarded 276 early childhood education

subsidies to children in Year 2 and secured resources to make an

additional 200 subsidies available in SY 2012-2013.


Hawaii supported ZSI schools extensively in Year 2. Data coaches

and student success coaches provided support to educators on data

and assessment literacy, and led proessional learning communities.

Principals gained fexibility in their recruitment and hiring orSY 2012-2013 and received supports rom dedicated human

resources personnel. Students benetted rom ater-school and

summer programs, access to pre-kindergarten, and comprehensive

wraparound services. In sum, these supports represent a strong

commitment to the ZSI, though it is not yet evident what impact

they have had on educator eectiveness or hiring practices. Tere are

early signs o improvement in student achievement with eight o 18

ZSI schools meeting AYP in SY 2011-2012. Te extended learning

time agreement represents a signicant milestone in the States

commitments to the ZSI.

Te State has begun to work with Complex Areas and schools in

the ZSI to develop ARs (see State Success Factors) or SY 2012-2013. Oversight in the ZSI to date consists o HIDOE leadership

visiting and maintaining relationships with Complex Areas and

schools. While the Instructional Leadership eam and IPS teams

serve leadership and educators in those Complex Areas, there are

no ormal State reviews or monitoring processes to assess Race to

the op implementation in the ZSI, nor mechanisms to provide

technical assistance. Tis diculty has been highlighted by the

States challenges in implementing its SIG program. Under Race to

the op, as projects transition rom HIDOE planning to Complex

Area implementation, it will be increasingly important or the State

to gather inormation systematically to identiy successes, challenges,

and technical assistance needs.

Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools

Student achievement in the ZSI

On average, student achievement gains across the State

continued to increase in SY 2011-2012, with notable gains inthe ZSI. O the 18 schools in the ZSI, all o which were in school

improvement status, eight met AYP in SY 2011-2012. The State

and HSTAs agreement to provide extended learning time in

SY 2012-2013 has the potential to sustain this momentum.


19/23


States STEM Initiatives

In Year 2, the State provided SEM resources through SEM carts

and began development o virtual SEM centers. Te SEM carts

provide interactive lessons in science, mathematics, and engineeringto students in one ZSI with nine schools. Hawaii aims to provide

carts to all middle schools over the next two years. Trough an

approved amendment, the State partnered with Hawaii P-20 to

create a virtual SEM center, rather than physical centers. Te

virtual SEM center connects students to SEM college and career

resources and provides an online space or teacher and student

collaboration and resource sharing. HIDOE and Hawaii P-20

developed training resources on how to best use the virtual SEM

center. Te State nalized its contract or the virtual SEM center in

March 2012 and began migrating existing content to the new site.

Complex Areas and schools statewide received support rom

SEM resource teachers and other proessional developmentopportunities. HIDOEs 15 SEM resource teachers were deployed

to provide support to partnership schools within Complex Areas.

Prior to entering a school, SEM resource teachers conduct needs

assessments that shape the schools proessional development plan.

Tese resource teachers are also developing model instructional units

and perormance tasks or use across the State.

Other Hawaii SEM initiatives ocus on SEM instruction. Te

New ech High program emphasizes SEM careers through

project-based learning and community involvement in high-poverty

indigenous communities. Te program served two ZSI schools in

Years 1 and 2 and will expand services to an additional grade within

those two schools in Year 3. Te SEM Honors Pathway, part o

the new CCR diploma (see Standards and Assessments), will containrequirements that include our credits in both mathematics and

science, as well as a capstone course and a senior project. HIDOE

completed plans or the SEM Honors Pathway in Year 2 and will

oer it to the high school class o 2016. Further, Hawaii conducted a

market survey to determine what actions it might take to encourage

more science majors to enter teaching.


Although the State responded to Year 1 delays by adjusting timelines

and approaches, during Year 2 HIDOE was generally back ontrack in providing students and educators with SEM resources.

SEM carts provided interactive lessons to students in one ZSI,

and SEM resource teachers provided support and proessional

development guidance to partnership schools. HIDOE and Hawaii

P-20 developed a virtual SEM center to connect students to

SEM resources, launching a contract with Hawaii P-20. wo

high-poverty schools engaged with project-based learning through

the New ech High program, and the State planned a SEM

Honors Pathway as part o the CCR diploma that will be available to

students entering high school in all 2012. Some other components

o the States SEM plan are dependent on progress in other areas

o the States Race to the op plan. For example, educators may

not be able to ully leverage science and mathematics curricular

units until instructional materials are purchased at the end o

Year 3 (see Standards and Assessments), and incentives or science

and mathematics teachers are dependent on progress towards the

States equitable distribution o teachers goals (see Great Teachersand Leaders).

Emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)


20/23


In Year 3, many o the States Race to the op eorts will continue

on new trajectories set in Year 2. HIDOE will work with

stakeholders to develop metrics that align to its strategic plan, use

the plan to measure progress at the Complex Area and school

levels, and incorporate it into HIDOE and Board o Educationperormance management routines. Te State will work closely

with Complex Areas and schools to develop ARs to monitor local

progress across the States Race to the op plan and gather data

about implementation and quality to provide supports. HIDOE

will continue to execute against its new communications plan and

develop a new community access portal.

In Year 3, HIDOE will continue its Year 2 eorts to provide

training and resources to educators in all grades and subjects as

they transition to CCSS-aligned instruction in SY 2012-2013. Tis

training will include HIDOE-developed protocols administered by

principals to assist in instructional shits. Using a newly developed

rubric, surveys and protocol evaluation data, HIDOE will gatherdata about the quality and delity o CCSS implementation at

the Complex Area and classroom levels. HIDOE will also engage

educators to select statewide common instructional materials by

spring 2013, and will develop and eld test a suite o end-o-course

assessments. Te Hawaii State Assessment will include additional

CCSS-aligned items to serve as a bridge assessment in SY 2013-

2014. Finally, Hawaii schools will release inormation and provide

supports to students on the new CCR diploma, which will be rst

available to students entering high school in all 2012.

Hawaiis technology inrastructure upgrades will continue into

Year 3, reaching all schools and Complex Areas. Te single sign-

on project will go live or end users in spring 2013. HIDOE will

develop and release new SLDS dashboards to meet educator needs

and continue to provide training to increase SLDS use among

leadership and educators. eachers will continue to receive training

on ormative assessments, access a growing number o ormativeassessment items, and work with data coaches to analyze DSI data.

Going into SY 2012-2013, the State still lacks a contract with

HSA and is without authority to ully implement incentives and

consequences o the perormance evaluation system. HIDOE will

work with 81 schools in the second year o the educator evaluation

system pilot and will develop and pilot SLOs or the rst time.

Stakeholder task orces and working groups will continue to provide

input on the new evaluation system. Te State will also develop and

pilot a principal evaluation system or the rst time in collaboration

with HGEA. Additionally, through a newly developed alternative

certication pathway or principals, the State will support six

candidates as they begin their placements and training program inYear 3. HIDOE will analyze the impact o new recruitment and

placement policies that were available to principals in the ZSI or SY

2012-2013 to inorm uture implementation. Finally, the State will

Documents

Race to the Top Hawaii Report Year 2 (School year 2011-2012)