NNaattiivvee HHaawwaaiiiiaann EEdduuccaattiioonn CCoouunncciill AAnnnnuuaall RReeppoorrtt

S362B050001: October 2005 – September 2006

Native Hawaiian Education Council

735 Bishop Street, Suite 218 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Phone: 808-523-6432 Fax: 808-523-6464 22000055--22000066 AAnnnnuuaall RReeppoorrtt ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY 2005-2006

Introduction and Overview.

The FY 2005-2006 marked a time of defining expectations, assessing the potential fit, and building relationships where necessary between the NHEC and existing and potential NHEA grantees, between the NHEC and its Island and State Council members, between the NHEC and Native Hawaiian communities, between the NHEC and its key strategic partners, and between the NHEC and state and federal officials.

The activities of the 2005-2006 FY culminated in the crystallization of a planning process in the beginning of the 2006 fiscal year to change the manner in which the NHEC relates to all of the previously mentioned stakeholders and the methodology by which it accomplishes its mission of ‘assessing, evaluating, coordinating, reporting and making recommendations’ on the state of Native Hawaiian education, the way it measures the impact of existing programs and efforts to improve the education attainment of the native Hawaiian population, and the way it assesses and defines the education needs of the Native Hawaiian community and sets future priorities for funding, both for individual native Hawaiian communities and for Native Hawaiians as a whole.

Kukui Mälamalama. (November 2005)

The NHEC planned and organized Kukui Mälamalama (‘the light of knowledge’) on November 4, 2005. The primary purpose of the event was to enable grantees to share information about their programs with one another and with our NHEC Island and State Councils as well as the ways in which all of us can better work together to improve the effectiveness of the Native Hawaiian Education Act grant program. The secondary purpose of the event was to begin to collect and marshal grantee data and information as a first and necessary step in understanding the impact these programs have had individually as well as in the aggregate, what works and what doesn’t, and better ways to organize information from individual grantees so that all can benefit from the work of one another.

Kukui Mälamalama was a success due to the pre-event planning and assistance of the Kupuna Council, the Executive Committee of the NHEC, and the work of the NHEC staff. The staff requested reports from individual grantees about each of their programs as well as completion of a form staff created requesting information from all grantees several weeks prior to the this event. The response to both requests for information was less than desired, though the information disclosed was helpful. It is not known whether the information submitted to the NHEC by those grantees who responded was consistent or inconsistent with the reports, assessments, and evaluations conducted by the U.S. Department of Education (USDOEd) in its administration of these individual NHEA grants. The NHEC continues to request

1 these reports, assessments, and summary evaluations from the U.S. Department of Education (USDOEd) so as to be better able to understand what works, what doesn’t, and what we have learned individually as well as in the aggregate from the grants awarded through each of the annual grant competitions run annually by the USDOEd under the Native Hawaiian Education Act.

Two questions were posed to all attendees and become the focus of the day’s events: • What are we doing to light the way? • What can we do to perpetuate the light?

These questions were discussed by five work groups representing all grantees. Those work groups are: • Early Education and Family Based Centers • Curriculum Development and Teacher Training • Gifted and Talented and Hawaiian Language Programs • Math, Science, Reading, Special Needs, At Risk Youth Programs, and Facility Support • Higher Education Support and Higher Education Institutional Development.

119 representatives from over 42 organizations attended. These 42 organizations have received 89 grant awards under the Native Hawaiian Education Act. 20 Island Council Members and guests also attended.

A copy of the agenda, the grantee information sheet and instructions, the notes from each of the five clusters, and a summary of the grantee evaluations for this event are included in the ‘Event Details’ section of this report.

Ulukau Curriculum Pilot Project. (November 2005)

The NHEC’s Native Hawaiian Education Act Grantee Summit of November 4, 2005 (Kukui Mälamalama) yielded suggestions from the Curriculum Development and Teacher Training Group to create a means for those involved in developing Native Hawaiian curriculum to be able to share and access these newly-developed curricula on line. This capacity does not now presently exist even though such platforms exist in other venues.

After the Grantee Summit, NHEC staff began immediately working with Doug Knight, Alu Like Technical Initiatives Manager, and Bob Stauffer, Alu Like Hawaiian Language Legacy Program Manager and creator of Ulukau.org, to design a pilot project to establish an online platform, search engine, and protocols to enable curriculum developed under the NHEA and other funding sources to be shared through electronic means.

2

Ulukau.com has a stellar reputation in the internet field, is presently averaging over fifteen thousand (15,000) user hits a day and is reputed to be the most popular indigenous website in the United States and the Pacific region.

The Council approved the project in December of 2005 and the project was completed on time in March of 2006.

As a result of this demonstration project protocols were established to enable developers of Hawaiian instructional materials to disseminate their materials through selected electronic means at a greatly reduced cost, sharing and refinement of Hawaiian curricula on line was increased, 'best practices' most effective in reaching Native Hawaiian students were more easily identified, and increased sharing of new Native Hawaiian curricula was accomplished. Placing this curriculum on line was a substantial step in increasing the access and use of these materials- - - and in leveraging the impact of federal NHEA dollars awarded to create and develop these curricula.

Now that these protocols and processes for electronic display have been created through this demonstration project, Alu Like and Ulukau have sought third party grant funding from sources other than the NHEC to place all Native Hawaiian curriculum volunteered for that purpose on line. (Substantial funding was eventually achieved for this purpose from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in FY 2006-2007.)

Attendance of the NHEC at the WIPCE Conference. (November 2005 - December 2005)

The NHEC administration received permission of Francisco Ramirez, program officer of the USDOEd for the NHEA program, to have two of its members attend the World Indigenous People’s Conference (WIPCE) in Aotearoa, New Zealand November 27 through December 1, 2005.

As a condition of program officer Ramirez’s approval for two of our NHEC members to travel to Aotearoa to attend this conference, the NHEC was required to provide him with a . . . “plan highlighting how the knowledge gained would be used to further the purposes of the program, [and to] build. . . capacity to assess, evaluate, and critique educational systems in a rigorous and competitive environment, with the ultimate goal of making them better equipped to suggest and coordinate improvements to the existing educational systems presently serving Native Hawaiians.”

The plan and work product generated as a result of NHEC’s attendance at this event have been previously submitted to program officer Ramirez and are attached to this annual report. It should be noted that the information gleaned from

3 attendance at this conference resulted not only in the draft assessment instrument but also tangibly increased the knowledge and understanding of the NHEC as regards the creation of Native Hawaiian focused pedagogy, curriculum, and measurement instruments; increased the knowledge and understanding of the NHEC of the various strategies available to increase Native Hawaiian student performance; and increased the knowledge and understanding of the NHEC to gauge whether existing and proposed education programs, institutions, schools, and curriculum are aligned with the seminal work created by the NHEC - - -Nä Honua Mauli Ola. A copy of this report is included in the ‘Event Details’ section.

Nä Lau Lama Initiative and Conferences. (January 2006 & March 2006)

The NHEC was one of the primary movers in organizing the “Nä Lau Lama Initiative on Best Practices in Hawaiian Education”. Nä Lau Lama means ‘many torches of light or knowledge’ in the Hawaiian language. It was intended to improve educational outcomes for Native Hawaiian students in Hawai‘i public schools by convening principals, teachers, administrators, and community members representing over 64 organizations including but not limited to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Kamehameha Schools, the State of Hawai‘i Department of Education, Nä Pua No‘eau, and the Native Hawaiian Education Association to accomplish the following: • Gather input on effective teaching practices in educating Hawaiian children; • Identify core approaches to serve as guidelines for schools and classrooms throughout the public school system; • Develop collaborative partnerships between Hawaiian educational community and State of Hawai‘i DOE schools; • Help schools develop plans to implement approaches and strategies.

The first public event, after months of meeting and planning, occurred over two days in January of 2006. The Nä Lau Lama planning team invited over 300 individuals involved or engaged in educating Native Hawaiian students and 238 people, representing 64 organizations, participated in the event. This is the first time a group of people from such a diverse background were assembled to discuss better ways of educating Native Hawaiian children in the public schools.

The conference discovered a number of practices, strategies, and criteria that fell readily into five major groupings- - -and which led to the creation of five working groups that agreed to meet and flesh out their ideas into the future. These working groups agreed that their primary purpose was to structure, facilitate, and support the implementation of practices that improve education outcomes for Native Hawaiian children in Hawai‘i’s public schools. These five working groups are: • Culture based education, which includes various indigenous, place based, hands on, collaborative, multidisciplinary and small learning

4 group strategies to meaningfully engage Native Hawaiian children in education. Two foci were identified: curriculum and curricular approaches (content); teaching methodologies and classroom delivery (context). • Indigenous assessment and culturally authentic evidence to gauge progress. • Professional development of teachers and staff. • Family and community strengthening to increase participation and to support local community governance. • Advocacy, policy development, and funding to secure public resources and government support for Native Hawaiian education.

A second public event was planned and accomplished in FY 2005-2006 at the Native Hawaiian Education Association Annual Convention on March 28th and 29th at the Leeward Community College on Oahu. The intent of the meeting was to educate administrators, teachers, and community members about the Nä Lau Lama initiative and to encourage their participation and involvement in working with one or more of the five working groups. A plenary session was followed by individual breakout sessions for each of the five working groups to define and discuss the work to be accomplished. The work of the planning committee and five working groups continued after the event and two more Nä Lau Lama events were conducted in FY 2006-2007. Copies of the event reports from this fiscal year can be found in the ‘Event Details’ section.

Grant Workshops and Technical Training Conducted by the USDOEd and Facilitated by the NHEC. (February 2006 & April 2006)

The NHEC set up and facilitated grant workshops and technical training by the USDOEd in several communities on various islands February 12th through the 18th. The grant workshops were intended to inform the community about the availability of NHEA grant funds and to build their capacity and ability to apply for these funds. The technical training was intended to review best practices of complying with the administrative requirements of those receiving grant funds from the USDOEd under the NHEA. Francisco Ramirez and Beth Fine accompanied Executive Director Colin Kippen to these meetings and provided training and information and answered questions of those in attendance. A summary report of those meetings has been previously provided to Francisco Ramirez and is included in the ‘Event Details’ section of this report.

A second set of technical training was set up by the NHEC on April 11th for new NHEA grantees at the University of Hawai‘i Mänoa Campus to be conducted by Francisco Ramirez and Beth Fine over the phone. The meeting took place in the morning and was intended to assist first year NHEA grant awardees in filling out

5 various forms and answering their questions. Notes from that meeting have been previously sent to Mr. Ramirez and are included in the ‘Event Details’ section.

NHEC Office is Relocated to a Central Downtown Location. (May 2006)

The NHEC office was relocated on May 1st from a small one bedroom apartment in a residential building out of the mainstream to a central downtown office with parking and meeting facilities available. The location is accessible to many downtown strategic partners and businesses, the State Legislature, the State library, the State Governor’s office, various State, Federal, and County government offices and the State Department of Education central offices to name a few.

The NHEC Executive Director Assisted in the Planning and Facilitation of the Association of Hawaiian Civic Club’s (AHCC) First Education Summit. (June 2006)

The NHEC assisted in the planning, implementation, and facilitation of the AHCC first Hawaiian Education summit- - -Nänä Ma Mua I Loko No‘ono‘o Käkou, ‘to see the future in our reflection’ on June 16 and June 17. The reason the NHEC assisted in this effort is because the civic clubs are comprised primarily of grassroots Hawaiians who often are left out of discussions having to do with educating and improving their lives and this event was targeted to hear from them.

The AHCC was formed in 1918 by Prince Kuhio and is comprised of 51 civic clubs from around the nation. It is one of the oldest grass roots Native Hawaiian organization whose mission is to take an active interest in civic, economic, health, social welfare, and economic development issues and to support programs of benefit to Native Hawaiians as well as to provide a forum for discussion of matters of public interest. The AHCC has taken a very active interest in education over the years- - -both funding and seeking ways in which the education of Native Hawaiians can be improved and the number of educated Native Hawaiians increased.

The NHEC Executive Director helped plan and facilitate the actual conference which was approved at the AHCC’s annual convention in November of 2005. The summit brought together 113 Hawaiians from across the country and from all walks of life. The purpose of the gathering was to create a future system of education and leadership for Native Hawaiians. It is the first of a four phase plan to be accomplished over the next several years.

The Summit created a two day process wherein attendees participated in large group gatherings and smaller facilitated break out sessions. In the break out sessions, attendees had the opportunity to provide input and discuss various questions relating to future Native Hawaiian education and leadership.

6 Here are the highlights from the breakout sessions.

What are the most important values for our children? • Pa‘ahana- a sense of work and feeling good about working. • Ho‘oponopono- forgiveness, conflict resolution. • Aloha- treating others the way you want to be treated.

What role should schools play in teaching these values? • Connections and networks. • Integrate the past and the present- both traditional and new. • Value the native language and understand the culture.

What role should families play in modeling these values? • Find the values we all live by and model these values for our children. • Ke Akua- importance of prayer and spirituality. • Reinforce what the children learn in schools. The ‘ohana must place a value on education. Develop a passion for learning.

What behaviors will our children have because of these values? • Envisioning, creative expression, imagination, and self discovery. • Enthusiasm, eagerness to learn, valuing education, seeking meaningful challenges in life. • Respect for others, self, and the natural environment.

How will these behaviors help out children as individuals? • Prepare to become a ‘big person’. • Keiki will develop into contributing and pono members of society. • They will meet higher standards.

How will these behaviors help our children as members of society? • Better values. • Better people. • Better decision makers.

What will schools need to look like to fulfill their role? • Kupuna in the schools at all levels. • More communication among elementary, secondary and higher education. College and preschools will be available and accessible. Where is the Native Hawaiian university? Life long education will exist, including adult learning programs. • Have the best of both worlds. Be the best in their Hawaiian and Western self.

7 What will teachers need to be like to play their part? • Address the needs of individual children. • Teachers need to have a good relationship with the makua. • Key for teachers is that they take ownership for the children and become family to them.

What responsibilities will our children need to accept? • Children need to want to study and accept their kuleana. • Students need to learn to do hard work. • Respect diversity.

This event was the first of four events scheduled by the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs over the next several years. It is anticipated that the NHEC will not be as heavily involved in future phases of this project as it was in this first phase. A copy of the summary of the report generated by this conference is included in the ‘Event Details’ section.

Attendance at the Education Commission on the States (ECS) Training and Conference. (June 2006 & July 2007)

The Executive Director of the NHEC was invited as a guest to attend an ECS School Community Council Technical Assistance training June 27 and June 28 in Hilo, Hawai‘i sponsored by the ECS. The purpose of the event was to assist the training of State of Hawai‘i teachers, administrators, and community members in creating effective ‘Community School Councils’ as mandated in 2004 by Act 51 of the Hawai‘i State Legislature. Act 51 mandated the creation of Community Councils and vested them with the authority to review and evaluate the school’s academic and financial plan and recommend revisions as needed, ensure the school’s academic and financial plan is aligned with the education accountability section, participate in the selection and evaluation of the school’s principal, consult with and provide input into school governance, review the principal’s school repair and maintenance needs and recommend revisions as needed, request waivers of rules, procedures, and provisions of collective bargaining units when such waivers would lead to increased student achievement within a school and are recommended by that school’s principal.

The training provided an overview of how these Community Councils have functioned in other parts of the country and gave some examples of best practices. The training lacked specific information about some of the legal and structural problems with implementing such Community Councils in the State of Hawai‘i Department of Education, how to overcome these problems, or how these Councils have fared across the DOE in the State of Hawai‘i since this bill became law.

8 The Executive Director of the NHEC was also invited as a guest to plan and speak at ECS national conference July 11th through the 14th being hosted by the ECS on the issue of educating Native American, Alaskan, and Hawaiian Students and the role of state policy in providing quality education for native students.

Representative Roy Takumi of the Hawai‘i State Legislature, and Chair of the House of Representatives Committee on Education was selected as the moderator for the panel. Also present was Senator Norman Sakamoto of the Hawai‘i State Legislature and Chair of the Senate Committee on Education. Panelists included David Beaulieu, Editor, Journal of American Indian Education, Arizona State University; Robin Butterfield, Senior Liaison, Minority Community Outreach, National Education Association; Norbert S. Hill, Executive Director, American Indian Graduate Center, New Mexico; and the Executive Director of the NHEC. Also present at the national conference was Representative Lyla Berg of the Hawai‘i State Legislature and the Vice Chair of the House Committee on Education.

The National conference was valuable for the NHEC because of the national and state education issues discussed, the contacts made at these meetings, and the time that the Executive Director spent with legislators and policy makers responsible for authorizing and funding education programs for natives, including programs for Native Hawaiians. It is not anticipated that the NHEC will participate in ECS forums located outside Hawai‘i in the foreseeable future.

9 22000055--22000066 EEvveenntt DDeettaaiillss KKUUKKUUII MMääLLAAMMAALLAAMMaa:: GGRRAANNTTEEEE SSUUMMMMIITT

Native Hawaiian Education Act Grantee Summit Agenda Friday, November 4, 2005 Dole Ballrooms

8:30 - 9:00am Registration

9:00 - 9:30am Opening Ceremony, Native Hawaiian Education Kupuna Council.

9:30am Welcoming Address, Ms. Maggie Hanohano, Chairperson, Native Hawaiian Education Council.

9:35am Opening address, Ms. Manu Ka‘iama, Director of the Native Hawaiian Leadership Project and Treasurer of the Native Hawaiian Education Council.

Presentation of background information and an overview of the day’s activities. Colin Kippen, Executive Director, Native Hawaiian Education Council.

10:00am “What Are We Doing To Light The Way?”

1st Breakout Session in the Following Groupings: I. Early Education and Family Based Learning Centers II. Curriculum Development and Teacher Training in all sectors III. Gifted and Talented and Hawaiian Language Programs IV. Math, Science, Reading, Special Needs, At Risk Youth Programs and Facility Support V. Higher Education Support and Higher Education Institutional Development

11:00am Report by individual groups on “What We Are Doing To Light The Way.”

12:00pm Lunch and Guest Speaker. Ms. Jennifer Sabas, Chief of Staff for United States Senator Daniel Inouye

1:00pm “What Can We Do To Perpetuate The Light?”

2nd Breakout Session in the Original Groupings: I. Early Education and Family Based Learning Centers II. Curriculum Development and Teacher Training in all sectors III. Gifted and Talented and Hawaiian Language Programs IV. Math, Science, Reading, Special Needs, At Risk Youth Programs and Facility Support V. Higher Education Support and Higher Education Institutional Development

2:00 Report by Individual Groups on “What We Can Do To Perpetuate The Light.”

3:00 Next Steps and Concluding Remarks, Colin Kippen, Executive Director, NHEC.

3:15 Closing Ceremony by the Native Hawaiian Education Kupuna Council

Native Hawaiian Education Council

GRANTEE INFORMATION – Instruction Sheet

Part I – Contact Information - Complete as fields indicate

Part II – Program Data - Program Description: Brief description of your program

- Years Funded: From the year of first award to expected end (i.e. 2002 – 2009)

- Geographic Area Served: Cities by Island

Part III - Population Served - Direct Beneficiaries: Total # of those receiving direct service

- In-Direct Beneficiaries: Total # of those affected by your program (i.e. family / community / school entities, if you are involved in curriculum development)

Part IV – Outcomes - Expected: What are the indicators or outcome you intend to affect or change? These should be the items you are collecting data about and measuring.

- Realized: What are the results of your measurements?

- Unmet Needs: What are the needs that you believe are remaining and need to be addressed? What remains to be done?

- Comments / Success Stories / Inspirational Moments: Any additional program information that could be of benefit to us as we attempt to make a case for reauthorizing this Act and increasing the funding available under it.

3075 Kalihi Street, #4 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96819 Phone: 808-845-9883 Fax: 808-845-9984 CONTACT INFORAMTION

LAST NAME FIRST NAME TITLE

ORGANIZATION / PROGRAM

namefdsfd STREET ADDR ESS CITY / STATE / ZIP

PHONE FAX EMAIL ADDRESS

PROGRAM DATA

PROGRAM DESCRIPTI ON

YEARS FUNDED GEOGRAPHIC AREA SERVED

DIRECT BENEFICIARIES IN-DIRECT BENEFICIARIES POPULATION SERVED (#)

OUTCOMES

EXPECTED REALIZED

UNMET NEEDS REMAINING

COMMENTS / SUCCESS STORIES / INSPIRATIONAL MOMENTS

Notes from NHEA Grantee Summit Friday, November 4, 2005 Dole Ballrooms II. Native Hawaiian Curriculum Development and Teacher Training

Bob Kahihikolo-Pacific American Foundation Mili Kawaa-Keiki O Ka Aina Noelani Goodyear-Ka‘öpua-Hälau Kü Mana PCS Doug Knight-Alu Like, Inc. Volcanoes Alive Project Morris Lai-UHM, Pihana Nä Mamo Noelle Kahanu-Bishop Museum, Hawai‘i ALIVE Jenny Wooton-Bishop Museum, Hawai‘i ALIVE Alice Taum-Ho‘omana Hou High School Hugh Dunn-UHM, Pihana Nä Mamo Gloria Kishi-UHM, Pihana Nä Mamo Sara Banks-UHM, Center on Disability Studies-Kükulu Na Uapu Ka Upena Ben Guerrero-UH Maui, Halau A‘o Ellen Schroeder-Olomana School August Suehiro-Olomana School Collin Young-Olomana School Vernon Masuda-Olomana School Lisa Galloway-UHM, Center on Disability Studies, Ha‘awina Ho‘opapau Project Marge Ma‘aka-UHM, COE Kalehua Krug-UHM, COE Myron Brumaghim, Nanaikapono, Nänä O Ka Pulapula ‘Iwalani Hodges-Nanaikapono, Nänä O Ka Pulapula Pohai Kukea Shultz-Nanaikapono, Nänä O Ka Pulapula

What are we doing to light the way? • Review of Existing Programs for participants in this cluster. o Olomana School- - -for at risk students Statewide (Is this solely for students that are incarcerated at the Juvenile detention Center?) ƒ Culturally appropriate learning center for student population ƒ Features parent engagement, too ƒ Provides teachers and learning materials for students ƒ Provides curriculum and programs at summer school o Nanaikapono- - -Nanakuli ( 3 years) (?) ƒ Professional development (?) ƒ Improvement (?) ƒ Best Practices/culturally based (?) ƒ Parent connections (?) ƒ Community experts (?) o Pihano Na Mamo- - -Statewide ƒ Makua Hanai- - -parent (?) ƒ Kakoo- - -student support for Secondary students (?) ƒ Heluhelu-Literacy (9,000 students) (?) ƒ Evaluations (?) ƒ Curriculum Development o Center of Disability Studies- - - Oahu and Hawaii (?) ƒ At risk behavior (?) 1

ƒ Teachers (?) o Creating Futures- - -Ho’opa’a (?) Expect to serve 3,000 students ƒ Supplemental program for personal/professional skills ƒ Service these schools- - -Halau Ku Mana- - - Manoa, Ka Waihona- - ƒ -Nanakuli- AYP met ƒ After School Programs/ Place Based ƒ Halau Ku Mana- - -Papakolea, Manoa, etc. ƒ Core Academic Integration (?) o Disseminate to NLN (?) ƒ Develop Ahupua’a’ Curriculum (?) ƒ Place based ƒ Teacher Training (?) ƒ Math (Challenge) (?) o Kupuna Leo Cohort ƒ Hawaiian Immersion Teacher Training ƒ Resources Community Experts o Kula Ni’ihau ‘O Kekaha Ni’ihau Students ƒ Education tools to educate students/families preschool ƒ Teaching Hawaiian Language ƒ Reading Curriculum Specialist (K-3) ƒ Pre-school Assessment ƒ Professional Development ƒ Transition Plan ( first year graduates) o Center of Disability Studies Hawaii ƒ Hawaiian Teaching Values, culture, academics ƒ Writing curriculum, science based (6th grade) ƒ Videos ƒ Plus On line Course (k-6) “Sense of Place” ƒ Culturally responsive Teacher Development o Bishop Museum Hawaii Alive ( 2 years- - -New) ƒ Place based learning ƒ Mo’olelo, maps, lessons, archives ƒ Pilot project with Halau Lokahi ƒ Student and School Directed ƒ Expert Community Resources ƒ Partnered with Juni Roa Film Productions and IAIA- Santa Fe o Keiki O Ka Aina 3 Year Grant Oahu and Maui ƒ Path Program, Hippie Program, Pre School Program, Incarceration Program ƒ Curriculum Development ƒ Parent Participation ƒ Free Programs. o Halau A’o- - -Maui County ƒ CSAP Alternative Learning Center ƒ Computer, Technology, Internet Based ƒ Cultural Classes ƒ Video, Aquaculture, etc ƒ E- Portfolio o Alu Like Volcanoes Alive ƒ Middle School Earth Science Curriculum ƒ Teachers Manual 2

ƒ Translated into Hawaiian DC ƒ Math , Science, Social Science, Technology, Ar ƒ PDERI ƒ Materials, Supplies o Ho’omana Hou- - -Molokai (3 years) ƒ Curriculum/Professional Development ƒ Science, Place Based

What can we do to perpetuate the light? • Created a Database for the NHEC. Want information on Programs, numbers and contact information, locations at which services are being delivered. • Feeder programs and transitions (?) • Availability of services (?) • Want more Partnerships and information about partnerships. • Website-curriculum, search engine (?) • Online coursers (general education) • Ahupua’a website connections (?) • Improved access for information available • Storehouse/resource/storage/repository (?) • Relationship building/support • Cultural relevance (?) • Available curriculum(?) • Ho’olako, etc. websites (?) • Assessment and evaluation- - -cultural based • Resources- curriculum, experts, etc. (?) • Holistic- - -child, family, community, school (?) • Support lobbying efforts • Grant “watchdog” (entity to ease duplication) (?) • “Gaps” in grant subjects for availability (?) • Centralization of grants (office, etc. ) (?) • Point Contact (PR info to public) (?) • More Networking • More grant training ( council sponsored) • More Technical Assistance • Reestablish Priorities (locally) (?) • Cultural competence (director, staff, etc) • Sustainability/leadership (?) • Knowledgeable administrators, staff, etc. • NCLB, credentials, certified, accountable (?) • Principal/Admin Professional Development (?) • Entrepreneurial ventures (?) • Enlist private foundations • Kokua/volunteers • Cultural publishing company (sustainability) (?) • Diversification (?) • Policies made clear on grant spending and availability (?)

3

Notes from NHEA Grantee Summit Friday, November 4, 2005 Dole Ballrooms III. Native Hawaiian Gifted & Talented, Hawaiian Language Programs

Puanani Wilhelm-HIDOE-Paku‘i Onaehana Peter Hanohano-Education 1st David Sing-UHH,Nä Pua No‘eau ‘Änela Gueco-Keiki o Ka ‘Äina Jenna Umiamaka- Keiki o Ka ‘Äina Kamalu Poepoe-Kula Kaiapuni ‘O Kualapu‘u Nämaka Rawlins-‘Aha Pünana Leo Chad Kalepa Baybaya-‘Aha Pünana Leo Jack Keppeler-PID Foundation, Baibala Hemolele Paula De Morales-Kü Ha‘aheo

What are we doing to light the way? • Review of Existing Programs for participants in this cluster. o 19 Jack Keppler- - -Baibala Hemolele and Ka Honua No’eau, Partners in Development. ƒ Digital reproduction of Hawaiian Bibles and oral recitation and reading of Hawaiian Baibala ƒ On internet ƒ Is electronic application ƒ Over next 3 years 120 workshops planned to teach people to use our site. o 20 Ka Hana No’eau- - -Kohala Community.( Jack Keppeler’s group) ƒ Purpose is to provide a Kohala intergenerational center to provide cultural skills and lifestyle to youth. ƒ Program delivered by the Kohala Kupuna in areas related to fishing, mochi making, car repair o 7- Chad Kalepa Baybayan ƒ Use assets to teach skills ƒ Using mala and canoe ƒ Stress use of Hawaiian language ƒ Voyaging works with adults ƒ Teach parents o 6- Namaka Rawlins ƒ Curriculum in Hawaiian language at preschool level. Also created the Family Literacy Project also created. The Video Project on animation and reading in the Hawaiian language is an offshoot of this project. o 17-Kamalu Poepoe- - -Kualapu’u ƒ Public conversion charter school in restructuring ƒ Olelo project- provide resources for Kaiapuni students to meet No Child Left Behind Standards. ƒ Translation, professional development, tutoring, enrichment o 8, 10,14- - -Jen Umiamaka- - -Keiki O Ka ‘Aina ƒ 3 of 8 preschools are bilingual ƒ Hawaiian is taught to Keiki and English is taught to Makua (?) ƒ 16 sites on Oahu, including Waimanalo ƒ Kahului (QL School) (?) 1 o 2 and 12- - - Dr. David Sing from Na Pua Noeau ƒ funded by OHA and the NHEA ƒ 2- - -Pathways- - -Increasing Hawaiians in Conservation (?) ƒ 12- - -Ho’omau- - -work with 600 NPN (?) students in UH system • all islands will have positions • strong environmental curricula • 1000 students per year from the years K-12 o 7 and 8 Peter Hanohano of Ed First ƒ The program is written for Ko’olauloa ƒ Focus on strengths ƒ Athletics and Culture ƒ Game plan and Scholars Program • Study hall and support for athletes ƒ Academic support for athletes ƒ After school mentoring/tutoring programs ƒ 7 habits of effective teens- - -made cultural with Hawaiian values for grades 7- 12 ƒ Serves at least ½ of the school with each program (?) o Puanani Wilhelm ƒ Technological support to middle school immersion teachers to support student’s work. ƒ Student mentors trained other students to do research and to produce materials ƒ Train kupuna to use technology and document oral histories, etc. ƒ Hawaiian cultural best practices conference to get practices into schools in order to systematize cultural teaching within the DOE. ƒ Know where we want to go and the strategies to get there. • Get to students through parents, sports, cultural and language training, electronic technology, intergenerational leadership, engaging them in stimulating activities which foster critical thinking, maintaining good relationships, create passion for learning to achieve goals • Hawaiian language and culture is the destination and the path, part of the family and community, and unending generational support.

What can we do to perpetuate the light? • Using NHMO, ensure that programs are complying with the guidelines and helping to improve academic achievement in NH children. These programs can then be used and available to all islands and communities. • Develop/sustain/support the PASSION for NH education • Become the System- - -or part of the system (HIDOE, Higher Ed, teacher training) or establish another P-20 parallel system o Discussed forming another parallel education system o Those schools that adopt a model program, get parallel funding, etc. o Magnet school • Support educational choice. Families and communities decide system, curriculum, etc. Local control. • Family oriented, community based, culturally driven education from pre natal throughout the rest of one’s life- - - intent is to create another parallel system of education. • Develop partnerships, collaborations, and relationships to accomplish the above.

2 • Establish ‘learning ‘ohanas’ by involving community and seeking community support. Empower families, empowers communities. • Community support is crucial to make programs sustainable, because if they are supported and needed by the community the likelihood that they will grow and flourish will be increased. • Develop infrastructure to support ‘the system” o Influence existing and future law, policy, rules, regulations etc. o Influence political and societal support o Individual kuleana • Market existing NHEA programs so that communities have a choice to use in place of DOE • NHEC should facilitate communication campaign for the NHEA grantees. For the purpose of making schools and communities aware so that schools can use it as a reform model rather than using mainland vendors. • Do a better job of publicizing the stories of what NH educators are doing and the accomplishments they are achieving.

3 Notes from NHEA Grantee Summit Friday, November 4, 2005 Dole Ballrooms IV. Native Hawaiian Math, Science, Reading, Special Needs, At-Risk Youth Programs & Facility Support

Keola Nakanishi-Hälau Kü Mäna, Mana Maoli Makana Lewis-‘Aha Pünana Leo ‘Iwalani Kualii-Kaho‘ohanohano-‘Aha Pünana Leo Puamamo Wa‘a-Boys and Girls Club of Hawai‘i, Wai‘anae & Nänakuli Michael Kahikina- Boys and Girls Club of Hawai‘i, Admin. Ginger Fuata-Wai‘anae Alumni and Community Foundation Ric Gresia-Searider Productions, Wai‘anae High School Junior Ekau-QLCC Karen Holt-Ho‘omaka Hou, Moloka‘i Community Service Council Tamar deFries-UHM and UHH, Nä Pua No‘eau Christina Paleka-Kualapu‘u School, Project OLELO Kahi Brooks-NNEF Nani Na‘ope-NNEF Janice Espiritu-Kaunakakai School, KEA Project Jennifer Wada-Kaunakakai School, KEA Project Mildred Higashi-Kaunakakai School, KEA Project Shannon Hirose-Wong-UHM, Hui Mälama O Ke Kai Michael Kahue-Mälama ‘ÄINA Foundation Gabriel Ishida-HIDOE, Hawai‘i 3Rs Doreen Yamashiro-HIDOE, Pihana Nä Mamo Maggie Hanohano-HIDOE, Pihana Nä Mamo Gloria Kishi-HIDOE, Pihana Nä Mamo Jo Ann Ka‘akua-HIDOE, Pihana Nä Mamo V. Leimomi Malina-Wright-Ke Kula Kaiapuni O Anuenue

What are we doing to light the way? • Review of Existing Programs for participants in this cluster. o Mike Kahikina- - -Boys and girls club in Waianae ƒ Teen centers NHIS (?) alternative center ƒ 40- 41 grads ƒ Job Workshop- - -70% participation ƒ 100 hour community service participation ƒ 50% will be employed. o Palama Kawaa- - -Family Nights o Iwalani Kualii - - - -Punana Leo o Tamar DeFries- - - -Napua Noeau ƒ Pathways 3 cohorts 8th grade on campus ƒ Ahupua’a o Junior Ekau- - -QLCC Waianae Coast Digital Media Video Halau ƒ New grantee ƒ Located at Waianae High ƒ Practice oral history ƒ Summer media (create ohana journal) ƒ Standardize equipment (video) on the Waianae and Nanakuli Coast ƒ Create an incentive program ƒ Create mentors for the students ƒ Build on the Waianae coast one child at a time. o Malama Aina- - -grant is in the second year. ƒ Makahana Ka Ike ƒ Write curriculum for K Bay ƒ Science, math- - -statistics and data analysis ƒ Project based learning- - -fish count and water quality counted and measured. ƒ Approached 6 charter schools on Hawaii Island. (for what purpose?) o Kaunakakai School ƒ Jennifer Wada - - - teacher in the 4th grade ƒ Janice Espiritu- - - principal. ƒ Dr. Mille Jogasjo – Eva;iatpr ƒ Increase academic student achievement ƒ FACT, FELT, EA, IMI and Partnering Ohana brochures o Native Nations Programs ƒ Native Hawaiian Math, Science Curriculum ƒ Community Learning ƒ Halau Lokahi ƒ GED Classes o Halau Ku Mana Charter School ƒ Cultural based ƒ Community o Ho‘omau Project, UHH ƒ 1st year at college ƒ 11th graders ƒ 90 student / 30 per cohort ƒ Portfolio to attend college ƒ Finding: need sense of “place” o Ho‘omaka Hou, Moloka‘i ƒ 9th & 10th grade ƒ Math and Science Curriculum ƒ Teacher Training o Pihana Nä Mamo, HIDOE ƒ Heluhelu – reading improvement for struggling readers ƒ Makua Hanoai – working with families ƒ Kako‘o-mentoring for high school students o Hawai‘i 3r’s, HIDOE ƒ Repair ƒ Remodel ƒ Restore ƒ Facilities support, goal bringing pride to schools. ƒ Even match of monies brought in by community ƒ Students getting involved in improving school environment o Hui Malama O Ke Kai, Waimanalo ƒ After-school tutoring ƒ Ocean-based curriculum ƒ Wholistic approach ƒ Funding from Drug-Free schools ƒ Work on Physical health, nutrition, Hawaiian Culture ƒ Focus on families ƒ 7 years of prior grant funding o Kualapu‘u, Moloka‘i ƒ Immersion school, charter school ƒ On-going language enrichment ƒ Translating math, science and language arts curriculum materials into Hawaiian ƒ Professional development opportunities for Kupuna and Kumu ƒ 376 students, K-6 ƒ Goal: meet AYP o Keiki O Ka Aina ƒ At Risk ƒ Children of incarcerated parents ƒ Focus on preschool age children

What can we do to perpetuate the light? • Learn about other programs • Communicate common goals • Online database • Geographic meetings o Collaborate o Share resources • Standard Measures o Identify needs o Comparable statistics by geography o Standard collection of data • Collecting Data o FAQ o Template for data o What reports are needed? • Orientation packet for new Grantees • Statewide surveys o Survey needs of target population o Available resources o “Customer Satisfaction” o Best Practices o Culturally responsive programs • What is the role of NHEC in regards to grantee projects? o Monitor finances? o Assist 1st year grantees? o Collect data? o Coordinating body? o Share program progress and / or results? o Identify “pukas” in services? o Help to develop / design measurement tool? o Maintain data repository? ƒ Aggregate data ƒ Generate reports • What happens after the project ends? o Geographic meetings vs. Statewide? ƒ Island Councils can be more directly connected to local projects ƒ More affordable for travel • Proposals o Need assistance for applicants to know: ƒ Criteria ƒ Extension ƒ Clarification of funds ƒ What can or cannot be purchased ƒ Parameters ƒ Priorities • How do we disseminate project information? • What are the challenges and pitfalls that projects encountered? How were they overcomed? • Share strategies for sustainability • Work session o Technical assistance o On track? o Adjustments needed? o Financial management? o Is what you are doing actually aligning with your written proposal? o Ongoing evaluation needed o Temperature checks o How do you start? o What are the procurement rules? o How do you issue contracts? o How do you get contract services? o Networks to connect transition of students o What kinds of data do the feds want? What do they consider “successful”? o Need to establish communication among grantees o Need to clarify the milestones o Geographic sustainability o How are agencies able to successfully continue receiving grant funding? • Additional meetings o Bring together researchers, teachers, administrators and grant writers, etc. • How can we help Grantees o More Resources o More Partnerships / Developing More o Technology o Communication – Email List o Resource Directory o Professional Development o Place to Collaborate o Submit 5 bullet • How do you know where to perpetuate the light? o Where does the info go? NHEC? o Website for questions o Early format / template what data needed? o Standardize measurement o Recording protocol o Timeline – schedule o Effective tools and techniques o Resources – sources ƒ Use own data ƒ Information from schools ƒ Use best practices ƒ Collective responses ƒ What is in community / What does the community think they need? ƒ Data repository on Native Hawaiian families, students, communities ƒ Coordinate data • What happens with info on successful education projects? o Repository for best practices o List of programs in dissemination stages so schools can review o Culturally based online programs o Organizations / programs need to share o Share website and email with NHEC and link to NHEC as a clearing house o More activity at leg. To support coordinated efforts • How to sustain o Need support for longer period of time o Partnership to sustain program long enough to show improvement o How do we sustain successful models for long term o Assist with benchmark planning o Workshop o Developing new model for how to do contracts o How to get data? o Action research measurement for success for next transitions o Different breakout rooms o Test scores (what measure of success?) o Look for partners to continue to support successful programs o Clarify goals / milestones o Geographic needs and map of services, long term tracking of successes using certain programs o Panel of people sharing by area of expertise

Notes from NHEA Grantee Summit Friday, November 4, 2005 Dole Ballrooms V. Native Hawaiian Higher Education Programs

Manu Kaiama-UHM, Native Hawaiian Leadership Project Neil Scott-Archemedes Hawai‘i Project Kelli Ching-UHM, College of Engineering Joshua Kaakua-UHM-College of Engineering Kanoe Näone-Keiki O Ka ‘Äina Family Learning Centers Melody MacKenzie-UHM, Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law Judith Inazu-UHM, Social Science Research Institute Claire Pruet-Chaminade University Lui Hokoana-UH Maui, Liko A‘e Winona Whitmore-Alu Like, Inc. Bob Worthington-Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs Kekoa Hakman Barbara Holthus-UHM, Social Science Research Institute Asai Gilman-Education 1st, BYU Hawai‘i Kinohi Gomes-Nä Pua No‘eau Lia Keawe-UHM, Ku‘i Ka Lono Pi‘ilani Ka‘aloa-UHM, Ku‘I Ka Lono Shane Cobb-Adams-Ho‘ola Lahui Pauline Chinn-UHM (Partners in Development)

What are we doing to light the way? • Native Hawaiian S & E Mentorship (Intergeneration Learning) = Kako‘o • Native Hawaiian in S & E • Center Excellence in Law & Rights • Liko A‘e Native Hawaiian scholarships – Native Hawaiian approach • Lamakü – ‘Imi Na‘auao ‘ohana, ‘Ölelo Hawai‘i, Hawaiian identity in education, individual and group sessions • Education 1st: 7 Characteristics of a successful student • UH Center of Excellence: Science curriculum development • UH Hawaiian Language • UH Community College: Community-Based

What can we do to perpetuate the light? • Students taking science classes • Usefulness of science in daily lives • Infuse sense of kuleana; community, bonding • Intrusive counseling • Ho‘iho‘i to the Lähui • Collaboration • Meet once a month • Bring the many home • Lend each other support • Be one voice for advocacy

1 • SHARING IS CARING • Help sustain all the programs • Focus on the ‘Ohana • Assist parents with children in Pünana Leo / Kula Kaiapuni • Use Technology and its applications to pass it on • People who know share what they know with the kids • Mentoring • Accountability, functionality • Template of information of recipients to be collected. • Compile Higher Ed data • Need base retention base geographic distribution • Compile the data • Programs where Hawaiians are under represented • Different Values to promote higher ed • OHANA • Passion, drive, enthusiasm • Consortium • Collect data

Summary: • Higher Ed Consortium: Networking, sharing across programs, age groups • Collect Data (Mandated) • Identified Funding • Mentoring / Legacy

2

Native Hawaiian Education Act Grantee Summit Survey Friday, November 4, 2005 Dole Ballrooms

Overall, I enjoyed the Grantee Summit.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5

The Summit increased my understanding of the need for collaboration and cooperation amongst grantees and with the Native Hawaiian Education Council.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5

The Summit increased my understanding of the need for data to be collected and shared highlighting the successes of programs funded under the Native Hawaiian Education Act with both the Native Hawaiian Education Council as well as with key government decision-makers.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5

I believe this grant program changes lives and is of great value to the Native Hawaiian community.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5

I think all Native Hawaiian Education Act grantees should be willing to share their successes with the Native Hawaiian Education Council so that they can inform key governmental officials about the value of this program.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5

What was the single most important thing that you learned as a result of your participation in this Summit?

What was the best part of your experience at the Summit?

What did you find most disappointing about the Summit?

Additional Comments? GRANTEE SUMMIT SURVEY 54 45% surveys collected

1) Overall, I enjoyed the Grantee Summit. 31 / 54 57% Stongly Agree 23 / 54 43% Agree 0 /54 0% Neutral 0 / 54 0% Disagree 0 / 54 0% Strongly Disagree

2) The Summit increased my understanding of the need for collaboration and cooperation amongst grantees and with the NHEC. 37 / 54 57% Stongly Agree 15 / 54 28% Agree 2 /54 4% Neutral 0 / 54 0% Disagree 0 / 54 0% Strongly Disagree

3) The Summit increased my understanding of the need for data to be collected and shared highlighting the successes of programs funded under the Native Hawaiian Education Act with both the Native Hawaiian Education Council as well as with key government decision-makers. 39 / 54 72% Stongly Agree 15 / 54 28% Agree 0 /54 0% Neutral 0 / 54 0% Disagree 0 / 54 0% Strongly Disagree

4) I believe this grant program changes lives and is of great value to the Native Hawaiian community. 44 / 54 81% Stongly Agree 10 / 54 19% Agree 0 /54 0% Neutral 0 / 54 0% Disagree 0 / 54 0% Strongly Disagree

5) I think all Native Hawaiian Education Act grantees should be willing to share their successes with the NHEC so that they can inform key governmental officials about the value of this program. 46 / 54 85% Stongly Agree 8 / 54 15% Agree 0 /54 0% Neutral 0 / 54 0% Disagree 0 / 54 0% Strongly Disagree 6) What was the single most important thing that you learned as a result of your participation in this Summit? - Native Hawaiian education is a Kakou thing. - Statewide coordinated program essential. - There are many programs somwhat similar to my program. - What others are doing. - The end of the NHEA is near and the vital need for data from grantees. - We are all in the same wa`a; confused, passionate and holoimua! - Other service providers and what they do. - Relationship of NHEA, NHEC and grants. - NHEC can be a significant / effective force if they can provide assistance to - What other grantees are producing. - Building realtionships come first, teaching / learning second - We need to join forces and be willing to share best practices and gather quality - I realized that my program was in the same situation as many others - that I - Learned about some of the new programs. - That we can be unified as Hawaiians. - We need to become self sustaining. - There needs to be a centralized website for grantees to share information so that - Learned about other programs. - Keep the light burning! Imua Na Po`e o Hawai‘i. - We are able to develop a common purpose. - Learned that there is hope for Native Hawaiians. - How much we can and will share. - The latest political realities. - Establishing relationships and new friendships. - The summit was maika`i. - Sharing with others. - Everyone needs help with their grant. Need temperature check along the way. - Making good contacts for future collaborations. - This is a kakou thing. - Eleu mechanized further. - The need to share info and to bring the grant money home. - Potential resources and collaboration opportunities. - The willingness and desire of grantees to work together and share information. - The importance of collaboration andmoving in the same direction. - We (all grantees) are committed to sharing and helping in any way that we can to - The sharing of resources. - What others are doing - the networking has been incredible. - We are moving forward. - Hearing different experiences. - For those who came, left with strong commitment to work together. - How important it is to inform our families we serve and communities on the - Others value our Native Hawai‘i keiki as much as I do. - Unity. - Eleu exists and is getting stronger. 7) What was the best part of your experience at the Summit? - Hearing the Chief of Staff from Senator Inouye's Office perspective! Very - Networking with other programs. - Ho`olauna / Networking. - Sharing programs. - Networking with others. - Learning about the different projects. - Learning from those who have paved the way. - The comraderie among grantees being expanded. - Connections. - Paying tribute to my teachers / counselors. - We were able to share our concerns and programs. - Meeting other grantees. - Meeting some wonderful people - getting advice about pedagogy and how to - Met several new people who will be wonderful resources to my project. - Our breakout sessions. - Learning about the successes as well as challenges. - Meeting and reconnecting with others. Learning more about role of NHEC with - Meeting and learning frome each individual. - Meeting the new grantees, enjoying the enthusiasm of one and all. - Meeting others that do the same thing. - This is a good opportunity to share what works. - Learning about other programs. - Listening to others share. - Jennifer Sabas talk was most unifying and informative. - Seeing everyone work together. - Lunch! - Learning about programs. - Networking and learning about other programs. - Everything was wonderful, sharing mana`o was helpful. - Meeting and talking with everyone. - The sharing of resources. - Learning from others - reconnecting people. - Meeting new people. - Being able to work together at other organizations on common goals. Moving - Meeting of others with the same goal and same direction. - Feeling of one group working for a common purpose. - Meeting new people (passionate). 8) What did you find most disappointing about the Summit? - Nothing. (x12) - Wished we could have met with other groups but understand it was a matter of - Need to have break out rooms. Hard to hear discussions. (x5) - Morning breakout not focused on result. - Not enough information about NHEC and what they do, services, etc. - That the granting program is not as far along as it should be in organization, - Meeting room was not good for breakout - difficult to hear because noise. - Breakout groups too large. - Need more time. (x4) - Need more time to hear about the new projects. - Many left after lunch. - I didn't know some have been possessive or guarded about their projects. - Lack of conpedium of grants, contacts, and descriptions. - Not long enough. - Not all grantees came. - Missing people.

9) Additional Comments - Should have more breaks to talk to everybody. - Mahalo nui loa for the opportunity to come together! (x10) - Continue the meeting of the minds. - It was all great! - Let's do this every year. - This should be done annually. - Keep it up. - I strongly believe that NHEC should conduct NHEA grant writing workshops so - In regards to data, NHEC must identify what kinds of specific data they need, WWOORRLLDD IINNDDIIGGEENNOOUUSS PPEEOOPPLLEESS CCOONNFFEERREENNCCEE oonn EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONN

Native Hawaiian Education Council

Conference Report:

Date: November 27 – December 1, 2005

Conference: World Indigenous Peoples Conference (WIPCE)

Conference Theme: Completing the Circle of Knowledge

NHEC Attendees: VerlieAnn Malina-Wright, State Council Member Paula De Morales, State Council Member

Report Submitted On: Tuesday, September 12, 2006

A. Introduction.

The Native Hawaiian Education Council, whose purpose under the Native Hawaiian Education Act is to ‘assess, evaluate, report and make recommendations’ on education policy as it pertains to Native Hawaiian education achievement, and to ‘coordinate’ all activities and efforts in that regard, sought and received permission from U.S. Department of Education program officer Francisco Ramirez for two of its members to travel ‘out of country’ to attend the World Indigenous Peoples Conference (WIPCE) on Education November 27 through December 1, 2005, in Aotearoa, New Zealand.

As a condition of program officer Ramirez’s approval for two of our NHEC members to travel to Aotearoa to attend this conference, the Native Hawaiian Education Council was required to provide him with the following information.

“Establish a plan highlighting how the knowledge gained [through attending this WIPCE conference in Aotearoa] would be used to further the purposes of the program, and, as outlined in the request, build. . . capacity to assess, evaluate, and critique educational systems in a rigorous and competitive environment, with the ultimate goal of making them better equipped to suggest and

735 Bishop Street, Suite 218 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Phone: 808-523-6432 Fax: 808-523-6464

coordinate improvements to the existing educational systems presently serving Native Hawaiians.”

A summary of the information requested by program officer Ramirez as well as the work product created as a result of NHEC attendance at this WIPCE conference follows.

B. Report.

1.Objective: To establish a plan highlighting how the knowledge gained through attending this WIPCE conference in Aotearoa will be used to further the purposes of the program and build capacity to assess, evaluate, and critique educational systems in a rigorous and competitive environment, with the ultimate goal of making them better equipped to suggest and coordinate improvements to the existing educational systems presently serving Native Hawaiians. A. Background Information on the Relationship Between the Maori of Aotearoa and Native Hawaiians- - - and a History of the Creation of ‘ Na Honua Mauli Ola’.

The Maori of Aotearoa (New Zealand) and the Native Hawaiians of Hawaii are tied together through their common history, migration stories, Polynesian background and similar languages, culture, family structures, and history at the hands of colonizing forces from outside Polynesia.

One migration story speaks of Maori travels from South Point, Hawaii to Aotearoa and refers to Native Hawaiians as the tuakana or older siblings of the Maori people. Although both Maori and Native Hawaiian societies suffered the loss of wellness, wellbeing, culture, language, and sovereignty that continues from initial contact to the present, the Maori experience has provided a model for Native Hawaiians since the early 1980’s. The Maori belief in reo (indigenous Maori language), tikanga (indigenous Maori custom, culture, and values) and toi (indigenous Maori knowledge) are the underpinnings of Maori epistemologies and has informed developing Native Hawaiian epistemologies as well. Maori beliefs concerning their connection to the whena (earth), hapu (traditional tribes), whanau (family), and iwi (ancestral bones) have informed Native Hawaiian beliefs and have demonstrated the importance of these relationships to establishing and nurturing a strong sense of Maori and Native Hawaiian identity.

Native Hawaiian educators have been inspired by Maori education, Maori cultural initiatives, and Maori pedagogy since they first visited Aotearoa in the early 1980’s to observe Maori immersion language nests and survival schools.

These language nests and survival schools (Kohanga Reo, Kura Kaupapa Maori) became the model for the ‘Aha Punana Leo Native Hawaiian Language Immersion schools in Hawaii, which have fostered the rebirth and revival of the Native Hawaiian language, and the graduation of seven classes of Native Hawaiian speakers who have been educated in the Native Hawaiian language from Kindergarten through the twelfth grade. This rebirth of Native Hawaiian Language through the Hawaiian language immersion schools has created many Native Hawaiian speakers and a greater use and appreciation of the Native Hawaiian language.

Native Hawaiian educators also visited Aotearoa in 1996 to learn about the development by the Maori of Te Aho Matua- - -a philosophical doctrine established by the Maori to align national education practice and policy with indigenous Maori goals and objectives. These national practices and policies were adopted and enacted as part of New Zealand aw and have since become the standard by which national education policies and practices affecting the indigenous Maori people are measured and evaluated.

The principles and approaches set forth in Te Aho Matua inspired the College of Hawaiian Language at the University of Hawaii at Hilo and the ‘Aha Punana Leo Schools to create Ke Kumu Honua Mauli Ola in 1998. Ke Kumu Honua Mauli Ola is a seminal piece of work that sets forth a Native Hawaiian philosophy as a foundation for enhancing the academic performance, cultural and social well being of Native Hawaiians.

These efforts were followed by the creation of Na Honua Mauli Ola Hawai‘i Guidelines for Culturally Healthy and Responsive Learning Environment in 2002 as a result of a collaboration between the Native Hawaiian Education Council and the College of Hawaiian Language at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. The document was finalized through community meetings statewide and endorsed by forty Native Hawaiian organizations.

Na Honua Mauli Ola consists of native guidelines to create or enhance culturally healthy and responsive learning environments for learners in school, family and community settings. It is intended to provide schools, families and communities a way to examine and attend to the educational and cultural well being of their members. This document has served as the basis for many of the policies surrounding the development and creation of Native Hawaiian curriculum from preschool through higher education, Native Hawaiian assessment and evaluation methodologies, and Native Hawaiian cultural curriculum. The Na Honua Mauli Ola guidelines were modeled after the Alaskan Native cultural guidelines developed by the Alaska Native Knowledge Network and were formulated with the input and support of members from the Alaska Native

Education community as well as other educators first met at earlier World Indigenous People’s Conferences.

B. As a result of the past association, collaboration, and interaction with the Maori, and after reviewing the course offerings of the World Indigenous People’s Conference, the NHEC determined it was necessary to attend this World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education in Aotearoa for the following reasons:

-to gain new insights and ways to address the sense of cultural loss through the revitalization of indigenous knowledge, practice and traditions by observing the indigenous education models of indigenous education systems;

-to network with other indigenous peoples facing problems similar to those faced by Native Hawaiians not doing well in the mainstream system of western education and to learn from them about their successes and challenges in improving indigenous student achievement; -to attend presentations dealing with assessment, data collection, and evaluation from an indigenous perspective and to gain insight into what is most and least effective;

-to use the cultural models of other indigenous people, particularly the Maori, whose traditional and customary ways are more similar to those of Native Hawaiians, as a lens through which to examine and make improvements to existing educational structures, policies, frameworks and models that would better serve the needs of Hawaiians.

C. The NHEC attendees established the following plan to utilize the information presented at the WIPCE conference in Aotearoa to meet their Council responsibilities under the Native Hawaiian Education Act:

-to establish, create, and field test a measurement tool to evaluate whether existing and proposed educational programs, institutions, schools, and curriculum in Hawaii are aligned or inconsistent with the core standards contained in Na Honua Mauli Ola as regards ‘Student Ethnic Identity’ (Lawena identity), ‘Content Knowledge’(‘Ike Ku’una Identity), ‘Relationship Identity’ (Pili ‘Uhane identity), and ‘School Linguistic Identity’ (‘Olelo Identity).

-to use proposed and existing indigenous measurement tools to survey the five Hawaiian learning communities articulated in Na Honua Mauli Ola to determine existing strengths, weaknesses, and gaps;

-to compare the barriers to success that other indigenous educational systems encountered and how those barriers were overcome:

-to refine our data gathering instruments;

-to conduct training on data gathering and evaluation from an indigenous perspective.

D. The NHEC attendees at the WIPCE conference in Aotearoa were successful in accomplishing the following planned activities as a result of attending the WIPCE conference:

- established and created a measurement tool to evaluate whether existing and proposed educational programs, institutions, schools, and curriculum in Hawaii are aligned or inconsistent with the core standards contained in Na Honua Mauli Ola as regards ‘Student Ethnic Identity’ (Lawena identity), ‘Content Knowledge’(‘Ike Ku’una Identity), ‘Relationship Identity’ (Pili ‘Uhane identity), and ‘School Linguistic Identity’ (‘Olelo Identity).

- increased the knowledge and understanding by Native Hawaiian educators of indigenously-focused pedagogy, assessment and evaluation methods and used these insights to create and develop the attached measurement tool;

- increased the knowledge and understanding of Native Hawaiian educators of the ways in which other indigenous educators have created indigenous systems of learning and used these insights to create and develop the attached measurement tool;

- increased the collaborative and cooperative relationships amongst indigenous educators throughout the world and Native Hawaiian educators such that these other indigenous educators are now more likely to assist Native Hawaiian educators in improving and refining their curriculum, assessment tools, and evaluation methodologies;

- increased the knowledge and understanding of Native Hawaiian educators of the various strategies available to increase indigenous student performance.

E. Summary:

The Native Hawaiian Education Council views part of its mission under the Native Hawaiian Education Act as assessing and coordinating the efforts of educators and institutions of learning in improving Native Hawaiian achievement from a

Native Hawaiian indigenous perspective. A seminal document created by the Council with the assistance of other indigenous educators from the Pacific Rim has been Na Honua Mauli Ola, a document which sets standards for culturally healthy and responsive Native Hawaiian learning environments. The basic assumption is that there is a direct and strong correlation between a culturally healthy and responsive learning environment and the increased and sustained achievement of Native Hawaiian students.

While NHMO creates a set of standards and guidelines to create culturally healthy and responsive Native Hawaiian learning environments, additional work was felt necessary to convert these concepts into a measurement tool which could be used to better understand the breadth and scope of all education programs now being used to teach Native Hawaiian children- - -as well as to understand the differences between these discrete programs, curricula, and educational institutions. The overarching goal was to understand what differentiates these programs, curricula, and educational institutions from one another with a view towards acquiring more information on what works and the ways in which Native Hawaiian student achievement may be increased.

Two members of the Native Hawaiian Education Council, along with a very large contingent of Native Hawaiians, traveled to Aotearoa to attend WIPCE. While there, the NHEC, along with other Native Hawaiians in attendance, collected information from other indigenous educators about the challenges they faced, the decisions they made, and the things they learned in creating or maintaining their own systems of indigenous education. These discussions and exchanges, both in Aotearoa and amongst Native Hawaiian educators in Hawaii after the conference ended, provided the information and knowledge from which the attached draft assessment tool was developed.

The draft assessment tool is a work in progress and has yet to be field tested, though plans are in the works to vet it at upcoming educational events in the Native Hawaiian community. It is hoped that this assessment tool will help the Council, the Native Hawaiian community, Native Hawaiian educators, and others concerned about Native Hawaiian education to better understand the breadth and scope of Native Hawaiian education and the strategies which are most effective in increasing Native Hawaiian educational advancement.

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 1

HAWAIIAN CULTURALLY BASED EDUCATION MATRIX

Which programming models (or combination) best prepare our Native Hawaiian students for the local and global world ahead?

A School for Hawaiians A Hawaiian School

NATIVE HAWAIIAN (NH) PR OGRAMMING MODELS

Population Based Family-Culture Based Identity Distinctive Based ❑ 1. Students of NH ancestry are a significant ❑ 1. Assumes NH students have aspects of NH ❑ 1. Assumes NH students have dominant NH ethnic identity verses part of the school’s population. ethnic identity and the school experiences aim to NH ancestry without a strong NH ethnic identity. ❑ 2. Curriculum is mainstream driven and strengthen and further develop this identity ❑ 2. Traditional NH behavior styles, concepts, issues and culturally sensitive through global and ❑ 2. Cultural compatibility of teaching and content are the core foundation from which curriculum is multicultural (rather than NH specific) curriculum seen as a tool to reach academic goals developed. Student understandings. and not necessarily a means to preserve ethnic ❑ 3. Teachers are models of appropriate formal and informal NH ❑ 3. Teachers not necessarily culturally identity. values and ethnic behavior styles. Ethnic accommodating or versed in NH home or ❑ 3. Teachers are accustomed to NH ethnic ❑ 4. Building a sense of self, place, family and community Identity traditional culture. behavior styles. through a NH values are an integral part of developing ❑ 4. Cultural identity is developed through ❑ 4. Community and cultural identity are equally cultural identity, responsibility and self-worth. ethnic–multicultural processes applicable important in developing sense of self/community ❑ 5. Students are prepared to spread NH culture into new contexts for the general public. of the student. and communities. ❑ 5. Students may or may not live primarily ❑ 5. NH students live primarily in communities in NH communities or have strong NH identified as NH. ethnic backgrounds.

Content-Skills Focused Experiential Focused Cultural Lens Focused ❑ 1. NH specific content courses integrated ❑ 1. Hawaiian land-based, hands-on experience, ❑ 1. Traditional NH paradigms are the underpinnings of the into the curriculum. applied cultural practices integrated into the curriculum and learning environment (e.g. Mauli ola ❑ 2. Students develop an appreciation for the curriculum and centered around stewardship and education, Hawaiian culture-based charter and Hawaiian NH culture. sustainability issues. language immersion schools) Example: ❑ 2. Focus is on providing students a first hand ❑ 2. Connections made to place/community, genealogy, history,

- Advanced Application: require separate courses at experiential understanding of traditional NH values and tradition form the basis from which dynamic Content every grade level, e.g. Hawaiian language required culture and its relationship to the natural learning is experienced in meaningful and personal ways. at all grade levels. environment. Example: - Beginning Application: courses optional or at a Knowledge Example: - Advanced Application: teachers use strong personal as well as minimal schedule with little advancement per - Advanced Application: weekly to daily on site academic backgrounds in NH culture in a highly integrative manner year–an appreciation or basic understanding of application (e.g. community fish pond project, cultural that extends throughout the school and personal lives of students, Hawaiian culture.(e.g. Kupuna program) garden) teachers, and staff.

- Beginning Application: occasional field trips. - Beginning Application; teachers use primarily academic backgrounds in NH culture in a superficial manner that is confined primarily to the classroom.

Developed by Keiki Kawa‘ae‘a in consultation with William H. Wilson Draft Copy 4.1 8/29/06 First review committee: Pua Case, Lehua Veincent, Kanani Aton DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 2 Individual Centered Local Community Centered Native Global Centered ❑ 1. Learning is skills/test-driven; focus is ❑ 1. Learning is student/community-centered; ❑ 1. Learning is group/indigenous centered; focus is on cultivating on student academic gains as reflected by focus is on student growth as part of a localized self-directed behavior that support each person to flourish as a test results on a student-by-student basis. NH group/community. member of a collective NH whole—that has a unique place in an ❑ 2. Academics drive the learning instruction ❑ 2. Learning is culturally compatible with international world. and reflect the individualistic values of the students home-community experiences, and ❑ 2. Learning is a holistic process; and applied to real and mainstream culture. builds upon those experiences to make purposeful situations that prepare them to contribute to their ❑ 3. Learning is defined in specific outcomes connections to new learning and other students families and broader community—culturally tied together as a that students may or may see relevance in a in the group/community. distinctive group in the world. Relationship broader practical/meaningful application. ❑ 3. Learning is a process that helps students to ❑ 3. Learning focuses on thinking about and critically acting upon Identity ❑ 4. Student achievement is assessed bridge the world of academics with possible life issues that contribute to the well-being and sustainability of the primarily by vendor/state prepared tools application to participate in the local region. people, places, natural elements, space and time in respectful that are nationally driven. ❑ 4. Student achievement is evaluated by state ways—on an equal manner with other peoples and places around ❑ 5. Safety issues are managed and enforced prepared vehicles and local/community the globe. by the principal as set in school handbook. developed tools. ❑ 4. Student achievement is evaluated by multiple means including ❑ 5. School safeguards around safety procedures traditional forms and state required exams. guided by adult concern for the welfare of the ❑ 5. Safety is addressed within a larger structure that protects the student within a particular community. well-being of its students, teachers, staff and families as an Extended family within a pu‘uhonua.

English Language Medium Mixed Language Medium Hawaiian Language Medium ❑ 1. Standard English is the medium of ❑ 1. Focus is on quality of communication and ❑ 1. Hawaiian language is the medium of instruction across the instruction across the curriculum and expression. Hawai‘i Creole English not curriculum and the expected student language of use outside of expected or assumed language of student discouraged and used for expressive purposes in the class at the school. use in and out of class. and out of class. (Hawaiian vocabulary and ❑ 2. Hawaiian taught as the primary language with Standard ❑ 2. Standard English is taught although influence in Hawai‘i Creole English (Pidgin) English taught from the perspective of an auxiliary language. students may study Hawaiian parallel to seen as positive communicative feature that is Writing Creole English (Pidgin) following Hawaiian language foreign languages for enrichment. encouraged. conversations occurs naturally in lower grades and Hawai‘i ❑ 3. All graduates are expected to be fluent ❑ 2. Standard English taught as a second dialect Creole English is treated as an inter-language between Hawaiian in Standard English, with no other fluent although students may study Hawaiian either as and Standard English which students are expected to know and language use expectations. a requirement or elective parallel to foreign use. Students may study other languages either as a requirement or ❑ 4. Range: most NH students assumed to languages for enrichment. elective for enrichment. Range from partial to full immersion— already be fluent speakers Standard ❑ 3. All graduates expected to be fluent in native to second language speaker. School English with some in process of Standard English and Hawai‘i Creole English ❑ 3. All graduates expected to be fluent in Hawaiian, Hawai‘i Linguistic transitioning from normal peer group use of (Pidgin), but there are no other fluent language Creole English (Pidgin) and Standard English, but there are no Identity Hawai‘i Creole English (Pidgin) or use expectations of graduates. other fluent language use expectations. Hawaiian to normal group use of Standard ❑ 4. Range: most NH students enter school as a ❑ 4. Range: many NH students enter school with two years of English. native speakers of Hawai‘i Creole English preschool experience in Hawaiian although most use Hawai‘i (Pidgin) with some entering school already Creole English (Pidgin) at home or with significant numbers of knowing Standard English or Hawaiian. relatives. Most families also use some Hawaiian with a few using Example: only Hawaiian. - Advanced Application: Students give opportunities to Example: read and write literature in Hawai‘i Creole English - Advanced Application: full immersion/Hawaiian medium with Hawaiian the (Pidgin) as well as Standard English. language of instruction in all classes, which may even include English - Beginning Application: Student use of Hawai‘i’s Creole language arts class. Hawaiian used by the principal and support staff. English (Pidgin) simply tolerated rather than artistically Foreign languages taught with Hawaiian as the basis for comparison. developed. - Beginning Application: partial immersion, with the socially dominant language (English) used in early elementary and/or only some courses taught through Hawaiian. English is the language used by the principal and other authority figures as well as support staff. Hawaiian treated as a foreign language. Write a preface statement: An invitation to find your place not a tool to define programming models.

Developed by Keiki Kawa‘ae‘a in consultation with William H. Wilson Draft Copy 4.1 8/29/06 First review committee: Pua Case, Lehua Veincent, Kanani Aton DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 3 Notes: First review committee • What is the purpose/intent? • Who can use it and how? (administration, teachers community) • Identifying where are you and where are you going? • How to use it? • How does the community support? • Tool is couched in NHMO • Tool is a Hawaiian culturally based education matrix • Encourages cultural responsibility (address the dissonance between school and home) • Charge community to provide guidance

Guide voice: tone down the mainstream voice; raise the community voice Express the importance of school-buy in from the school leadership

Developed by Keiki Kawa‘ae‘a in consultation with William H. Wilson Draft Copy 4.1 8/29/06 First review committee: Pua Case, Lehua Veincent, Kanani Aton DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY What's the Landscape and Soundscape of Your School/Program

Zero to Intend Moderate Strong Native Hawaiian (NH) Programing Models Minimal to Comments Presence Presence % % Presence Increase Student Ethnic Identity 1. Population Based 2. Family-Culture Based 3. Identity Distinctive Based Content Knowledge 1. Content-Skills Focused 2. Experiential Focused 3. Cultural Lens Focused Relationship Identity 1. Individual Centered 2. Local Community Centered 3. Native Global Centered School Linguistic Identity 1. English Language Medium 2. Mixed Language Medium 3. Hawaiian Language Medium

Planning Questions

1. Which programing model(s) are implemented in your school/program? How would you rank yourselves?

2. What are the strengths and opportunities of your school/program?

3. What are the effective practices, strategies and processes used in your school/program?

How do you know? How could they be improved?

4. How could you better utilize your strengths, talents and opportunities to impact student success?

5. What are the weaknesses and barriers of your school/program?

6. In what ways can you improve your practices and overcome the barriers that limit your ability to best prepare students for the world ahead?

Developed by Keiki Kawa‘ae‘a in consultation with William H. Wilson Draft Copy 4.1 8/29/06 First review committee: Pua Case, Lehua Veincent, Kanani Aton NNää LLAAUU LLAAMMAA:: BBEESSTT PPRRAACCTTIICCEESS OONN EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONN REMEMBER KEOLA

Nä Lau Lama: Conference on Best Practices in Hawaiian Education

The Nä Lau Lama conference begins an 18-month project, led in partnership by the Hawai‘i Department of Education (DOE) and the Hawaiian community, to improve the educational outcomes for Native Hawaiians. “Remember Keola,” a conference theme, reminds us that plans and discussions are ultimately about helping individual keiki reach their full potential.

Table1. Logistics

Date of conference January 12-13, 2006 Location Japanese Cultural Center, Honolulu Conference coordinator Puanani Wilhelm (with OHA, KS, NHEC, NPN) Participants Registered: 238; Attended: 187 (Day 1), 133 (Day 2) DOE staff attendees 46 Overall rating from conference evaluation 3.1 (scale of 1–4) Speakers/panelists 2 speakers/12 panelists Number of schools/organizations represented ~64 (see Appendix 1 for complete listing) Time frame (from concept to completion) Six months Budgeted amount $30,000 Money spent (funded by OHA & DOE) $28,196

Table 2. Conference objectives and outcomes Objective of conference Did we succeed? Establish a community-based process to Yes. In fact, we involved so many community members identify practices used in Hawaiian education. that some thought the DOE was underrepresented. Discuss and agree on areas of “best practices” Yes. We achieved more discussion than agreement; in education and relevant strategies. still, we agreed on five main areas of focus (see below). Create working groups of volunteers with Yes. Five working groups were created: expertise in each area to identify plans, 1. Professional development methods, and resources needed to support the 2. Culture-based education (content/context and use of these practices to reach children in method/in-class implementation) public schools. 3. Family and community strengthening 4. Advocacy 5. Indigenous assessment

Figure 1. Critical mass: Organizations represented at the conference (%)

41.7 5.9 OHA `Aha Pünana Leo Kamehameha Schools 10.9 UH DOE 19.3 Other DOE-Administrative 18.0 2.5 DOE-Hawaiian charters 2.5 6.7 DOE-Immersion 11.8 REMEMBER KEOLA

1. Purpose: What are we trying to accomplish? The overall purpose of this project is to improve educational outcomes for Native Hawaiian learners, many of whom are struggling in our public schools. The ultimate goal is to identify and support effective practices and strategies in Hawai‘i’s schools and classrooms. Our child-centered focus reminds us to keep moving forward so that we reach children in ways that concretely benefit their learning and their educational prospects. This initial gathering of educators and active community partners represents a first step toward collaboratively identifying ways to improve the educational successes of Native Hawaiian learners. Overall, the broad goals of the project are to:

ƒ Gather input on what is working with Hawaiian children. ƒ Identify core approaches to serve as guidelines for schools/classrooms throughout the public school system. ƒ Develop collaborative partnerships between Hawaiian educational community and DOE schools. ƒ Help schools develop plans to implement approaches and strategies (e.g., professional development, curriculum, etc.).

2. Background: Why are we doing this? This project reflects shared public and private concern that too many Native Hawaiian children are lagging behind their classmates in public schools, evidenced by data trends over the past twenty years. Hope has emerged among the many individual schools and teachers who are reaching out to Hawaiian children in innovative and effective ways, but federal mandates threaten to stifle some of the most promising fronts in Hawaiian education. To address the problem, this collaborative effort was initiated by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and its community organizations in partnership with the Hawai‘i Department of Education (DOE). In a letter dated May 19, 2005, from OHA Trustee Dante Carpenter to DOE Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto, OHA proposed a cooperative partnership with the DOE to assist the Hawaiian student population affected by the Federal No Child Left Behind Act.

In a community meeting at OHA on June 28, 2005, Superintendent Hamamoto committed the DOE to working collaboratively with OHA and partners in the education community to produce a “best practices” conference toward this end. Puanani Wilhelm of the Hawaiian Studies Department was asked to lead the effort on behalf of the DOE. At this same meeting, several of OHA’s education community partners committed themselves to the planning and development of this conference and a broader collaboration between the Hawaiian community and the DOE. This meeting launched the beginning of the planning process for a long-term

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 2 REMEMBER KEOLA

project intended ultimately to improve educational outcomes for Hawaiian children.

3. Planning Process: How are we doing this? Partnership Strategy This project is built on a foundation of partnership and collaboration. The planning committee reflected a wide range of Hawaiian education community organizations. Gradually a core working group emerged that included representatives from OHA, DOE, Nä Pua Noÿeau, Native Hawaiian Education Council (NHEC), Native Hawaiian Education Association (NHEA), Kua‘ana Student Services (UH–Mänoa), and Kamehameha Schools. Our key strategy has been to utilize the diverse perspectives within the Hawaiian community and the educational system.

Educators from a wide range of diverse perspectives were invited to the conference to ensure that the results reflected voices and mana‘o from all segments of the community. In all, more than sixty community partner organizations were represented by conference attendees, including early childhood professionals, DOE principals and teachers, Hawaiian educational organizations, and UH faculty and students (see Appendix 1: “List of Participating Organizations”).

Overview of Long-range Plan At the September 29, 2005 meeting, Puanani Wilhelm presented a summary of the discussions from previous meetings in a set of long-range goals and phases required to implement a collaborative project between the DOE and the Hawaiian educational community (see section 6 of this document). At a high level, the plan’s goals include:

• Gather input from diverse group of Hawaiian community organizations on the multiple ways programs and educators are reaching out to Hawaiian children, and develop community consensus through focused discussions about what types of programs and strategies are working. • Identify core approaches that can serve as guidelines for schools/classrooms throughout the public school system and develop materials and resources needed to introduce and support these practices in schools and classrooms. • Develop collaborative partnerships between the Hawaiian educational community and DOE schools. • Help schools to implement appropriate programs, strategies, approaches, , specifically o Support the ongoing implementation of these practices in public schools and classrooms. o Organize and share the information with other educators working with Hawaiian children.

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 3 REMEMBER KEOLA

Logistics and Funding The conference planning committee met about four times between initializing its work in August 2005 and the conference in January 2006. The conference was launched with an invitation to “Nä Lau Lama: Conference on Best Practices for Hawaiian Education” by letter in December 2005. Invitees included approximately 300 Native Hawaiian educational community members currently engaged in implementing programs, providing direct support to teachers or students, or developing curriculum, materials or programs for use in the classroom or with public school students outside of formal classroom settings. The invitations emphasized that the conference is a first step in a long-range project to define, develop and support the implementation of Hawaiian “best practices” in education for all of Hawaiÿi’s keiki.

OHA and DOE were the major financial cosponsors of the conference. Each covered an equal portion of the conference costs, while NHEC and NHEA made commitments to contribute smaller amounts. Kamehameha Schools and NHEC provided data and reference materials relevant to Hawaiian education, including the executive summary of Ka Huakaÿi: 2005 Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment and a synopsis of the curriculum guide, Nä Honua Mauli Ola.

To encourage input from the full range of community groups and voices, participants’ costs such as airfare (outer island), airport shuttle, ground transportation, conference materials, and meals were fully covered by the conference cosponsors. There was no cost for registration.

4. Summary of conference events: What happened? Day One: Casting the Net Wide. The day began with a keynote speech by Nälani Sing, former principal at Keaÿau Elementary School. She discussed Hawaiian teaching and learning practices from a traditional perspective. From there, the 187 participants moved into various groupings by education topic area ranging from early childhood to post-high (see Appendix 2: “Conference Agenda”). Groups were tasked with sharing and discussing practices and strategies that individuals and organizations have identified as key to their work in successfully educating Hawaiian learners. A variety of discussions ensued, ranging from strongly cautioning to quietly determined. In the afternoon, a variety of panelists discussed issues from the public school and community education perspectives and from several prevailing philosophies in Hawaiian education (e.g., Nä Honua Mauli Ola, Pedagogy of Aloha, etc.). For the most part, sentiments expressed in evaluations that day were optimistic and hopeful about the opportunity to make a difference.

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 4 REMEMBER KEOLA

Day Two: Honing in on What Works. The day began with a keynote speech by Kinohi Gomes, a director of Nä Pua Noeÿau, who shared his personal journey from a child who went through school in a ”blue group” (i.e., not a top performer in the classroom) to an educator working to enhance opportunities for Hawaiian children. After this inspirational talk, participants received notes from the prior day’s discussions and then grouped themselves by island to identify, from the previous day’s discussions, those practices that had collectively emerged as critical components of best strategies for Hawaiian learners.

The work progressed through lunch as the conference planning committee posted the outcomes of the morning’s group sessions and each participant was asked to prioritize the four practices, strategies or target areas they felt were most important for the long-term project of implementing systemic change in public education for Hawaiians. Following vigorous discussion among all the participants, consensus arose identifying prioritized five areas needing focused concentration and further development. Participants were asked to sign up for one of the working groups related to these five areas and to commit their time and effort toward achieving the long-range purpose of the project.

Key findings revealed practices, strategies, and criteria that could be grouped into five major categories: 1) Culture-based education, which includes, for example, various indigenous, place-based, hands-on, collaborative, multidisciplinary and small learning group strategies to meaningfully engage Hawaiian children in education. This group has two linked foci: ¾ Curriculum (content) and curricular approaches ¾ Teaching methodologies and classroom delivery (context) 2) Indigenous assessment and culturally authentic evidence to gauge progress 3) Professional development of teachers and staff 4) Family and Community strengthening to increase participation and support local community governance 5) Advocacy, Policy and Funding to secure public resources and government support for Hawaiian education

These overlapping categories formed the five working groups that emerged from the two days of active discussion. Participants agreed that the primary purpose of these working groups is to structure, facilitate, and support the implementation of practices that improve outcomes for Native Hawaiian children in public schools.

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 5 REMEMBER KEOLA

5. Summary of participant evaluations: What did participants think?

Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly disagree agree N % n % n % n % n D1-Q1: The opening and Key- 18 11 5 3 27 17 50 31 62 note session helped to clarify the purpose and desired outcomes of this conference. D1-Q2: The group discussion 6 4 4 3 46 32 44 31 70 was guided so that we were able to develop a list of components, ideas, and considerations to use to determine a “best practice” for Native Hawaiian education. D1-Q2: The panel groups 6 4 3 2 45 31 46 32 69 provided different perspectives regarding Native Hawaiian children and the challenges and successes in educating them. Mean score for Day One: 3.2 D2-Q1: The Discussion in the 14 4 14 4 18 5 54 15 28 breakout group was able to help us identify up to 10 best practices. D2-Q2: The random group was 15 4 19 5 23 6 43 11 26 able to develop criteria to identify top priority “best practices.” D2-Q3: The large mixed group 11 3 21 6 32 9 36 10 28 work focused and achieved the desired outcomes of the conference. Mean score for Day Two: 3.0

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 7 REMEMBER KEOLA

6. Long-range goals and time frames: What is the overall plan? The conference is the first step toward achieving the long-rang goal of improving the educational successes of Native Hawaiian learners. The phase of work and time frames are outlined below.

Note: Phases I and II are partially complete.

Status Description Estimated timeline Complete Phase I: Native Hawaiian “Best Practices” • January 2006: Conference Conference for NH Include Hawaiian organizations/institutions that educational have developed/implemented Hawaiian organizations curriculum, programs, methodologies, strategies, etc. • Step 1: Identify best practices in education (and produce commonalities and guidelines, etc.). • Step 2: Prioritize and focus on the top 5 strategies, practices, needs, based on community’s mana‘o.

Phase II: Five Working Task Groups • January - August • Step 1: Identify and organize group 06: Working members based on commitment to one of Committees the 5 prioritized areas of focus. • Step 2: Groups meet and create work plans to: a) Identify resources required for long-term support. b) Identify potential pilot schools/communities for phased • March 06: 1st implementation of programs, strategies. report during c) Interview staff, families and community NHEA convention stakeholders from proposed pilot schools; gather information. • Step 3: Present first report during NHEA convention in late March 2006. • October 2006: • Step 4: Groups continue work to: 2nd Practitioner a) Develop specific implementation plans. Conference re: b) Identify or develop materials necessary planning for for implementation (specific curriculum, Phase 3 teaching guides, lesson plans, etc.).

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 8 REMEMBER KEOLA

c) Develop plans for securing necessary resources for implementation.

Phase III: Implementation (roll-out) • January 07: NH • Step 1: Native Hawaiian Best-Practices Best Practices Conference for Schools Conference for a) Present “Best Practices” Schools strategies/programs to DOE schools, along • January 07: with plans for supporting those schools Identify “pilot” who choose to pilot them. schools and get b) Committees who worked on particular their commitments prioritized areas meet with pilot schools for partnerships and plan for implementation. • February 07-July 2007: NH organizations Step 2: Implementation at the school level with (based on working NH practitioner support committees) work with “pilot” schools • February 07: Identify evaluator to work with project schools Step 3: Evaluation of implementation including and provide professional development, curriculum and feedback support provided by Native Hawaiian • School year 07-08: educational organizations or work committees Implementation of “best practices” in pilot schools and ongoing evaluation

Phase IV: Ongoing support and system wide • School year 08-09: implementation Implementation at • Step 1: Based on successful pilot, support other schools provided to additional schools to implement • Ongoing support best practices for schools to • Step 2: Evaluate implementation rollout and implement “best outcomes practices” for Native Hawaiian students

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 9 REMEMBER KEOLA

7. Next steps: What will happen next? Tactical plans (details and action)

Future conferences – This project builds on the momentum of several conferences, beginning with the World Indigenous Peoples Conference in Education (WIPCE) in Nov./Dec. 2005, which a large number of Nä Lau Lama participants had attended. In addition, follow-up meetings are planned for the Native Hawaiian Education Association (NHEA) Convention and the student-focused Charter School Conference on Indigenous Education, both occurring in March, 2006. Also, the Hawaiian Civic Club Convention convenes in early June, 2006, and will include a focus on Education, building from the work begun at Nä Lau Lama. Finally, the KS Strategic Planning & Implementation group has committed the Kamehameha Schools Research Conference in October to support the work of this project. The thread linking all six events, including Na Lau Lama, is their unified focus on improving educational well-being for Native Hawaiian children.

Planning groups – OHA and Kamehameha Schools have committed funds to immediately hire a coordinator whose primary function will be to organize those community members who have agreed to serve on the five working task groups. The planning committee also is asking DOE to hire a Department coordinator to work with the Hawaiian community coordinator as primary liaison for the DOE. The central objectives of the five task groups during Phase II of the project are to: 1. Gather information – conduct interviews with teachers, principals, and parents; hold community meetings 2. Identify resources needed to carry out working groups (people, $$) 3. Report back at the NHEA convention, March 2006

Working groups – Based on the specific plans identified by the task groups, long- term working groups will be formed to accomplish the following activities: 1. Develop/refine specific strategies 2. Determine scale and scope of implementation 3. Identify resources available and secure agreements, including: • Organizations or individuals that will form consortia to develop in- service training programs and/or curriculum material for use in public schools. • Committed resources and processes to implement long-term professional development and curricular support to schools that will use “best practices” that benefit Native Hawaiian students. • Continued assessment of curriculum and training for “best practices” and long-term support to schools for implementation. 4. Report back in October 2006

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 10 REMEMBER KEOLA

Communications – Communication planning for this project Raise awareness: ƒ Establish regular (monthly?) e-announcement with news, status, schedule, and mana’o about the group’s efforts and progress. ƒ Brand all communications with Nä Lau Lama words and/or graphic. (Note: This does not have to be elaborate—just consistent.) ƒ Identify/designate point of contact for each community organization. ƒ Figure out where online materials will reside (OHA, DOE, etc.). ƒ Initiate contact with local media. Communicate with working groups: ƒ Request that one individual from each of the five working groups serve as a communications liaison. ƒ Maintain electronic distribution list of all participants. ƒ Start communications EARLY for Jan. 2007 implementation. Communicate with DOE: ƒ Work with DOE communications department to develop a strategy for roll-out. ƒ Keep Pat Hamamoto (and her core leadership group) in the loop. ƒ Make sure information is reaching classroom-level folks. Communicate with parents and students: ƒ Explore the idea of including student government leaders from schools. ƒ Determine interest levels among parents. ƒ Consider attending PTSA meetings (or the equivalent) to promote awareness and enlist help.

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 11 REMEMBER KEOLA

Appendix 1: List of participating organizations

Total Registered: 238 Attended Day 1: 187 Attended Day 2: 133

Participating organizations Number of Organization participants DOE Department of Education-Hawaiian Studies 8 and Language Programs Nänäikapono Elementary 5 Ke Kula o Kamakau 4 Department of Education-District 3 Kualapu‘u High School 3 Nawahiokalani‘opu‘u 3 Olomana School 2 Pu‘ohala Elementary 2 Waimea Middle School 2 Board of Education 1 Charter Schools Administrative Office 1 Hawaiian Language Immersion P-20 1 Hawaiian Studies Honolulu District 1 Kanu I ka Pono Charter School 1 Kanu o ka ‘Äina PCS 1 Kawaihona Na‘auao PCS 1 Ke Kula Ni‘ihau o Kekaha PCS 1 Kea‘au High School 1 Kula Alupuni Ni‘ihau A Kahelelani Aloha- 1 PCS Kula Kaiapuni ‘o Anuenue (Hawaiian 1 Immersion) Kula Kaiapuni o Waiau (Hawaiian 1 Immersion) Na Lei Na‘auao-Charter School 1 Waiakea High School 1 Total 46

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 12 REMEMBER KEOLA

UH University of Hawai‘i-Mänoa 19 Center on Disability Studies 6 Ka Haka‘Ula O Ke‘elikolani 5 CRDG 3 UH Hilo 2 Center for Hawaiian Studies 2 Native Hawaiian Science and Engineering 2 Mentoring Program Dept. of Native Hawaiian Health 1 Kaua‘i Community College 1 Maui Community College 1 Papa Ola Lokahi 1 Total 43

KS Kamehameha Schools 28

Aha Pünana Leo ‘Aha Pünana Leo 8 Pünana Leo o Honolulu 1 Pünana Leo o Kawaiaha‘o 1 Pünana Leo o Kona 1 Pünana Leo o Ko‘olauloa 1 Pünana Leo Maui 1 Pünana Leo Moloka‘i 1 Pünana Leo Wai‘anae 1 Pünana Leo Waimea 1 Total 16

OHA Office of Hawaiian Affairs 6

Other Alu Like 20 Organizations Ka Lei Papahi o Kakuhihewa 20 Partners in Development 12 Pihana Nä Mamo 6 Chaminade University 4 Nä Pua No‘eau 4 Native Hawaiian Education Council 4 Ho‘ola Lähui Hawai‘i, NHEP 3 Ka‘ala Farm 3 Kupu Na Leo 3 Kuali‘i Council 2 Mälama ‘Äina Foundation 2 Pacific American Foundation 2

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 13 REMEMBER KEOLA

Aha Ho‘okumu 1 College Connections 1 Harold K. L. Castle Foundation 1 Ho‘okako‘o Corporation 1 Ho‘owaiwai Nä Kamali‘i 1 INPEACE 1 Keiki o ka ‘Äina 1 Ku Ha‘aheo 1 Ku I ka Mana‘ai 1 Marimed Foundation 1 Moloka‘i Community Service Council 1 Native Nations 1 Project Popoho Na Pe‘a 1 Volcanoes Alive Project 1 Total 95 Total number of TOTAL PARTICIPANTS 238 organizations = 64

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 14 REMEMBER KEOLA

Appendix 2: Conference Agenda

Nä Lau Lama, “Best Practices” for Native Hawaiian Education Conference January 12 & 13, 2006 Japanese Cultural Center, Mänoa Ballroom (2454 South Beretania Street) Agenda

Desired Outcomes: • Identification and prioritization of Native Hawaiian best practices for implementation at schools. • The development of and commitment to a long-range plan for implementing best practices in all schools. • Formation of work groups who will potentially support schools in implementing these best practices.

January 12, 2006 8:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.

8:00-8:30 Registration

8:30-9:30 Opening Key-note: Nälani Sing

9:30-11:00 Break-out sessions (organized by themes) Guide Question: What makes a “best practice” for Native Hawaiian education? • Aÿo Hawaiÿi (Culture-based curriculum and instruction) • Mälama Honua (Environmental Stewardship) • Pülama Kamaliÿi (Early Childhood Education) • Kü Kanaka (Character Education/Family Support) • Ola Pono (Wellness/Health Education) • Pilina ÿIke (Cultural/Western academic connections and Teacher Training) • Hoÿonui ÿIke (Athletics, Arts, Enrichment)

Task: Groups to develop a list of components, ideas, considerations to use when deciding whether or not something is a “best practice” for Native Hawaiian education.

11:00-12:00 Groups report back 12:00-1:00 Lunch: Reporting

1:00-3:30 Panels / Breakouts

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 15 REMEMBER KEOLA

Guide Question: What are your dreams for Native Hawaiian children and what are the challenges and successes? • DOE teachers (veteran, immersion, from re-structured schools, first-year teachers) • Community Educational Organizations (variety) • Philosophy of Learning and Assessment

3:30-4:00 Debrief and next days activities

4:00-6:00 Reception and Kukäkukä

Day 2

8:30-9:30 Keynote 2: Kinohi Gomes

9:30-12:00 Breakout #2 (By island groups) Task: Identify 10 “best practices” for Native Hawaiian education (use criteria, documents and experiences from yesterday) • Hawai‘i • O‘ahu • Maui Nui (Maui, Läna‘i, Moloka‘i) • Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau • Statewide

Breakout #3 (Random by color dots) Task: Develop and use criteria to identify top 3 priority “best practices”

12:00-1:00 Lunch: Prioritize practices

1:00-2:30 Large Mixed Group (by tables) Tasks: • Give feedback regarding the proposed Long-Range plan for systemization of “best practices” • Prioritize and categorize identified “best practices” • Divide “best practices” into categories and commit to work and commitment to working groups • Begin working as work groups form

2:30-3:00 Next steps and closing

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 16 REMEMBER KEOLA

What helped the conference succeed? The conference was a success on multiple levels due to a number of factors, including:

• Diversity of voices represented in both the planning phase and conference participation; • Expressed intention of DOE and the Department’s willingness to follow through on implementation; • Willingness of the Hawaiian educational community to keep the focus on the work – to “stay the course”; • Committed organizers who tracked the pulse of the conference and adjusted accordingly; • Drive toward action/implementation (particularly the voices of several vocal küpuna who urged the diverse group to keep moving forward toward actionable results); • Flexibility of conference schedule: shifting time and altering group activities when the momentum pushed us beyond the printed agenda; • Beginning Day 2 with immediate feedback from Day 1 to mobilize discussions.

What hindered the efficiency of the conference? • Challenging venue for multiple group breakouts—the planning committee discussed convening in a more suitable location next time; • Delayed dissemination of the invitations—the planning committee recognized the need to move more quickly to improve the next conference; • Suspicion of the process and project, and unwillingness to engage in partnerships the DOE, by a relatively small but sometimes vocal minority of participants.

FEB. 2006—NÄ LAU LAMA CONFERENCE REPORT PAGE 6

NNHHEECC && UUssddooeedd:: GGRRAANNTT wwoorrkksshhooppss

Native Hawaiian Education Council

February 6, 2006

For Immediate Release

For further information contact:

Colin Kippen, Executive Director Native Hawaiian Education Council 845-9883 [email protected]

USDOE Announces Workshops on How to Apply for $9.5 Million in Competitive Grants

“United States Department of Education employees Francisco Ramirez and Beth Fine will be traveling from Washington D.C. to Hawaii the week of February 13th through 18th to provide information to interested parties about how to apply for approximately $9.5 million in funds available under the Native Hawaiian Education Act,” said Colin Kippen, executive director of the Native Hawaiian Education Council, the local agency responsible for ‘assessing, evaluating, and coordinating’ activities under that Act. “They will be accompanied by Kamuela Chun of the Native Hawaiian Education Council as well as myself,” said Kippen.

“These federal grants created under the Native Hawaiian Education Act are designed to support innovative projects that increase the education of Native Hawaiian students,” said Kippen, “and we encourage as many organizations as possible to apply.”

“Competitive preferences will be awarded for grant applications addressing beginning reading literacy of Native Hawaiian students in kindergarten through third grade, the needs of at-risk Native Hawaiian children and youth, the needs of Native Hawaiians in fields or disciplines in which they are underemployed, and the use of Hawaiian language in instruction,” said Kippen.

The awards are expected to be from $375,000 to $1,100,000 in size, approximately 20 in number, and cover a period of up to 36 months. The deadline for applying for these funds is March 24, 2006.

3075 Kalihi Street, #4 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96819 Phone: 808-845-9883 Fax: 808-845-9984

Workshops for those interested in learning more about how to apply for these grants will be held at the following locations and on the following dates:

■ West Oahu Monday, February 13, 2006 9:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Ma‘ili Elementary, Library 87-360 Kula‘aupuni St.

■ Central O‘ahu Monday, February 13, 2006 3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. JCCH, Manoa Grand Ballroom 2454 S. Beretania St.

■ East O‘ahu Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Kahuku High & Intermediate School 56-490 Kamehameha Hwy.

■ Windward O‘ahu Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Waimanalo Elementary & Intermediate School, Library 41-1330 Kalanianaole Hwy.

■ Maui & Läna‘i Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:00 a.m – 12:30 p.m. - This workshop can be attended via polycom (two-way teleconferencing network between Kahului and Läna‘i)

UH – Maui Community College, Ka‘a‘ike 103 310 W. Ka‘ahumanu Ave.

UH – MCC, Läna‘i Education Center 329 7th St.

■ Moloka‘i Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Kualapu‘u Elementary School, Cafeteria 260 Farrington Hwy.

2

■ Waimea, Kaua‘i Thursday, February 16, 2006 10:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. West Kaua‘i Technology & Visitor Center 9565 Kaumuali‘i Hwy.

■ Lihue, Kaua‘i Thursday, February 16, 2006 4:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Queen Lili‘uokalani Children's Center, Kaua‘i Unit 4530 Kali Rd.

■ Waimea, Hawai‘i Friday, February 17, 2006 10 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Kahilu Town Hall / YMCA Waimea

■ Hilo, Hawai‘i Friday, February 17, 2006 4:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. UH – Hawai‘i Community College, Bldg. 379, Rm. 1 200 W. Kawili St.

For further information about the federal Native Hawaiian Education Program, including the FY 2006 awards process, please contact Beth Fine, or Francisco Ramirez, U.S. Department of Education, at: (202) 260-1091 or (202) 260-1541. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]. Further information and application materials can also be obtained at: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/2006-1/012306c.html The application may be viewed and downloaded through grants.gov and on the Native Hawaiian Education Program website http://www.ed.gov/programs/nathawaiian/applicant.html-

For local information contact Heather Kina at (808)845-9883 or E-mail: [email protected]

# # # # # # # # #

3

MISCELLANEOUS COUNTS

28 Presentation packets were emailed or mailed to people who were unable to attend any of the workshops. NHEC will continue to distribute these until the 3/24 application deadline.

12-Feb Grantee Technical Assistance Q & A Session with F. Ramirez & B. Fine Attendees: 55 Total

14-Feb Higher Education Meeting with Key Higher Education Agenies & Advocates Attendees: 1 Esbin Borsting, KSBE - Post High 2 Kamuela Chun, UH Comm. Colleges 3 Resh DuPuis - OHA 4 Kuumeaaloha Gomes - UH (Grantee) 5 Henry Gomes - Chaminade 6 Peter Hanohano - Tribal College 7 Lui Hokoana - UH, MCC - Liko Ae (Grantee 8 Josh Kaakua - UH - Engineering (Grantee) 9 Manu Kaiama - UH, Hawaiian Leadership (Grantee) 10 Joy Kono - KSBE 11 Judy Oliviera - HCF 12 Louis Perez - PAF 13 Claire Pruet - Chaminade 14 Mavis Shiraishi-Nagao - KSBE 15 Georgette Sakamoto - UH 16 Kalei Stern - HCF 17 Bob Worthington - Chaminade 18 Colin Kippen 19 Francisco Ramirez PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM: STATEWIDE SUMMARY DATA

190 60% Surveys Collected 318 Total Attendance

1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helful and / or easy to use? 95 / 190 50% Absolutely 72 / 190 38% Agree 10 / 190 5% Neutral 0 / 190 0% Disagree 1 / 190 1% Not at All 12 / 190 6% No Response Comments: - Excellent. - I dont think I qualify for a grant at this time. I did find the program interesting and informative. - Too much material at one time. 3 hr. workshop with break in middle would be helpful. - The packet is very comprehensive. There is a lot of information to read and digest. - Information overload but we can take it back to digest. - Haven't had a chance to read through all the materials. It appears helpful and comprehensive. - Great deal of reading but wonderful to have. - May want to ask how many people present have applied for grants before... - Gave me additional info on how to appy for a grant with each step already defined. - Materials provided were not helpful or easy to use. - Yes, because we need this info to start on our organization. - Yes definitely - Small group setting was conducive to intimate conversations. - It gives only an idea. - Thank you - Handouts & presenter made them helpful/useful. - Registration checklist and info especially helpful. - Straightforward - New to me so too soon to judge. - Materials could be put in folders/binders. - Very clear to understand. - Clear and appropriate. - First time learning about grants. It was very easy to follow. - Yes, will be of good use. - Informative speaker - Lots of info to sift through at home. - Instructions very clear on how to proceed with application. - Useful, practical and necessary information/materials provided. - Good synopsis for new applicants - emphasized important points. - Should be helpful, but I will not know until I read it. - Seems helpful. I need to review what was distributed. - Lots of useful info.

STATEWIDE - Page 1 2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? 98 / 190 52% Wonderful 72 / 190 38% Above Average 7 / 190 4% Average 1 / 190 1% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 190 0% Unacceptable 13 / 190 7% No Response Comments: - Friendly, easy to understand, very helpful. - Presenter and partner answered all questions promptly. Additional information regarding application process that a few attendees were not aware of was also - Mr. Ramirez is articulate and clear in his explaniations; questions were handled really well, refreshing that he kept government-speak to an acceptable minimum. - Very responsive to questions, polite and thorough. - Knowledgeable. - Handled problems not his kuleana ok, glad Colin stepped inbecause others wanted to get info. - Hard to hear. - Very helpful and informative. - The presenters were excellent. - Good presenter because he know's what he's talking about. - It helped me understand. - Knowledgable. - Thank you - Very knowledgeable about the grant and the law. - Easy to understand. Understood and answered questions. - Straightforward - Really clear, concise, easy to understand. Responsive to questions. - He answered questions very clearly. - Clearly presented. - Francisco did just fine. - Good info. - Francisco is always very sincere and helpful. - Mr. Ramirez definitely knows his information and very easily answered all questions well. He did have help in identifying already funded projects. - Great info to begin with. - Did a good job. - Well-organized, clear, articulate & personable - addressed audience's questions directly & completely. Strong presenter. - Mahalo! - Some of the questions could benefit from some examples and more descriptions, especially because of new requirements this year - more for current applicants. - A lot to cover - did it well - Great post-talk follow-up. - A microphone would have helped. I have some hearing problems. To hard to hear Beth Fine - she spoke too soft. - Very knowledgeable, but had to go over the information quickly. - Helpful and clean. - Compared to last year, I thought Francisco's info. flowed, and easy to follow. - Ramirez was clearer in his presentation this year than last. - Power point inoperable.

STATEWIDE - Page 2 3) How would you rate the workshop's content? 91 / 190 48% Wonderful 76 / 190 40% Above Average 11 / 190 6% Average 0 / 190 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 190 0% Unacceptable 12 / 190 6% No Response Comments: - Long too much information. - Too much material at one time. 3 hr. workshop with break in middle would be helpful. - Mr. Ramirez covered essential information. For this time of the day on a Friday and with this size of an audience, anything more would be an information-overload and my brain would crash. - Looking forward to applying. - Printed material has a lot of infomation. Perhaps it could have been scheduled earlier to allow more time for application process. - Too short - It is good. - Would like specific examples. - Thank you - Extremely helpful. Clarified concerns & answered our questions. - I'm ready to start - mahalo! - Good - Very appropriate! - Great handouts, good info. - Informational - handouts very helpful. - Great start. - Pretty solid - has all the info one needs to submit a great application. - Well-organized, clear, articulate & personable - addressed audience's questions directly & completely. Strong presenter. - This is the first of this type I've attended and it was a bit overwhelming. - Q & A Guide looks excellent! - Overview - good; need it earlier - beg. Feb. - Good - Seems good! I came out of curiosity. - Lots of info. to digest!!! - Very helpful for smaller non-profits/agencies/orgs who have not previously attempted to enter grant application comptetion. - Very clear.

STATEWIDE - Page 3 4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshop could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? - Microphone might have been helpful. - Good to know that we can contact Mr. Ramirez directly with questions. - Too much material at one time. 3 hr. workshop with break in middle would be helpful. - Long too much information. - Very informative - thank you. - Pre-application workshop was very well presented. Knowing the problems that could occur during the grant process would be helpful. - Presented earlier in the year. - Need bigger facility. - We would have liked a list of programs already awarded to give ideas of what or who has been funded. - Separate out grants.gov info. - Thank you for coming. It was very useful. - Very informative. - Mahalo (x2) - Examples of specific use of grants needed. - (+) and (-) of process. - Thank you. Great presentation. - Good workshop for all the ideas, questions were answered. - On-island notification lacking. Most of the individuals were probably notified by emails or are organizations serving Native Hawaiians. - Great presentation & very helpful! - Copy of a completed application with the applicants (mission statement, purpose, obj, activities) and identify deliverables and accountability process. - Information given earlier and clarify time changes. - EARLIER! - More information on budgets, human subjects research eval, reporting requirements. - Some pre-workshop info to review would have been helpful. - The room was very uncomfortable, cramped. Poor set-up. - Bigger room space. - Time published should be the same as the time of the workshop. Maui News said workshop - 11:00 am-12:30 pm - Larger room with A/C - Larger room. - Come earlier. - Following the presenter's overview - if time slots could be made available for brief individual consultation. - To have a workshop to literally walk through the steps on a small scale and not a large scale. - No suggestions or recommendations, keep up good work. - Maika'I, good job. It is a good idea to have local advisement on the application process and technical assistance. - The rule coming to a Hawaiian community have an evening session, providing refreshments. - Start the process a little earlier. - Present case studies. - One comment: start workshop sooner, 2 months in advance would be best. - The handouts were very clean and easy to follow.

STATEWIDE - Page 4 - Workshops for DOE teachers at highly populated Native Hawaiian schools. - Very good - More lead time perhaps documents in advance to generate questions/familiarity. - Good intro, but more expansion on the topic would be helpful. - Perhaps little earlier. Overall, very good workshop. - Would have been great if we actually had an overhead or had the frames up on the board so we could all follow the order. It was good. Mahalo. - Start on time. Prior to workshop spend some time sharing success stories (those who were awarded) so we are not so intimidated by the process, especially first timers. - The presenter did very well doing exactly that, he also answered the questions very good.

STATEWIDE - Page 5 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM: WEST OAHU (Maili Elementary)

27 64% Surveys Collected 42 Attendance

1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helpful and / or easy to use? 16 / 27 59% Absolutely 7 / 27 26% Agree 2 / 27 7% Neutral 0 / 27 0% Disagree 0 / 27 0% Not at All 2 / 27 7% No Response Comments: - Should be helpful, but I will not know until I read it. - Seems helpful. I need to review what was distributed. - Lots of useful info.

2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? 11 / 27 41% Wonderful 11 / 27 41% Above Average 2 / 27 7% Average 0 / 27 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 27 0% Unacceptable 3 / 27 11% No Response Comments: - A microphone would have helped. I have some hearing problems. To hard to hear Beth Fine - she spoke too soft. - Very knowledgeable, but had to go over the information quickly. - Helpful and clean. - Compared to last year, I thought Francisco's info. flowed, and easy to follow. - Ramirez was clearer in his presentation this year than last. - Power point inoperable.

3) How would you rate the workshop's content? 13 / 27 48% Wonderful 10 / 27 37% Above Average 2 / 27 7% Average 0 / 27 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 27 0% Unacceptable 2 / 27 7% No Response Comments: - Good - Seems good! I came out of curiosity. - Lots of info. to digest!!! - Very helpful for smaller non-profits/agencies/orgs who have not previously attempted to enter grant application comptetion. - Very clear.

West Oahu - Page 1 4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshop could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? - This process is fine - Maybe allow a little more time. - Provide example of successful application. - More advertising in the media. - Possibly some copies of grant that were successful. - Thank you for coming to Waianae! - I thought the breakdown of info in the power point was very helpful. Easy to follow - highlighting the main points! Mahalo! - That it be held in the evening so more can apply. - Yes, may want to meet at Nanakuli High & Inter Multi-Purpose Room. It can accommodate more people. You may want to use television media to help advertise - No - 'A'ole - mahalo for bringing good information directly to the communities.

West Oahu - Page 2 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM: CENTRAL OAHU (JCCH)

34 47% Surveys Collected 72 Attendance

1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helpful and / or easy to use? 18 / 34 53% Absolutely 14 / 34 41% Agree 1 / 34 3% Neutral 0 / 34 0% Disagree 0 / 34 0% Not at All 1 / 34 3% No Response Comments: - Instructions very clear on how to proceed with application. - Useful, practical and necessary information/materials provided. - Good synopsis for new applicants - emphasized important points.

2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? 15 / 34 44% Wonderful 15 / 34 44% Above Average 3 / 34 9% Average 0 / 34 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 34 0% Unacceptable 1 / 34 3% No Response Comments: - Did a good job. - Well-organized, clear, articulate & personable - addressed audience's questions directly & completely. Strong presenter. - Mahalo! - Some of the questions could benefit from some examples and more descriptions, especially because of new requirements this year - more for current applicants. - A lot to cover - did it well - Great post-talk follow-up.

3) How would you rate the workshop's content? 12 / 34 35% Wonderful 15 / 34 44% Above Average 6 / 34 18% Average 0 / 34 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 34 0% Unacceptable 1 / 34 3% No Response Comments: - Pretty solid - has all the info one needs to submit a great application. - Well-organized, clear, articulate & personable - addressed audience's questions directly & completely. Strong presenter. - This is the first of this type I've attended and it was a bit overwhelming. - Q & A Guide looks excellent! - Overview - good; need it earlier - beg. Feb.

Central Oahu - Page 1 4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshop could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? - I don't think I got full info about both workshop options - still not clear what I missed earlier. - It was great to have the federal representatives in Hawaii to answer questions. - Would be helpful to have presenters actually go to the grants gov. website just to familiarize potential applicants with it. - Advise participants to prepare by referring to website if they not familiar with the grant's priorities and target audience. - Time permitting, roundtable questions and answer regarding "specific" grant ideas, etc. - No. Good job. Mahalo! - Outstanding - An earlier heads-up regarding RFP would have been helpful. - Yes, more time. - Thank you for making this information widely available and useful. - More detail in current issues/concerns - what readers might be looking for. - Smaller group to kick around example projects. - It was very thorough. - After process, 1) do a terms & budget workshop; 2) EDGAR & OMB in Hawaii. - Yes. If I had been informed earlier, it would have helped tremendously.

Central Oahu - Page 2 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM: EAST OAHU (Kahuku High)

18 78% Surveys Collected 23 Attendance

1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helful and / or easy to use? 10 / 18 56% Absolutely 3 / 18 17% Agree 1 / 18 6% Neutral 0 / 18 0% Disagree 0 / 18 0% Not at All 4 / 18 22% No Response Comments: - Informative speaker - Lots of info to sift through at home.

2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? 9 / 18 50% Wonderful 5 / 18 28% Above Average 0 / 18 0% Average 0 / 18 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 18 0% Unacceptable 4 / 18 22% No Response Comments: - Francisco is always very sincere and helpful. - Mr. Ramirez definitely knows his information and very easily answered all questions well. He did have help in identifying already funded projects. - Great info to begin with.

3) How would you rate the workshop's content? 9 / 18 50% Wonderful 5 / 18 28% Above Average 0 / 18 0% Average 0 / 18 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 18 0% Unacceptable 4 / 18 22% No Response Comments: - Informational - handouts very helpful. - Great start.

4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshop could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? - Would have been great if we actually had an overhead or had the frames up on the board so we could all follow the order. It was good. Mahalo. - Start on time. Prior to workshop spend some time sharing success stories (those who were awarded) so we are not so intimidated by the process, especially first timers.

- The presenter did very well doing exactly that, he also answered the questions very good.

East Oahu - Page 1 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM: WINDWARD OAHU (Waimanalo Intermediate)

24 65% Surveys Collected 37 Attendance

1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helful and / or easy to use? 9 / 24 38% Absolutely 14 / 24 58% Agree 1 / 24 4% Neutral 0 / 24 0% Disagree 0 / 24 0% Not at All 0 / 24 0% No Response Comments: - Clear and appropriate. - First time learning about grants. It was very easy to follow. - Yes, will be of good use.

2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? 11 / 24 46% Wonderful 13 / 24 54% Above Average 0 / 24 0% Average 0 / 24 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 24 0% Unacceptable 0 / 24 0% No Response Comments:

- Clearly presented. - Francisco did just fine. - Good info.

3) How would you rate the workshop's content? 11 / 24 46% Wonderful 13 / 24 54% Above Average 0 / 24 0% Average 0 / 24 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 24 0% Unacceptable 0 / 24 0% No Response Comments: - Very appropriate! - Great handouts, good info.

Windward Oahu - Page 1 4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshop could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? - No suggestions or recommendations, keep up good work. - Maika'I, good job. It is a good idea to have local advisement on the application process and technical assistance. - The rule coming to a Hawaiian community have an evening session, providing refreshments.

- Start the process a little earlier. - Present case studies. - One comment: start workshop sooner, 2 months in advance would be best. - The handouts were very clean and easy to follow. - Workshops for DOE teachers at highly populated Native Hawaiian schools. - Very good - More lead time perhaps documents in advance to generate questions/familiarity.

- Good intro, but more expansion on the topic would be helpful. - Perhaps little earlier. Overall, very good workshop.

Windward Oahu - Page 2 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATIONMaui FORM: MAUI (MAUI COMM. COLLEGE)

19 54% Surveys Collected 35 Attendance

1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helful and / or easy to use? 8 / 19 42% Absolutely 10 / 19 53% Agree 1 / 19 5% Neutral 0 / 19 0% Disagree 0 / 19 0% Not at All 0 / 19 0% No Response Comments: - New to me so too soon to judge. - Materials could be put in folders/binders. - Very clear to understand.

2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? 11 / 19 58% Wonderful 8 / 19 42% Above Average 0 / 19 0% Average 0 / 19 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 19 0% Unacceptable 0 / 19 0% No Response Comments: - Really clear, concise, easy to understand. Responsive to questions. - He answered questions very clearly.

3) How would you rate the workshop's content? 8 / 19 42% Wonderful 11 / 19 58% Above Average 0 / 19 0% Average 0 / 19 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 19 0% Unacceptable 0 / 19 0% No Response Comments: -

Maui - Page 1 4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshopMaui could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? - Copy of a completed application with the applicants (mission statement, purpose, obj, activities) and identify deliverables and accountability process. - Information given earlier and clarify time changes. - EARLIER! - More information on budgets, human subjects research eval, reporting requirements.

- Some pre-workshop info to review would have been helpful. - The room was very uncomfortable, cramped. Poor set-up. - Bigger room space. - Time published should be the same as the time of the workshop. Maui News said workshop - 11:00 am-12:30 pm - Larger room with A/C - Larger room. - Come earlier. - Following the presenter's overview - if time slots could be made available for brief individual consultation. - To have a workshop to literally walk through the steps on a small scale and not a large scale.

Maui - Page 2 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM:Lanai LANAI EDUCATION CENTER (via polycom)

0 0% Surveys Collected 2 Attendance Note: Since this meeting took place via polycom, surveys must be collected by mail and have not been received as of Wednesday, 2/21. 1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helful and / or easy to use? /0#DIV/0! Absolutely /0#DIV/0! Agree /0#DIV/0! Neutral /0#DIV/0! Disagree /0#DIV/0! Not at All /0#DIV/0! No Response Comments: -

2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? /0#DIV/0! Wonderful /0#DIV/0! Above Average /0#DIV/0! Average /0#DIV/0! Somewhat Acceptable /0#DIV/0! Unacceptable /0#DIV/0! No Response Comments: -

3) How would you rate the workshop's content?

/0#DIV/0! Wonderful /0#DIV/0! Above Average /0#DIV/0! Average /0#DIV/0! Somewhat Acceptable /0#DIV/0! Unacceptable /0#DIV/0! No Response Comments: -

4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshop could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? -

Lanai - Page 1 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM: MOLOKAI EDUCATION CENTER (via polycom)

0 0% Surveys Collected 3 Attendance Note: Since this meeting took place via polycom, surveys must be collected by mail and have not been received as of Wednesday, 2/21.

1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helful and / or easy to use? /0#DIV/0! Absolutely /0#DIV/0! Agree /0#DIV/0! Neutral /0#DIV/0! Disagree /0#DIV/0! Not at All /0#DIV/0! No Response Comments: -

2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? /0#DIV/0! Wonderful /0#DIV/0! Above Average /0#DIV/0! Average /0#DIV/0! Somewhat Acceptable /0#DIV/0! Unacceptable /0#DIV/0! No Response Comments: -

3) How would you rate the workshop's content? /0#DIV/0! Wonderful /0#DIV/0! Above Average /0#DIV/0! Average /0#DIV/0! Somewhat Acceptable /0#DIV/0! Unacceptable /0#DIV/0! No Response Comments: -

4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshop could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? -

Molokai Ed Ctr - Page 1 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM: KUALAPUU, MOLOKAI (KUALAPUU ELEM.)

8 73% Surveys Collected 11 Attendance

1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helpful and / or easy to use? 5 / 8 63% Absolutely 3 / 8 38% Agree 0 / 8 0% Neutral 0 / 8 0% Disagree 0 / 8 0% Not at All 0 / 8 0% No Response Comments: - Thank you - Handouts & presenter made them helpful/useful. - Registration checklist and info especially helpful. - Straightforward

2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? 3 / 8 38% Wonderful 5 / 8 63% Above Average 0 / 8 0% Average 0 / 8 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 8 0% Unacceptable 0 / 8 0% No Response

Comments: - Thank you - Very knowledgeable about the grant and the law. - Easy to understand. Understood and answered questions. - Straightforward

3) How would you rate the workshop's content? 4 / 8 50% Wonderful 4 / 8 50% Above Average 0 / 8 0% Average 0 / 8 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 8 0% Unacceptable 0 / 8 0% No Response Comments: - Thank you - Extremely helpful. Clarified concerns & answered our questions. - I'm ready to start - mahalo! - Good

4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshop could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? - Thank you. Great presentation. - Good workshop for all the ideas, questions were answered. - On-island notification lacking. Most of the individuals were probably notified by emails or are organizations serving Native Hawaiians. - Great presentation & very helpful! Kualapuu Molokai - Page 1 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM: WAIMEA, KAUAI (WAIMEA TECH. CTR.)

8 100% Surveys Collected 8 Attendance

1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helful and / or easy to use? 3 / 8 38% Absolutely 4 / 8 50% Agree 1 / 8 13% Neutral 0 / 8 0% Disagree 0 / 8 0% Not at All 0 / 8 0% No Response Comments: - Yes, because we need this info to start on our organization. - Yes definitely - Small group setting was conducive to intimate conversations. - It gives only an idea.

2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? 3 / 8 38% Wonderful 5 / 8 63% Above Average 0 / 8 0% Average 0 / 8 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 8 0% Unacceptable 0 / 8 0% No Response

Comments: - The presenters were excellent. - Good presenter because he know's what he's talking about. - It helped me understand. - Knowledgable.

3) How would you rate the workshop's content? 4 / 8 50% Wonderful 4 / 8 50% Above Average 0 / 8 0% Average 0 / 8 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 8 0% Unacceptable 0 / 8 0% No Response Comments: - It is good. - Would like specific examples.

4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshop could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? -

Waimea Kauai - Page 1 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM: LIHUE, KAUAI (QLCC)

12 80% Surveys Collected 15 Attendance

1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helful and / or easy to use? 6 / 12 50% Absolutely 4 / 12 33% Agree 0 / 12 0% Neutral 0 / 12 0% Disagree 1 / 12 8% Not at All 1 / 12 8% No Response Comments: - Gave me additional info on how to appy for a grant with each step already defined. - Materials provided were not helpful or easy to use.

2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? 10 / 12 83% Wonderful 1 / 12 8% Above Average 0 / 12 0% Average 0 / 12 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 12 0% Unacceptable 1 / 12 8% No Response Comments: -

3) How would you rate the workshop's content? 9 / 12 75% Wonderful 2 / 12 17% Above Average 0 / 12 0% Average 0 / 12 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 12 0% Unacceptable 1 / 12 8% No Response Comments: - Too short

4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshop could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? - Mahalo (x2) - Examples of specific use of grants needed. - (+) and (-) of process.

Lihue Kauai - Page 1 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM: WAIMEA, HAWAII (KAHILU TOWN HALL)

15 71% Surveys Collected 21 Attendance

1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helful and / or easy to use? 7 / 15 47% Absolutely 4 / 15 27% Agree 2 / 15 13% Neutral 0 / 15 0% Disagree 0 / 15 0% Not at All 2 / 15 13% No Response Comments: - May want to ask how many people present have applied for grants before...

2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? 7 / 15 47% Wonderful 4 / 15 27% Above Average 2 / 15 13% Average 0 / 15 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 15 0% Unacceptable 2 / 15 13% No Response Comments:

- Handled problems not his kuleana ok, glad Colin stepped inbecause others wanted to get info. - Hard to hear. - Very helpful and informative.

3) How would you rate the workshop's content? 7 / 15 47% Wonderful 4 / 15 27% Above Average 2 / 15 13% Average 0 / 15 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 15 0% Unacceptable 2 / 15 13% No Response Comments: - Printed material has a lot of infomation. Perhaps it could have been scheduled earlier to allow more time for application process.

4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshop could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? - We would have liked a list of programs already awarded to give ideas of what or who has been funded. - Separate out grants.gov info. - Thank you for coming. It was very useful. - Very informative.

Waimea Hawaii - Page 1 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM: HILO, HAWAII (HAWAII COMM. COLLEGE)

25 51% Surveys Collected 49 Attendance

1) Were the materials provided as part of this workshop helful and / or easy to use? 13 / 25 52% Absolutely 9 / 25 36% Agree 1 / 25 4% Neutral 0 / 25 0% Disagree 0 / 25 0% Not at All 2 / 25 8% No Response Comments: - Excellent.

- I dont think I qualify for a grant at this time. I did find the program interesting and informative. - Too much material at one time. 3 hr. workshop with break in middle would be helpful. - The packet is very comprehensive. There is a lot of information to read and digest. - Information overload but we can take it back to digest. - Haven't had a chance to read through all the materials. It appears helpful and comprehensive. - Great deal of reading but wonderful to have.

2) How would you rate the presenter(s) at this workshop? 18 / 25 72% Wonderful 5 / 25 20% Above Average 0 / 25 0% Average 1 / 25 4% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 25 0% Unacceptable 2 / 25 8% No Response Comments: - Friendly, easy to understand, very helpful. - Presenter and partner answered all questions promptly. Additional information regarding application process that a few attendees were not aware of was also stated. - Mr. Ramirez is articulate and clear in his explaniations; questions were handled really well, refreshing that he kept government-speak to an acceptable minimum. - Very responsive to questions, polite and thorough. - Knowledgeable.

3) How would you rate the workshop's content? 14 / 25 56% Wonderful 8 / 25 32% Above Average 1 / 25 4% Average 0 / 25 0% Somewhat Acceptable 0 / 25 0% Unacceptable 2 / 25 8% No Response Comments: - Long too much information. - Too much material at one time. 3 hr. workshop with break in middle would be helpful.

- Mr. Ramirez covered essential information. For this time of the day on a Friday and with this size of an audience, anything more would be an information-overload and my brain would crash. - Looking forward to applying.

Hilo Hawaii - Page 1 4) Is there any way that this Pre-Application workshop could have been more successful in providing you with information regarding the Native Hawaiian Education Act and its competitive grant process? - Microphone might have been helpful. - Good to know that we can contact Mr. Ramirez directly with questions. - Too much material at one time. 3 hr. workshop with break in middle would be helpful. - Long too much information. - Very informative - thank you. - Pre-application workshop was very well presented. Knowing the problems that could occur during the grant process would be helpful. - Presented earlier in the year. - Need bigger facility.

Hilo Hawaii - Page 2 NNHHEECC && UUSSDDOOEEDD:: GGrraanntteeee TTeecchhnniiccaall ttrraaiinniinngg 4/11/2006 (9-11am) AUDIO CONFERENCE - USDOE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: FEDERAL ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR '05 GRANTEES

Grant # MOLOKAI CALL IN Organization Email S362A050054 vsmg & email 1 Lydia Trinidad, Principal Kualapuu School - Project Olelo Lydia_Trinidad/Kualapuu/[email protected] S362A050054 vsmg & email 2 Christina Paleka, Business Manager Kualapuu School - Project Olelo Christina_Paleka/Kualapuu/[email protected] S362A050054 vsmg & email 3 Kamalu Poepoe, HLIP Curriculum Coordinator Kualapuu School - Project Olelo Karen_Poepoe/Kualapuu/[email protected] S362A050072 gave # 4 Karen Holt Molokai Community Svc Council-Hoomana Hou School [email protected] S362A050034 gave # 5 Mildred Higashi Kaunakakai Elementary - FACT Mildred_Higashi/SCLB/[email protected]

OAHU CALL IN S362A050032 gave # 1 Candy Suiso Waianae HS-Waianae Coast Digital Media candy_suiso/waianaehi/[email protected]

KAUAI CALL IN S362A050048 gave # 1 Kanoe Ahuna Hoola Lahui Hawaii [email protected]

HILO CALL IN S362A050009 gave # 1 Geoli Ng, INPEACE INPEACE - Keiki Steps [email protected] S362A050003 gave # 2 Namaka Rawlins Aha Punana Leo-Lamaku [email protected] S362A050058 gave # 3 Ekela Kahuanui Kanu o ka Aina Learning Ohana [email protected] S362A050078 gave # 4 David Fuertes Partners in Development-Ka Hana Noeau [email protected] S362A050034 gave # 5 Aumoana Semana Ke Kula O Nawahiokalaniopuu [email protected] 12 TOTAL CALL IN

OAHU 1 Colin 2 Kamu 3 Heather S362A050022 4 Kathy Morris UH Manoa - Sch of Medicine [email protected] S362A050074 5 Noelle Kahanu Bishop Museum-Hawaii ALIVE [email protected] S362A050074 6 Nohea Torres Bishop Museum-Hawaii ALIVE [email protected] S362A050074 7 Elizabeth Tatar Bishop Museum-Hawaii ALIVE [email protected] S362A050015 8 Malama Souza Halau Ku Mana [email protected] S362A050076 9 Josh Kaakua UH Manoa - Sch of Eng [email protected] S362A050076 10 Kelli Ching UH Manoa - Sch of Eng [email protected] S362A050028 11 Jack Randall KOKA [email protected] S362A050086 12 Momi Durand KOKA [email protected] S362A050024 13 Hugh Dunn Pihana Na Mamo-Na Lama Heluhelu [email protected] S362A050044 14 Lillian Kido Pihana Na Mamo-Kakoo Piha [email protected] S362A050060 17 Laura Dang Partners in Development [email protected] S362A050060 18 Jack Keppler Partners in Development-Baibala [email protected] S362A050027 19 Gail Omoto Partners in Development-Tutu & Me [email protected] S362A050078 20 Billy Richards Partners in Development [email protected] S362A050078 21 Sue Sowder Partners in Development [email protected] S362A050075 22 Iwalani Hodges Nanaikapono-Nana I Ka Pulapula iwalani_hodges/nanaikap/[email protected] S362A050075 23 Myron Brumaghim Nanaikapono-Nana I Ka Pulapula myron_brumaghim/nanaikap/[email protected] S362A050051 24 David Kamiyama AluLike, Inc. [email protected] S362A050065 25 Mike Kahikina/Kauai Kahikina Boys & Girls Club of Hawaii [email protected] / [email protected]

S362A050057 27 Norma Jean Stodden UH Manoa - Ctr. on Disabilities [email protected] S362A050056 S362A050050 S362A050070 28 Kuumealoha Gomes UH Manoa-Kahuewai Ola [email protected] 28 TOTAL OAHU ATTENDEES

Unable to Attend S362A050011 1 David Sing Na Pua Noeau [email protected]

No Response S362A050083 1 Noeau Warner UH Manoa-Hawaiian & Indo Pac Languages [email protected] 2 TOTAL NOT ATTENDING 29 TOTAL GRANTS

The following are notes of Colin Kippen summarizing the discussions held with Francisco Ramirez and Beth Fine of the Department of Education and first year grantees under the Native Hawaiian Education Act on April 11th, 2006. These notes are merely rough approximations of what was discussed, and are intended for use only as background information to assist in providing context to the forms and other information referred to by the parties to this discussion. For specific answers to questions relating to the filling out of these forms or reporting information to the US ed, the appropriate forms and narrative instructions attached to this e mail should be consulted- - -and the appropriate monitor at the US ed should be contacted by the NHEA grantee. Future consultations and technical assistance workshops between the US ed and the NHEA grantees will be scheduled as needed by the Native Hawaiian Education Council.

In these notes, US ed refers to the U.S. Department of Education.

1. Main Theme of Technical Assistance Provided by Francisco Ramirez and Beth Fine:

a. Each of the NHEA Grantees Should Give the US ed a Clear Picture of How They Are Meeting (or Not Meeting) Their Project Goals and Objectives.

b. The Methodology to Successfully Accomplish This Reporting Process is to i. ‘Communicate’ with US ed ii. ‘Disclose’ information to US ed iii. ‘Explain’ information provided to US ed iv. And ‘Accommodate Special or Changed Circumstances’ as They Arise (Accommodating changed circumstances is an essential step of managing these funds provided by the US ed to the NHEA grantee.)

c. And then (for each accommodation made) to i. ‘Communicate’ with US ed ii. ‘Disclose’ information to US ed iii. ‘Explain’ why that Particular Accommodation was Necessary and How This Accommodation Serves The Overarching Purpose of the NHEA Project Funded by the US ed.

2. Francisco and Beth marched through the forms that were provided to the grantees using the US ed “Grant Performance Report Cover Sheet” (ED 524B) and the Narrative Form “Instructions For Grant Performance Report (ED 524B)”. The Modus Operandi was to go to the line on the ED 524B form and to refer to the narrative instructions for an explanation on how to fill out the form.

3. “Reporting Period” was discussed. See Item 7 on the form and page 2 of the narrative instructions. The reporting period for the grantees assembled is October

1 1,2005 through April 30, 2006. This is only 7 months of a 12 month calendar year. Francisco said that the report should focus on what has been accomplished thus far, and to supplement this report at the end of the 12 month period.

a. It appears that the US ed is omniscient in the sense that their money management system reports on how much is being requested for spending and when it is drawn down by each grantee. Here is a hypothetical example. If, for example, 7/12ths of the year has passed, and 100% of the funds are already expended OR, if, for example, 7/12ths of the year has passed, and only 1/12th of the funds have been expended, RED FLAGS may be triggered at the USed and the grantee should expect to generate a report which explains what happened and why the spending of funds is out of sync with the plan originally established as a predicate to this grant being selected for funding and the grant being received by the grantee.

b. Francisco suggested that such spending patterns would require a discussion in the summary and narrative about the fact that a problem exists, how this problem came into existence, and what the grantee’s plan is to accommodate this special situation. Communication, disclosure, and explanation by the grantee to the US ed is required.

4. Section 9 ‘Indirect Costs’ was discussed. See page 3 of ‘Instructions for Grant Performance Report.’

a. Many questions were asked about ‘Indirect costs.’ Several of the questions were about the meaning of the following terms. What is an ‘indirect rate’? What is a ‘restricted indirect rate’? What are ‘administrative costs’ as set forth in the Native Hawaiian Education Act? What are ‘modified total direct costs’?

b. Questions were asked about whether the Native Hawaiian Education Act is a ‘restricted indirect rate’ program. (Francisco said that it was.) If this is a ‘restricted indirect’ program, then grantees under this program may only charge a maximum of 8% of their indirect costs. Several grantees suggested this interpretation was problematic because they have already negotiated an indirect rate which is greater than the 8% ‘restricted indirect rate’. Some asked why a ‘restricted indirect cost rate’ is necessary. Questions were raised about the US ed’s authority to characterize this program as one subject to a ‘restricted indirect cost rate’- - -and when this characterization by the US ed was made.

c. Francisco emphasized that questions 9a, 9b, 9c, and 9d track the negotiations that the grantee may have already had with the US ed about the reimbursement of indirect costs. These existing agreements figure into the amount of money that the grantee may have reimbursed by the federal government to cover overhead and other administrative expenses.

2 d. Questions were asked by at least 5 of our grantees for clarification of this ‘indirect cost rate’ issue.

5. Item Number 11. ‘Performance Measures Status and Certification’ (page 4) a. Are all of the ‘performance measures’ being provided in this report now? If not, give notice to the US ed when all of that data will be reported. For purposes of this report period, the grantee should report the data they presently have available. The grantee should report to the US ed of the timeline it will be following to report all of their data to the grantor-US ed. b. If not all of the data is complete at the time this report is due, then the grantee must file a ‘supplemental report’ at a later date.

6. Instructions for the Executive Summary (page 5) a. The grantee should answer the following questions: i. Where are we in meeting our goals, outcomes and performance measures of this project? a. If we were unable to meet our goals, outcomes or performance measures: i. Which goal, outcome or performance measure was not met? ii. Why was that goal, outcome or performance measure not met? iii. When will that goal, outcome or performance measure be met?

2. Grantee should also state which goals, outcomes or performance measures were met. Include facts which demonstrate how goals, outcomes, and performance measures were, in fact, met.

3. Francisco and Beth stress ‘full disclosure’ of the circumstances, challenges, successes, and delays encountered in implementing the grant from the grantee to the US ed.

7. Grantee must provide target data on the form and in the space provided. a. Example: grantee may have to report how many students were expected to served as well as how many students were actually served. This quantitative data should be reported. b. If there is no set target number, and the grantee was going to use project funding to establish a target, then ‘999’ should be inserted in the form. c. Role of GPRA measures. In the event GPRA indicators are relevant, then the grantee should report on these measures in the appropriate form. i. There was a discussion by the grantees that most of the GPRA measures did not apply to the grants made by the US ed to NHEA grantees under this NHEA program.

3 8. For ‘final performance reports’ the rules require. . . “complete data on performance measures for the final budget period must be submitted with the final performance report.” A question was raised as to when the “final performance report” is due. Francisco answered that the “final performance report” due date depends upon the actual situation applicable to the timing of the grantees performance. 9. Section pertaining to Section B- - -Budget Information. a. Beth Fine intimated that the US ed is omniscient regarding a grantee’s spending patterns because they have access to all computer information regarding when the grantee draws funds down, etc. b. Beth Fine stressed letting the US ed know whether difficulties or problems are encountered in following the spending plan set forth in their grant. Beth stressed that grantees ‘disclose’, ‘communicate’, and ‘explain’ why they are not able to meet their previously agreed upon spending plan. c. ‘Red flags’ such as high amounts of unexpended funds from one year to the next should be explained in the Budget Report and Narrative. i. Grantee should ‘explain the special circumstances causing there to be a high carryover amount’. ii. Grantee should ‘establish a plan to accommodate these unforeseen and special circumstances’ and iii. Grantee should ‘communicate what that plan is and why it is necessary under the circumstances’. d. Discussion ensued over the situations within which a ‘carryover’ or an ‘extension’ should be granted. Francisco raised the issue that reports that are being provided by the grantee are being measured from the perspective of whether or not the grantee is making substantial progress towards accomplishing the goals and objectives of their project. A failure to make substantial progress is a problem and could put future funding for subsequent grant years in jeopardy. e. Question was raised about what a grantee should do in the event he or she wants to carry over funds from one year to the next. i. Grantee must fill in the budget portions of the form showing the funds that have/have not been spent. ii. Grantee must indicate the reason the carry over is being requested in the narrative portion of the report. iii. Grantee must establish a plan to accommodate the change in circumstances leading to the request to carry over funds.

10. Future workshops with the US ed department and the NHEA grantees will be scheduled ‘as needed’. NHEA grantees were encouraged to contact Beth Fine and Francisco Ramirez for assistance in filling out the necessary forms and completing the necessary reports required as part of this NHEA grant process.

End of Document

# # #

4

U.S. Department of Education Grant Performance Report Cover Sheet (ED 524B) OMB No. 1890-0004 OMB Approved Check only one box per Program Office instruction. [ ] Annual Performance Report [ ] Final Performance Report

General Information 1. PR/ Number #: ______2. NCES ID#: ______(Block 5 of the Grant Award Notification - 11 Characters.) (See Instructions - Up to 12 Characters.) 3 Project Title: ______(Enter the same title as on the approved application.) 4. Grantee Name (Block 1 of the Grant Award Notification): ______5. Grantee Address (See Instructions.) 6. Project Director Name: ______Title: ______Ph #: ( ) ____ - _____ Ext: ( ) Fax # : ( ) _____ - _____ Email Address: ______

Reporting Period Information (See Instructions.) 7. Reporting Period: From: ___/___/___ To: ___/___/___ (mm/dd/yyyy)

Budget Expenditures (To be completed by your Business Office. See instructions. Also see Section B.) 8. Budget Expenditures Federal Grant Funds Non-Federal Funds (Match/Cost Share) a. Previous Budget Period b. Current Budget Period c. Entire Project Period

(For Final Performance Reports only)

Indirect Cost Information (To be completed by your Business Office. See instructions.) 9. Indirect Costs a. Are you claiming indirect costs under this grant? ___Yes ___No b. If yes, do you have an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement approved by the Federal Government? ___Yes ___No c. If yes, provide the following information: Period Covered by the Indirect Cost Rate Agreement: From: ___/ ___/___ To: ___/___/___ (mm/dd/yyyy) Approving Federal agency: ___ED ___Other (Please specify): ______Type of Rate (For Final Performance Reports Only): ___ Provisional ___ Final ___ Other (Please specify) ____ d. For Restricted Rate Programs (check one) -- Are you using a restricted indirect cost rate that: ___ Is included in your approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement? ___ Complies with 34 CFR 76.564(c)(2)?

Human Subjects (See Instructions.) 10. Annual Certification of Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval? ___Yes ___No ___N/A

Performance Measures Status and Certification (See Instructions.) 11. Performance Measures Status a. Are complete data on performance measures for the current budget period included in the Project Status Chart? ___Yes ___No b. If no, when will the data be available and submitted to the Department? ___/___/____ (mm/dd/yyyy)

12. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all data in this performance report are true and correct and the report fully discloses all known weaknesses concerning the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the data.

______Title: ______Name of Authorized Representative:

______Date: ___/___/____ Signature:

ED 524B Page 1 of 5

U.S. Department of Education OMB No. 1890-0004 Grant Performance Report (ED 524B) OMB Approved Executive Summary

PR/ Number # (11 characters)______

(See Instructions)

ED 524B Page 2 of 5 OMB No. 1890-0004 U.S. Department of Education OMB Approved Grant Performance Report (ED 524B) Project Status Chart PR/Award # (11 characters): ______

SECTION A - Performance Objectives Information and Related Performance Measures Data (See Instructions. Use as many pages as necessary.)

1. Project Objective [ ] Check if this is a status update for the previous budget period.

1.a. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Target Actual Performance Data Raw Raw Number Ratio % Number Ratio %

/ /

1.b. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Target Actual Performance Data Raw Raw Number Ratio % Number Ratio %

/ /

Explanation of Progress (Include Qualitative Data and Data Collection Information)

ED 524B Page 3 of 5 OMB No. 1890-0004 U.S. Department of Education OMB Approved Grant Performance Report (ED 524B) Project Status Chart PR/Award # (11 characters): ______

SECTION A - Performance Objectives Information and Related Performance Measures Data (See Instructions. Use as many pages as necessary.)

2. Project Objective [ ] Check if this is a status update for the previous budget period.

2.a. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Target Actual Performance Data Raw Raw Number Ratio % Number Ratio %

/ /

2.b. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Target Actual Performance Data Raw Raw Number Ratio % Number Ratio %

/ /

Explanation of Progress (Include Qualitative Data and Data Collection Information)

ED 524B Page 4 of 5 OMB No. 1890-0004 U.S. Department of Education OMB Approved Grant Performance Report (ED 524B) Project Status Chart PR/Award # (11 characters): ______

SECTION B - Budget Information (See Instructions. Use as many pages as necessary.)

SECTION C - Additional Information (See Instructions. Use as many pages as necessary.)

ED 524B Page 5 of 5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR GRANT PERFORMANCE REPORT (ED 524B)

PURPOSE

Recipients of multi-year discretionary grants must submit an annual performance report for each year funding has been approved in order to receive a continuation award. The annual performance report should demonstrate whether substantial progress has been made toward meeting the project objectives and the program performance measures. The information described in these instructions will provide the U.S. Department of Education (ED) with the information needed to determine whether recipients have demonstrated substantial progress. ED program offices may also require recipients of “forward funded” grants that are awarded funds for their entire multi-year project up- front in a single grant award to submit the Grant Performance Report (ED 524B) on an annual basis. In addition, ED program offices may also require recipients to use the ED 524B to submit their final performance reports. Performance reporting requirements are found in 34 CFR 74.51, 75.118, 75.253, 75.590 and 80.40 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

• Please read the attached “Dear Colleague Letter” from your program office carefully. It contains specific instructions for completing the ED 524B for your program.

• You must submit the ED 524B Cover Sheet, Executive Summary, and Project Status Chart. You may reference sections and page numbers of your approved application rather than repeating information.

• Please follow the appropriate instructions depending on whether you are submitting an annual performance report or a final performance report.

• If you are submitting a paper copy of the ED 524B, please submit one original and one copy. ED program offices will notify grant recipients of the due date for submission of annual performance reports; however, general guidelines are provided below in the instructions for ED 524B Cover Sheet, item 7. Reporting Period. Final performance reports are due 90 days after the expiration of the grant’s project period (performance period).

Note: For the purposes of this report, the term “project period” is used interchangeably with the term “performance period,” which is found on the Grant Award Notification (GAN).

• Many programs provide grantees with the option of completing and submitting the ED 524B online through e-Reports. Please follow instructions from your program office regarding the use of e-Reports for submitting your ED 524B.

• For those programs that operate under statutes or regulations that require additional or different reporting for performance or monitoring purposes, ED program offices will inform you when this additional or different reporting should be made.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ED 524B COVER SHEET

Complete the ED 524B Cover Sheet with the appropriate information. Instructions for items 1, 3, 4 and 6 are included on the ED 524B Cover Sheet. Instructions for items 2 and 5 and items 7 through 12 are included in this instruction sheet.

2. Grantee NCES ID Number

-- Annual and Final Performance Reports:

1 Please enter the current National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) ID number of the grantee. Grantees that are State Educational Agencies (SEA) should enter their state's FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standards) code in item 2. Item 2 only applies to grantees that are Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), SEAs, Local Educational Agencies (LEA), public libraries, and public, charter, and private elementary or secondary schools. Leave blank, if this item is not applicable.

Please go to the applicable website listed below to obtain the grantee’s NCES ID number or FIPS code. Depending on your organization type, this number will range from 2 to 12 numeric digits.

• IHEs (IPEDS ID); Public Libraries (Library ID); and Public, Charter and Private Schools (NCES School ID): http://nces.ed.gov/globallocator • LEAs (NCES District ID): http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/ • SEAs (FIPS code): To obtain your state's FIPS code, please search on any public school district in your state at: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/. The FIPS code is the first two digits of the NCES District ID number for any public school district in a state.

Note: Newly established organizations that do not have an NCES ID number yet should leave item 2 blank. However, once the organization's NCES ID number has been established, it must be entered on all future submissions of the ED 524B.

5. Grantee Address

Instructions for Submitting Address Changes

-- Annual and Final Performance Reports:

If the address that is listed in Block 1 of your GAN has changed and you are submitting a paper copy of the ED 524B, either submit the new address in Section C (Additional Information) of the Project Status Chart or submit the change through e-Administration (annual performance reports only), the administrative action function of e-Grants.

If you are submitting the ED 524B electronically through e-Reports, you may update your address in e-Reports.

7. Reporting Period

-- Annual Performance Reports:

Due Date: Annual performance reports are typically due seven to ten months after the start of the grant’s current budget period. Please follow instructions from your program office regarding the specific due date of the annual performance report for your grant.

The reporting period for the annual performance report is from the start of the current budget period through 30 days before the due date of the report. The start date for your current budget period may be found in Block 6 of the GAN. Please note, however, that complete data on performance measures for the current budget period must be submitted to ED, either with this report or as soon as they are available, but no later than the final due date specified by your ED program office. Please see instructions for items 11a. and 11b. of the ED 524B Cover Sheet and Section A (Project Objectives Information and Related Performance Measures Data) of the Project Status Chart for specific reporting requirements for performance measures data.

-- Final Performance Reports:

Due Date: Final performance reports are due 90 days after the expiration of the grant’s project period. If you receive a no-cost time extension from ED for this grant, the final performance report is due 90 days after the revised project period end date. Program offices may also request an annual performance report that covers the original final budget period from grantees that receive no-cost time extensions.

2 Please enter the start and end date for the final budget period of your grant from Block 6 of the GAN. The reporting period for your final performance report covers the entire final budget period of the project, except for the information in the Executive Summary and Section C (Additional Information) of the Project Status Chart, which covers the entire project period (performance period) of the project.

8. Budget Expenditures [Also See Section B (Budget Information) of the Project Status Chart]

The budget expenditure information requested in items 8a. – 8c. must be completed by your Business Office.

Note: For the purposes of this report, the term budget expenditures means allowable grant obligations incurred during the periods specified below. (See EDGAR, 34 CFR 74.2; 75.703; 75.707; and 80.3, as applicable.)

For budget expenditures made with Federal grant funds, you must provide an explanation in Section B (Budget Information) of the Project Status Chart, if you have not drawn down funds from the Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS) to pay for these budget expenditures.

--Annual Performance Reports:

• Report your actual budget expenditures for the entire previous budget period in item 8a. Please separate expenditures into Federal grant funds and non-Federal funds (match/cost-share) expended for the project during the entire previous budget period.

Note: If you are reporting on the first budget period of the project, leave item 8a. blank.

• Report your actual budget expenditures for the current budget period to date (i.e., through 30 days before the due date of this report) in item 8b. Please separate expenditures into Federal grant funds and non- Federal funds (match/cost-share) expended for the project during the current budget period to date.

--Final Performance Reports:

• Report your actual budget expenditures for the entire previous budget period in item 8a. Please separate expenditures into Federal grant funds and non-Federal funds (match/cost-share) expended for the project during the entire previous budget period.

• Report your actual budget expenditures for the entire final budget period in item 8b. Please separate expenditures into Federal grant funds and non-Federal funds (match/cost-share) expended for the project during the entire final budget period.

• Report your actual budget expenditures for the entire project period (performance period) in item 8c. Please separate expenditures into Federal grant funds and non-Federal funds (match/cost-share) expended for the project during the entire project period. Your project period (performance period) start and end dates are found in Block 6 of the GAN.

9. Indirect Costs

The indirect cost information requested in Items 9a. – 9d. must be completed by your Business Office.

--Annual and Final Performance Reports:

• Item 9a -- Please check “yes” or “no” in item 9a. to indicate whether or not you are claiming indirect costs under this grant. • Item 9b. -- If you checked “yes” in item 9a., please indicate in item 9b. whether or not your organization has an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement that was approved by the Federal government. • Item 9c. -- If you checked “yes” in item 9b., please indicate in item 9c. the beginning and ending dates covered by the Indirect Cost Rate Agreement. In addition, please indicate whether ED or another Federal

3 agency (Other) issued the approved agreement. If you check “Other,” please specify the name of the Federal agency that issued the approved agreement. For final performance reports only, check the appropriate box to indicate the type of indirect cost rate that you have – Provisional, Final, or Other. If you check “Other,” please specify the type of indirect cost rate. • Item 9d. – For grants under Restricted Rate Programs (EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.563), please indicate whether you are using a restricted indirect cost rate that is included on your approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement or whether you are using a restricted indirect cost rate that complies with 34 CFR 76.564(c)(2). Note: State or Local government agencies may not use the provision for a restricted indirect cost rate specified in EDGAR, 34 CFR 76.564(c)(2). Check only one response. Leave blank, if this item is not applicable.

10. Annual Institutional Review Board (IRB) Certification

--Annual Performance Reports Only:

Annual certification is required if Attachment HS1, Continuing IRB Reviews, was attached to the GAN. Attach the IRB certification to the ED 524B as instructed in Attachment HS1.

11. Performance Measures Status

--Annual Performance Reports:

Please check “yes” or “no” in item 11a. to indicate whether complete data on performance measures for the current budget period are included in this report in Section A of the Project Status Chart. If no, please indicate in item 11b. the date when the information will be available and submitted to ED. Complete data must be submitted for any performance measures established by ED for the grant program (included in the attached “Dear Colleague Letter”) and for any project specific performance measures that were included in your approved application.

If complete data on performance measures for the entire current budget period have not been obtained when you submit the ED 524B, please submit available data for the budget period to date with this report, unless instructed otherwise by your program office. Complete performance measures data for the current budget period should be submitted by the date you indicated in item 11b.

Note: Your program office will inform you of the final date by which performance measures data must be submitted to the Department for this program.

-- Final Performance Reports:

You must check “yes” in item 11a. Complete data on performance measures for the final budget period must be submitted with the final performance report in Section A of the Project Status Chart. Leave item 11b. blank.

Complete data must be submitted for any performance measures established by ED for the grant program (included in the attached “Dear Colleague Letter”) and for any project-specific performance measures that were included in your approved grant application.

12. Certification

--Annual and Final Performance Reports:

The grantee’s authorized representative must sign the certification for the ED 524B. If the grantee has any known internal control weaknesses concerning data quality (as disclosed through audits or other reviews), this information must be disclosed under Section C (Additional Information) of the Project Status Chart as well as the remedies taken to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the data.

4

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

--Annual and Final Performance Reports:

Provide a one to two page Executive Summary for annual performance reports and a two to three page Executive Summary for final performance reports. Provide highlights of the project's goals, the extent to which the expected outcomes and performance measures were achieved, and what contributions the project has made to research, knowledge, practice, and/or policy. Include the population served, if appropriate.

Note: The Executive Summary for final performance reports covers the entire project period.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PROJECT STATUS CHART

General Instructions for Section A -- Project Objectives Information and Related Performance Measures Data

-- Annual and Final Performance Reports:

In your approved grant application, you established project objectives stating what you hope to achieve with your funded grant project. Generally, one or more performance measures were also established for each project objective that serve to demonstrate whether you have met or are making progress towards meeting each project objective. In addition to project-specific performance measures that you may have established in your approved grant application, performance measures may have been established by ED for the grant program [included in the attached “Dear Colleague Letter”] that you are required to report on.

In Section A of the Project Status Chart, you will report on the results to date of your project evaluation as required under EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.590. According to the instructions below, for each project objective included in your approved grant application, provide quantitative and/or qualitative data for each associated performance measure and a description of preliminary findings or outcomes that demonstrate that you have met or are making progress towards meeting the performance measure. You will also explain how your data on your performance measures demonstrate that you have met or are making progress towards meeting each project objective.

Note: Complete data must be submitted for any performance measures established by ED for the grant program (included in the attached “Dear Colleague Letter”) and for any project-specific performance measures that were included in your approved grant application

For Annual Performance Reports: If complete data on performance measures for the entire current budget period have not been obtained when you submit the ED 524B, please submit available data for the budget period to date with this report, unless instructed otherwise by your program office. Complete performance measures data for the current budget period should be submitted by the date you indicated in item 11b on the ED 524B Cover Sheet. Your program office will inform you of the final date by which performance measures data must be submitted to the Department for this program.

For Final Performance Reports: Complete data on performance measures for the final budget period must be submitted with the final performance report.

For final performance reports, the information in Section A of the Project Status Chart covers the final budget period of the grant. Additional questions for final performance reports covering the entire project period are found in the instructions for Section C of the Project Status Chart.

5 Instructions for Section A

• Project Objective: Enter each project objective that is included in your approved grant application. Only one project objective should be entered per row. Project objectives should be numbered sequentially, i.e., 1., 2., 3., etc.

Update Box If instructed by your program office in the attached “Dear Colleague Letter,” please provide an update on the status of your project objectives for any period of time that you did not report on in your previous annual performance report.

Check the “Update Box” next to each project objective for which you are providing an update. Do not check the “Update Box” if you are reporting on a project objective for the current reporting period. If you are providing a status update on your project objectives for the previous budget period and reporting on those same objectives for the current reporting period, please use separate pages (Section A) to separate previous and current information. Do not combine information for the previous budget period and for the current reporting period on the same page.

Example: Last year’s annual performance report covered 8 months of the previous budget period. The program office requests that you report on the status of your project objectives for the last 4 months of the previous budget period in this annual performance report.

• Performance Measure: For each project objective, enter each associated performance measure. There may be multiple performance measures associated with each project objective. Enter only one performance measure per row. Each performance measure that is associated with a particular project objective should be labeled using an alpha indicator. Example: The first performance measure associated with project objective “1” should be labeled “1.a.,” the second performance measure for project objective “1” should be labeled “1.b.,” etc.

• Measure Type: For each performance measure you are reporting on, enter the type of performance measure. Enter one (1) of the following measure types: GPRA; PROGRAM; or PROJECT.

The specific measures established by ED for the grant program that you are required to report on are included in the attached “Dear Colleague Letter.” The measure type is also specified.

There are two types of measures that ED may have established for the grant program: 1. GPRA: Measures established for reporting to Congress under the Government Performance and Results Act; and 2. PROGRAM: Measures established by the program office for the particular grant competition.

In addition, report on any project-specific performance measures (PROJECT) that you, the grantee, established in your approved grant application to meet your project objectives.

• Quantitative Data:

Target and Actual Performance Data Provide the target you established for meeting each performance measure and provide actual performance data demonstrating progress towards meeting or exceeding this target. Only quantitative (numeric) data should be entered in the Target and Actual Performance Data boxes.

The Target and Actual Performance Data boxes are each divided into three columns: Raw Number; Ratio; and Percentage (%).

For performance measures that are stated in terms of a single number (e.g., the number of workshops that will be conducted or the number of students that will be served), the target and actual performance data should be reported as a single number under the Raw Number column (e.g., 10 workshops or 80 students). Please leave the Ratio and Percentage (%) columns blank.

6

For performance measures that are stated in terms of a percentage (e.g., percentage of students that attain proficiency), complete both the Ratio column and the Percentage (%) column. Please leave the Raw Number column blank.

In the Ratio column (e.g., 80/100), the numerator represents the numerical target (e.g., the number of students that are expected to attain proficiency) or actual performance data (e.g., the number of students that attained proficiency), and the denominator represents the universe (e.g., all students served). Please enter the corresponding percentage (e.g., 80%) in the Percentage (%) column.

If the collection of quantitative data is not appropriate for a particular performance measure, please leave the Target and Actual Performance Data boxes blank and provide an explanation and any relevant qualitative data for the performance measure in the block entitled, Explanation of Progress.

Note: If you are using weighted data, please indicate how the data are weighted in the block entitled, Explanation of Progress.

Special instructions for grants in their first budget period: If baseline data for a performance measure were not included in your approved application and targets were not set for the first budget period, then enter either the number 999 under the Raw Number column or the ratio 999/999 under the Ratio column of the Target box, depending on how your data will be reported in the future. The 999 or 999/999 indicates that baseline data are being collected on the measure during the first budget period and targets have not yet been set. Unless otherwise instructed by your program office in the attached “Dear Colleague Letter,” report baseline data collected during the first budget period under either the Raw Number column or the Ratio and Percentage (%) columns of the Actual Performance Data box, as appropriate. After baseline data have been collected during the first budget period, grantees are expected to set targets for the second and any subsequent budget periods and report actual performance data in their annual performance reports.

• Explanation of Progress (Includes Qualitative Data and Data Collection Information):

1. For each project objective and associated performance measures, indicate what data (quantitative and/or qualitative) were collected and when they were collected, the evaluation methods that were used, and how the data were analyzed. Clearly identify and explain any deviations from your approved evaluation plan, including changes in design or methodology, or the individual or organization conducting the evaluation.

2. Based on your data, provide a description of preliminary findings or outcomes, including information to show whether you are making progress towards meeting each performance measure. Further, indicate how your performance measures data show that you have met or are making progress towards meeting the stated project objective. In your discussion, provide a brief description of your activities and accomplishments for the reporting period that are related to each project objective.

3. If expected data were not attained, expected progress was not made toward meeting a performance measure or project objective, or a planned activity was not conducted as scheduled, provide an explanation. Include a description of the steps and schedules for addressing the problem(s) or issue(s).

4. Indicate how you used your data and information from your evaluation to monitor the progress of your grant, and if needed, to make improvements to your original project plan (e.g., project activities and milestones) which are consistent with your approved objectives and scope of work.

7 Instructions for Section B – Budget Information

-- Annual and Final Performance Reports:

• Report budget expenditure data in items 8a. – 8c. of the ED 524B Cover Sheet, as applicable. Please follow the instructions for completing items 8a. – 8c. included in this instruction sheet.

• For budget expenditures made with Federal grant funds, you must provide an explanation if funds have not been drawn down from GAPS to pay for the budget expenditure amounts reported in items 8a. – 8c of the ED 524B Cover Sheet.

• Provide an explanation if you did not expend funds at the expected rate during the reporting period.

• Describe any significant changes to your budget resulting from modification of project activities.

• Describe any changes to your budget that affected your ability to achieve your approved project activities and/or project objectives.

-- Annual Performance Reports Only:

• Do you expect to have any unexpended funds at the end of the current budget period? If you do, explain why, provide an estimate, and indicate how you plan to use the unexpended funds (carryover) in the next budget period.

• Describe any anticipated changes in your budget for the next budget period that require prior approval from the Department (see EDGAR, 34 CFR 74.25 and 80.30, as applicable).

Instructions for Section C – Additional Information

-- Annual Performance Reports Only:

• If applicable, please provide a list of current partners on your grant and indicate if any partners changed during the reporting period. Please indicate if you anticipate any change in partners during the next budget period. If any of your partners changed during the reporting period, please describe whether this impacted your ability to achieve your approved project objectives and/or project activities.

• If instructed by your program office, please report on any statutory reporting requirements for this grant program.

• Describe any changes that you wish to make in the grant’s activities for the next budget period that are consistent with the scope and objectives of your approved application.

• If you are requesting changes to the approved key personnel listed in Block 4 of your GAN for the next budget period, please indicate the name, title and percentage of time of the requested key personnel. Additionally, please attach a resume or curriculum vitae for the proposed key personnel when you submit your performance report.

Note: Do not report on any key personnel changes made during the current or previous budget period(s). Departmental approval must be requested and received prior to making key personnel changes.

• Provide any other appropriate information about the status of your project including any unanticipated outcomes or benefits from your project.

8 -- Final Performance Reports Only:

(This information covers the entire project period.)

Note: All grantees submitting a final performance report must answer question 1. The attached “Dear Colleague Letter” specifies any additional questions that you must answer from the list below, if any.

1. Utilizing your evaluation results, draw conclusions about the success of the project and its impact. Describe any unanticipated outcomes or benefits from your project and any barriers that you may have encountered.

2. What would you recommend as advice to other educators that are interested in your project? How did your original ideas change as a result of conducting the project?

3. If applicable, describe your plans for continuing the project (sustainability; capacity building) and/or disseminating the project results.

4. Report on any statutory reporting requirements for this grant program.

Paperwork Burden Statement According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1890 –0004. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 22 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate (s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U. S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 2020-4651. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to (insert program office), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202.

9 AASSSSNN.. ooFF HHAAWWAAIIIIAANN CCIIVVIICC CCLLUUBBSS EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONN SSuummmmiitt

22000055--22000066 MMeeeettiinngg MMiinnuutteess

Native Hawaiian Education Council

State Council Meeting November 3, 2005 Plaza Hotel MINUTES

Meeting called to order at 10:20 am

Pule was conducted by the Küpuna, and First Corinthians 13 was shared.

State Council Akana, Joshua DuPuis, Reshela Hanohano, Maggie Malina-Wright, VerlieAnn For Arce, Anita Evans, Jean Jenkins, Betty - Kim, Moke Evans, Martha Kahalekomo, Janet Chun, Kamuela For Hamamoto, Patricia Kaÿiama, Manu De Morales, Paula - Puanani Wilhelm Kanaÿiaupuni, Shawn

Island Councils Hawai‘i: Maui: Läna‘i: Moloka‘i: O‘ahu: Kaua‘i: Ni‘ihau: Akana, Janice Cathcart, Edna Anakalea, Pumehana Jones, Luana Kim, Moke Koerte, Mike Pahio, Kaÿiulani Romero, Don

Staff Kippen, Colin

Excused: Due to the death of family members, the Niÿihau NHEIC officers asked to be excused.

1) Aunty Betty then began by having the group share what they were grateful for. Members were thankful for their spouses, parents, children, ÿohana, health, relationship with akua, perseverance, grace, family contacts and information, thankful for their island, kuleana, family friends and co-workers, purpose for life, spirituality in the world, opportunity to sit on the council, challenges and opportunities in life, chance to do something for others, chance to do something in life that has meaning, part of the paÿina, relationship with each other, sense of responsibility, responsibility placed on our shoulders, and the opportunity to do things in life that will effect the future generations.

2) Treasurer’s and other fiscal reports, and minutes for 7/22/2005 minutes were tabled.

3) Executive Director’s Report: The group proceeded to finalizing the plan for the Grantee Summit led by Colin Kippen.

Outcomes for the conference: • Build a community to break down the barriers. • Need for data collection for reauthorization.

3075 Kalihi Street, #4 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96819 Phone: 808-845-9883 Fax: 808-845-9984 State Council Minutes –11/1/2005 Page 2 • Understanding of the role of NHEC • Greater familiarity with grants funded • Developing sustainability by forming partnerships and collaboration. • Understanding of non-academic priorities and reasons for developing programs to support Native Hawaiian children and families. • Suggested future targets.

Journey of connecting relationships with kükui nut leis.

Who are we? Nä pahu hopu

What kinds of data are we collecting from grantees? Refer to form sent to grantees. Accomplishments of the grantees and/or intended outcomes.

How do we move forward and continue to increase the dialog? Stress assessment and prediction of success.

Nä Upena Laula (unstated outcomes)

Working together, how do we sustain the flame?

How can NHEC foster/facilitate partnerships and collaboration?

How can NHEC be of service to communities and grantees?

How can we make NHEC accountable? What can NHEC become? • Advocate for Hawaiian children and families. • Develop policy • Assess and coordinate • Advocate policy change

Roles and responsibilities for küpuna: • Set the tone and move the group along • Provide wisdom and guidance through the Hoÿolauna

Facilitators and recorders: Group 1: Early Childhood – Jean Evans and Wendy Mow-Taira Group 2: Charter Schools and Language Immersion – Paula De Morales and Kamuela Chun Group 3: Personnel Prep and Professional Development – Martha Evans and Pam Alconcel Group 4: Science, Math, Reading and At-Risk and other special needs populations – Verlie Ann Malina- Wright, Shawn Kanaÿiaupuni and Maggie Hanohano Group 5: Higher Ed - Manu Kaÿiama and Lui Hokoana

Manu Kaÿiama to be the keynote speaker. Mahalo to Manu for setting the tone of the conference.

Next steps after the conference: • Summarize notes from groups. • Plan for cluster meetings.

Reauthorization activities by Colin: • Assisting the civic club groups with writing the resolution for support for reauthorization. Support voted on by all civic club members at the convention. Mahalo to the Prince Kühio Civic Club and the Oÿahu Civic Club for the support. State Council Minutes –11/1/2005 Page 3 • At the CNHA Conference, the group supported reauthorization which includes bringing the funds home to be distributed and developing partnerships. Mainland Hawaiians want to be included.

Other interest items: • Civic club members want to be included in NHEC. • Grantors want to know who are being served and additional needs. • Resolution presented on recognizing Verlie Ann Molina-Wright and the president elect for NIEA, and she will be the president when the convention comes to Hawaii in 2007.

Motion by Josh Akana and seconded by Don Romero: A grant be issued by NHEC to CNHA for the completed Strategic Plan for 2004-2005. Payment is to be given upon receipt of the amended Strategic Plan. Discussion: • Have we received a final copy of the report? • Explanation was given on this type of contract not requiring 3 bids. Motion passed.

4) Chair’s Report: Attendance by Colin and Maggie at the PASE Conference. Keynote speaker was excellent for island councils. Binder will be available at the NHEC office is members would like to see the information.

Erika Rosa is 1 FTE now to provide assistance with the Grantee Summit and the follow-up activities that need to be completed for grantees.

5) Announcements: • Hawaiÿi: assisting with the registration of the scholarship fair and will be collecting surveys. • Kauaÿi: provided the greenery for the council meeting which made the room a welcoming place to be. So many complements to the council on behalf of the hotel guests and staff. Mahalo to Aunty Janet and Pumehana. • Länaÿi: sponsored a career fair and collected data. • Molokaÿi: Moke reported that the island is ready for Makahiki on Dec. 2. Jan. 24-25 will be the Makahiki Games. Kualapuÿu had a facilitative leadership training for the Charter Immersion School. • Shawn Kanaÿiaupuni shared information on the PASE Hawaiian Wellness Conference. • Jean Evans shared the success of Kumukahi, the Early Childhood Conference sponsored by INPEACE, Hoÿowaiwai, Kamehameha and Alu Like.

6) NIEA Conference: • Information on NCLB in Indian Country with data collection and curriculum. Language Immersion P-20. • OHA sponsored information on the Akaka Bill and request for support. Hälau from Denver presented and did a special dedication to Kaulana Kasparavitch. • David Sing will chair the NHEA when NIEA is in Hawaiÿi. • Elders and families were not given registrations fees to attend NIEA and other conferences. • Maoris want to be partners with Hawaiÿi when Hawaiÿi hosts NIEA.

Meeting was adjourned at 2:57 pm

Respectfully submitted,

Maggie Hanohano

Native Hawaiian Education Council

State Council Meeting Friday, February 3, 2006 Honolulu Airport Hotel MINUTES Meeting called to order at 9:23 a.m.

Pule and manaÿo was conducted by the Kupuna. State Council Akana, Joshua DuPuis, Reshela Hokoana, Lui Kanaÿiaupuni, Shawn For Arce, Anita Evans, Martha Jenkins, Betty Keala, David - Cathcart, Edna For Evans, Martha Kahalekomo, Janet Malina-Wright, V. Leimomi Chun, Kamuela - Paoa, C. Pua Kaÿiama, Manu Panoke, W. Kahoÿonei De Morales, Paula Hanohano, Maggie For Kanahele, N. Ulu - Beniamina, Ilei

Island Council Hawaiÿi: Maui: Länaÿi: Molokaÿi: Oÿahu: Kauaÿi: Niÿihau: Akana, Janice Dudoit, Marion Mow-Taira, Wendy Henion, Lehua Ikeda, Mike Johnston, Earline Jones, Luana Negrillo, Kanani Romero, Don

Staff Kina, Heather Kippen, Colin Rosa, Erika

I. Chair’s Report

A. Kukui Mälamalama – November 4, 2005 Maggie Hanohano reported back regarding the success of the Grantee Summit held on November 4, 2005. This summit was held in order that NHEA grantees could share information about their programs and implement a way for NHEC to gather data. During the summit, five clusters amongst the grantees: Early Education and Family Based Centers, Curriculum Development and Teacher Training, Gifted and Talented/Hawaiian Language Programs, Math, Science, Reading, Special Needs, At Risk Youth Programs, and Facility Support, and Higher Education Support and Higher Education Institutional Development. Please review submitted report.

B. Ulukau/NHEA Curriculum Pilot Project- December 19, 2005. Discussion centered around the State Council’s decision to grant $22,000 .00 to this project. Ulukau is a project spearheaded by Doug Knight and Bob Stauffer that may be used to assist grantees to share developed curriculum through electronic means. The question whether this activity was actually a “direct” service ensued. It was agreed that this was indeed aligned with the Council’s overall goal to “assess and evaluate” and “coordinate” services and programs available that have been supported through the NHEA and therefore is NOT a direct service.

A question was raised regarding “direct service”, comparing the service for the Ulukau Project with ground transportation costs for educational fairs. Ground trans to fairs were deemed a “direct service” and therefore not in line with our mission. Island Councils were reminded and encouraged to spend energies on ways to connect services to needs, not actually provide those services. If each Island Council would identify service providers and

735 Bishop Street, Suite 218 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Phone: 808-523-6432 Fax: 808-523-6464 2/3/06, State Council Meeting Page 2 specifically what they provide in their areas, the State Council could then proceed with making a directory with such information.

C. HIDOE Best Practices Conference – January 12 & 3, 2006 The Nä Lau Lama Conference was the first step in an 18-month partnership designed to improve educational outcomes for Native Hawaiians learners in the DOE system. The conference was a success and individual groups plan to continue to meet. The Chair submitted a copy of the work plan for review.

II. Executive Director’s Report

A. Present Activities

1. Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance (Retreat) Plans are underway to conduct a strategic planning curriculum, including tools and guidelines to facilitate input by the NHEC and Island Councils to create a strategic planning document. Shawn reminded the Council that this should be more tactical like timelines, and not the process we already endured. Estimated budget: $10,000.00

2. Educational and Related Services Resource Directory and Map Through contract, NHEC plans to develop a database utilizing resource identification forms, and train Island Council to implement use of forms and data input systems. The contractor will also assist in research, compilation and production of resource directory and map. Estimated budget is $23,000.

3. Comprehensive Communications Strategy To create and implement a communications plan to increase community awareness of the NHEC and its educational and related services available to Native Hawaiians. Estimated budget $18,000.00

4. Website To establish the NHEC website as the premier online resource for information Native Hawaiian education. Estimated budget $10,000.00

Kahoÿonei moved in principal to support the “present activities” listed above so as to enable the staff to move forward on them. Further, a final cost should be reported back to the members and any large deviations from projected budgets listed above should be communicated in a timely manner. It was second by Louie. The motion carried.

It was also discussed that where contractors are equal in every way, NHEC have a preference that services to be provided by Native Hawaiians and/or Native Hawaiian owned and operated businesses. It was agreed by all.

Pay raises were suggested for the staff on hand, to be reviewed at the Executive Council.

Reminder that the next NHEA Convention will be held on March 28 & 29, 2006 at Leeward Community College.

B. Coming Events

1. Native Hawaiian Education Act Grant Workshops A rough draft schedule was passed out to all members to review where and when US Federal Officers Beth Fine and Francisco Ramirez would be traveling to during their visit on February 13-17, 2006. Colin will be shadowing Ramirez everyday, and it was suggested that Beth Fine also be shadowed.

Colin has agreed to get a flyer out announcing their visits to the communities. It was suggested that Francisco be informed of how difficult the application process is for those communities they claim to want to reach; computer submission, initial registration with “grants.gov” etc. It was further suggested that Colin send these issues ahead of time to Francisco, so that he is prepared to answer them when here. Everyone should email Colin these talking points. Kupuna graciously reminded us to be hospitable first, work second. 2/3/06, State Council Meeting Page 3

2. NIEA Legislative Summit – Feb 13-17, 2006 The Registration was passed out among members. When the summit comes to Hawaiÿi in 2007, VerlieAnn will be NIEA president. She is focusing on developing advocacy of education for Native children. She feels we need to hold on to what we have in Washington and be sure to articulate the problems encountered with “No Child Left Behind” policy. We acknowledged David Sing and his tremendous efforts and leadership in this area.

Talking point for VerlieAnn – NIEA should not be supporting the Akaka Bill, but rather support us to get control over our own grants.

Native Hawaiian Education Act should be supported for reauthorization.

The ÿohana aspect (parent participation) needs to be recognized as a crucial component when funding education here.

Assessments in Title 7 and across the board should have cultural components, which will in turn create a window for performance indicators.

We were reminded of the travel policy which is 2 people to one conference, for example only two people from the council can get funding to attend WIPCIE. Also, any travel outside the U.S. is foreign travel and requires grantor approval.

Talking point for Colin – Limitations on travel are unfair to Hawaiÿi, especially since the Hawaiÿi delegation should have a big presence in Alaska. A discussion of finding outside sources ensued. This remains complicated since NHEC is not a 501c3 organization. It was suggested that a collaboration occur between NHEC and NHEA for advertising in Alaska for the Hawaiÿi conference. Molokaÿi defends travel by requiring a community meeting to share information learned while at the conference.

C. Establish Indicators An indicator is a broad based outcome or concept which is aligned with the goals and objectives for a given programs’ purpose. Colin has been discussing this with several members and people and has come up with seven broad indicators for NHEC: 1.Native Hawaiian Knowledge and Practice; 2.Cultural Identity and Belonging; 3.Community Involvement and Generosity; 4.School Readiness; 5.Literacy; 6.Graduation and Promotion; and 7.Proficiency/Growth. We recognize the need to have our own Native Hawaiian measuring sticks to set the base line in which to measure our successes and lack thereof. The Hawaiian way measures a keiki’s physical readiness along with his/hers mental readiness and these philosophies should be a part of our measurement system.

Paula moved to adopt the seven indicators, including executing in a pono, Hawaiian way. Aunty Betty second. Motion carried.

III. Secretary’s Report

Previous minutes distributed and passed as amended.

IV. Treasurer’s Report

A. Fiscal reports were reviewed. A question was asked on the status of an audit from last year. The audit was started, but was never finished since it was discovered that it was unnecessary for our organization to have an A133 audit. The auditor did the work that he was paid for, however. It was moved by Kahoÿonei to do an internal audit for the past 18 months. It was seconded by VerlieAnn. The motion carried (1 opposed). Manu to do.

It was noted that the fiscal manual needs to be reviewed and brought into line with the shorter policy manual. Manu is to do this.

Manu to meet with Aunty Betty to work out a Kupuna budget.

2/3/06, State Council Meeting Page 4 B. 2005 – 2006 Island Council Budget Proposals Discussion on whether these budgets were scrutinized by the Executive Council. Heather asked for changes from Island Councils and, where they did not implement any, she went forward and made changes. It was suggested by Kaho`onei to approve all budgets with one action, but that sentiment did not have the support of the majority of the council. Lui made a new motion to approve individually, Seconded by Ilei. Motion carried.

Lui moved to approve the Hawaiÿi Island Council budget. Jean second, it passed.

Lui moved to approve the Maui Island Council budget. Kahoÿonei second, it passed. (1 opposed)

Lui moved to approve the Länaÿi Island Council budget. Kahoÿonei second, it passed. (2 opposed)

Ilei moved to approve the Molokaÿi Island Council budget. Kahoÿonei second, it passed. It was discussed how the EC deducted $4500.00 and $4990.00 for honorarium and operating expenses respectfully, since it did not appear to align with our strategic mission.

Lui moved to approve the Niÿihau Island Council budget. Manu second, it passed.

Lui moved to approve the Kauaÿi Island Council budget. Ilei second, it passed.

A discussion ensued regarding the Oÿahu Island Council budget, and it was decided that Oÿahu should work further with the EC on their budget and narrative to ensure it is aligned with NHEC’s strategic mission. The general council also gave the EC authority to approve this budget when pau. Ilei second motion, it passed.

It was noted that next year’s budget process should begin as soon as possible to avoid any delays, as has happened in the past.

Meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Manu Kaÿiama

Native Hawaiian Education Council

Executive Council Meeting Friday, April 14, 2006 Honolulu Airport Hotel

MINUTES

Call To Order: The meeting was called to order at 10:50 a.m. by Chairperson Maggie Hanohano.

Pule: A pule was given by Paula DeMorales.

Attendance: In attendance were the following Executive Committee members and staff:

Maggie Hanohano, Chairman Paula DeMorales, Vice Chairman Sherlyn Franklin Goo, Secretary VerlieAnn Malina-Wright, Past Chairperson Colin Kippen, Executive Director Heather Kina, Office Manager Erika Rosa, Fiscal Officer

I. Review of all activities by ED Colin Kippen: some are just to report, some need action. A. Leasing of space: made offer and are in final negotiations. Desire one year lease. Coldwell Banker would not agree to cancellation clause based upon receipt of grants, but rather desires NHEC to sign year to year leases. This is actually what we desire too. The cost is $1.50 per square foot

B. Contract for Website: Proposal was approved and staff will proceed. EC thanks the committee for its review and recommendation. Heather took minutes of the committee meeting and distributed to EC

C. Ulukau Grant: EC has received preliminary report of this effort to put curricula developed through NHEA grants on-line through the Ulukau (ALU LIKE, Inc.) Website. Doug Knight is contact person at ALI. Need to solicit more contributors of curriculum. In that effort, Colin is going to Hawaiÿi with Doug Knight. Going to meet with Edith Kanakaÿole Foundation and Kü Kahakalau. Paula made recommendation that we put some basic standards/criteria for

735 Bishop Street, Suite 218 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Phone: 808-523-6432 Fax: 808-523-6464 4/14/06, Executive Council Meeting

placement on the Ulukau Website. It was reported also that Keiki Kawaiÿaeÿa also had this concern. Want curriculum that is in alignment with DOE standards as well as culturally appropriate. Sherlyn suggested an email to ‘Eleu for submissions.

D. Niÿihau – continued issues re: old bills: EC received email indicating issues regarding Lu Koerte not being well received by ÿIlei. Sherlyn moved, VAM seconded for ED to work directly w/ B. Robinson re monies due to him. Motion carried unanimously. Clarification re: payment of bills from two fiscal years and all in excess of the budgets of the total of the two years. Will have to go into unexpended state funds to pay entire bill of about $11.5K. Verlie suggests for future, that Kauai handle their fiscal affairs. This will be considered after EC deals with Robinson. Colin will email ÿIlei that she cannot make any further expenditures. Verlie moved and Maggie seconded to freeze any further expenditures and that any authority related to budget and finances is rescinded. Passed. Erika suggested we take current bill out of this year’s budget, other bills from previous year come from their previous unexpended funds and what is still in deficit comes out of this year. There will still be some funds, approx $5k. Sherlyn moved, Paula seconded a motion to this regard. Carried unanimously.

E. Report on Verlie and CP working with Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs on its Annual Convention to be held at Chaminade, DATE? There will be a session to dream about what a NH Ed Sys should look like – what are values? what is it they want to have? OHA and Chaminade assisting.

F. Nä Lau Lama – going very well. AHCC and NLL are related. AHCC – dream. NLL – what is working and how do we take that info and share. NHEC involved particularly because of reauthorization coming up and these efforts help us with what we need to request of Congress. Paula looking for list of who to distribute Kamehameha rubric and PowerPoint re: Survey.

G. Colin collecting information re: problems, issues with grants/grantees. Working hard to have NHEC be the funnel of info to ED. We can’t allow USDOEd to have a divide and conquer methodology. Kamuela Chun facilitated one discussion on HI. David Sing recommends grantee sessions at NHEA. See if USDOEd can delay HI deadline until April so that NHEA happens and input can be provided to them.

H. WINHEC Decision needed: Travel and participation in WINHEC.SFG moved, Maggie seconded to table until financials are reviewed later in the agenda. Motion carried.

4/14/06, Executive Council Meeting

I. Keiki Kawaiÿaeÿa desires to reinstitute an NHMO working group. SPARK is willing to pilot NHMO and other efforts related to Na Lau Lama in their target communities of Waiÿanae and Hilo. RE: For NHMO the Hilo vs. Mänoa issues were discussed. It was agreed that modifications, e.g., for ECE are made, they can be modified as appropriate. The seven pathways and the mini paths within the 7 can cater to the specific needs/values of the different constituencies. Working towards finding agreement at the top of the tree – the big view. Worry about the branches later. Verlie to email MWS PowerPoint.

J. USDOEd – CK striving for effective communication with Francisco. Promoting united front, again. Colin is good guy sometimes, bad guy also. Pushing towards Francisco always coming through NHEC as well as grantees using NHEC as conduit. Suggest carefully written memo to all grantees re: subtleties of our effort and how they can rely upon CK/NHEC to facilitate problems/issues with USDOEd.

II. Next Meetings: EC: May 4, State: May 12, 10a – 3p both days

III. Budget (see visual) – the “wheel”: NHEC servicing all groups in the “wheel”. Island Councils need technical assistance. Beginnings of NHEC annual report. For purposes of reauthorization, need info from grantees. Need to bring them together

IV. Sherl – Secy – got lost with the following discussion and so she punted to Heather to fill in later. So what is below is just what I had written to the point of the “punt”

– see Island Advisors 05-06. Have some dysfunctional Island Councils. Oÿahu an example. Perhaps can use HNK Oÿahu moku as the basic but w commitment to increasing from P-k to P-20? Need rudimentary assessment – See Grantee Advisors – need info that will be obtained by contracts re: indicators, etc.

Contract for facilitation for above.

Point is – keep infrastructure small, except assistance to Heather. Contract for specific services – all denoted on documents provided behind the “wheel”

Note that Francisco is strongly pushing all to expend unexpended funds – will be holding all of us grantees to that.

Side discussion on Conversion Charter vs. start up charter State Council Minutes –11/1/2005 Page 3 • At the CNHA Conference, the group supported reauthorization which includes bringing the funds home to be distributed and developing partnerships. Mainland Hawaiians want to be included.

Other interest items: • Civic club members want to be included in NHEC. • Grantors want to know who are being served and additional needs. • Resolution presented on recognizing Verlie Ann Molina-Wright and the president elect for NIEA, and she will be the president when the convention comes to Hawaii in 2007.

Motion by Josh Akana and seconded by Don Romero: A grant be issued by NHEC to CNHA for the completed Strategic Plan for 2004-2005. Payment is to be given upon receipt of the amended Strategic Plan. Discussion: • Have we received a final copy of the report? • Explanation was given on this type of contract not requiring 3 bids. Motion passed.

4) Chair’s Report: Attendance by Colin and Maggie at the PASE Conference. Keynote speaker was excellent for island councils. Binder will be available at the NHEC office is members would like to see the information.

Erika Rosa is 1 FTE now to provide assistance with the Grantee Summit and the follow-up activities that need to be completed for grantees.

5) Announcements: • Hawaiÿi: assisting with the registration of the scholarship fair and will be collecting surveys. • Kauaÿi: provided the greenery for the council meeting which made the room a welcoming place to be. So many complements to the council on behalf of the hotel guests and staff. Mahalo to Aunty Janet and Pumehana. • Länaÿi: sponsored a career fair and collected data. • Molokaÿi: Moke reported that the island is ready for Makahiki on Dec. 2. Jan. 24-25 will be the Makahiki Games. Kualapuÿu had a facilitative leadership training for the Charter Immersion School. • Shawn Kanaÿiaupuni shared information on the PASE Hawaiian Wellness Conference. • Jean Evans shared the success of Kumukahi, the Early Childhood Conference sponsored by INPEACE, Hoÿowaiwai, Kamehameha and Alu Like.

6) NIEA Conference: • Information on NCLB in Indian Country with data collection and curriculum. Language Immersion P-20. • OHA sponsored information on the Akaka Bill and request for support. Hälau from Denver presented and did a special dedication to Kaulana Kasparavitch. • David Sing will chair the NHEA when NIEA is in Hawaiÿi. • Elders and families were not given registrations fees to attend NIEA and other conferences. • Maoris want to be partners with Hawaiÿi when Hawaiÿi hosts NIEA.

Meeting was adjourned at 2:57 pm

Respectfully submitted,

Maggie Hanohano 4/14/06, Executive Council Meeting

- see Island Advisors 06-07

Pau “punt” point

V. Issue of Granting/Government Relations: NHEC still not in driver's seat with grants. Need to strengthen government relations. A. Paula noted that 2 years ago, we were accused of having “no track record”. B. Sherlyn said that last year we were told we need data. At that time we provided them w/ our strategic plan and priorities. But that did not have any effect upon the RFP or granting mechanism. C. NHEC needs to provide coordination, info on gaps etc. to

VI. Organization Chart concept: Keep flexibility through minimum employee base, maximum contracting as appropriate to needs. Again, need to put HK in charge of the tasks appropriate to her skills, and so on.

VII. Tabled WINHEC Conference Travel: Paula moved and Maggie seconded – 2 WINHEC, 2 ECE. Deliverables must be documented. Motion carried.

VIII. Salaries (see Handout, for Heather’s raise options): Paula moved, Verlie seconded to go with Option 1. Carried. Future – Heather should not prepare spreadsheets for her own raises. Title change? Not yet. Prof Dev Plan? Colin to follow up. Benchmarking future raises.

IX. Website concerns by Keiki. Colin did answer her concerns that were emailed to all NHEC members. Colin will send NHEC his response to her concerns as well as her positive vote on the Website Proposal thereafter.

Respectfully submitted,

Sherlyn Franklin Goo

Native Hawaiian Education Council

Executive Council Meeting Thursday, May 4, 2006 NHEC Office

MINUTES

Call To Order: The meeting was called to order at 9:55 a.m. by Chairperson Maggie Hanohano.

Pule: Pule given by Kupuna Kahalekomo. Mahalo to Auntie Janet for coming to represent the Kūpuna Council for Auntie Betty who is away in Alaska.

Attendance: In attendance were the following Executive Committee members and staff:

Maggie Hanohano, Chairman Paula DeMorales, Vice Chairman Sherlyn Franklin Goo, Secretary VerlieAnn Malina-Wright, Past Chairperson Janet Kahalekomo, Kupuna Council Colin Kippen, Executive Director Heather Kina, Office Manager Erika Rosa, Fiscal Officer

I. Past Minutes of EC Meeting on 4.14.06 were reviewed and amended to read under section VI, Bullet 4: “Point is – keep infrastructure small. Paula moved, Sherlyn seconded minutes to be approved as amended. Carried. II. Activity Updates a. Grantees: i. Issue of carry-over funds being highly scrutinized by USDOEd – Francisco Ramirez. Compared to past years, monies are often kept by USDOEd. Lui Hokoano reports his carry-over being threatened. ii. Math Curriculum folks met. iii. Negotiation of indirect costs also an issue. iv. DOE facilitation of certain gatherings may be helpful. b. Island Advisory Councils i. Hawaiÿi – hired/contracted Kanani Aton as island facilitator. Issue 1 - is Aton contract/employee? If so, Colin has not been involved in RFP from NHEC or interviewing for employment. All contractors or employees are managed through the Council and not Island Advisories. Issue 2 - Aton is working on Website. Is this in alignment with NHEC website contract just negotiated?. Motion by Sherlyn, second

735 Bishop Street, Suite 218 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Phone: 808-523-6432 Fax: 808-523-6464 5/4/06, Executive Council Meeting

by Paula for Colin to communicate with chair of HI IC, explaining federal procedures on contracts and employment and getting clarification regarding conflict of interest with KA being a member of Hawaiÿi IC and also working for the IC. ii. Maui – bill from Lui for 12.28.05 meeting with $55 a head for dinner mtg. Is to get back to Colin with documentation to justify. Issue of new policy by Francisco re: no food at meetings. For NHEC meetings, start after next meeting and send message to all island councils. iii. Lanaÿi – no news iv. Molokaÿi – Aotearoa visitor expenses were billed to NHEC by Moke Kim. Colin informed him NHEC will not pay. Colin to send written communication that NHEC will not pay. v. Niÿihau – 1. Issue not yet resolved with regard to overdue bill from Robinsons for helicopter travel. Erika is going to call the Robinsons to obtain information. Much discussion regarding appropriateness of the procedures. NHEC staff following up – EC confirmed ED’s decisions to have Erica following up ensuring the NHEC and federal procedures are being followed. 2. Complex Area Superintendent – Daniel Hamada says they are now ready for the Ho‘okako‘o conversion charter. Verlie recommend that Colin facilitate. Colin not ready to do this until Ni‘ihau is ready and asks. COLIN will put Lynn Fallin and Daniel together, however. vi. Kūpuna Council – 1. Aunty Janet thanked EC for allowing her to substitute. 2. Aunty Janet asked EC what is desired for next week’s conference. Not necessary to bring Kupuna in a day in advance for the meeting especially since funds are tight and we have a nice office to meet in. They will, in the future, have their council meeting in the am through BYOB lunch and state council will BYOB lunch and meet in afternoon. Next week, we will have council meeting in conference room and then come to the office to bless it. Küpuna will each bring blessings from each island. No official Kahu needed. Küpuna will assist in helping to provide some hoÿokupu for office. 3. This will be a continuation as a “new beginning” for the küpuna as we have been having new beginnings with all of our work in EC, in full council and in island councils. As part of their new beginning, Küpuna can “mihi” problems, sometimes “oki” – conduct practices that are culturally appropriate to solve problems. Get to issues before they get too complicated – don’t wait. EC agreed – this is excellent role for the Küpuna Council. c. Education Entities i. Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs - Colin in charge of getting 20 people (8 facilitators, 8 recorders, 4 backup) to facilitate AOHCC Education Conference on June 16-17 at Chaminade University. There will be 8 breakout groups because of the size of the conference. AHCC is doing a plan for what Native Hawaiian education should look like. Vision, Values, etc. – if we had the best of everything, money – what would we like to see. Week before, Colin will have a training of facilitators. ii. Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association – Colin getting active in this organization. iii. Just4Kids Website is up. Good data base for all, but a few problems - Native Hawaiians are not segregated, no cultural factors. But will work towards solving these issues. iv. Waimea Valley – Rona is in charge and NHEC will hook up with them 5/4/06, Executive Council Meeting

v. ÿAnuenue School – report for info by Verlie. They are planning for restructuring per NCLB where AYP not being met due to Hawaiian language proficiency and not English proficiency is the focus there. AYP measured in English. DOE supplanting of Hawaiian Language by English is issue. All funds being taken away. AOHCC asking OHA to intervene. Chair of AOHCC, board members of OHA (D. Carpenter and O. Stender) will be meeting with CAS, Verlie, VP and Colin. Opportunity via Act 133. Need to rethink immersion. d. Reports and Recommendations i. Colin has set up USDOEd meetings with assistance by local person there – Colin going to DC June 6-12. Trying to get meeting with Spelling, USDOEd Secy in order to improve relationship w/ Francisco Ramirez. Colin has done many things to do this locally, is now working on nationally. Colin would like suggestions of people to be in touch with, e.g., Ed Parisian. ii. Akaka bill/Civil Rights decision in yesterday’s news a threat to our legislation because of the “race-based” issue. Verlie suggested that Colin request that letter to USDOEd Secy from Hawaiÿi Congressional Delegation re: Native Hawaiian language be sent. e. Operations – Canoe in the center of the “wheel” i. Move was a challenge but we are here! (Dillingham Transportation Building, Room 218). Meeting rooms are $100. ii. Budget Proposal – Heather provided a budget that fully reflects the “wheel” or sun diagram. Kukuna O Ka Lä - the flower of the mangrove can be our symbol. – Kaonohi O Ka Lä - Center of the Sun is the NHEC. The “rays” of the sun show allocations of funds from the Center. 1. Still be giving funds to Island Councils but only to accomplish specific functions, i.e., training for “assessing, evaluating, etc. See Island Advisors - green rectangle - on handout, Education Workshop Series: Demographics, Service Directory/Resource Management, etc. 2. Objective is to drive Island Councils to ensure they implement projects that meet NHEC goals and objectives. 3. Sherlyn moved, Verlie seconded to approve budget as presented. Carried. 4. Presentation of budget very clear as to how every expenditure relates to the specific requirements of the law, for both the state and the island council. Commend staff for this presentation. iii. Fiscal Report – same as last time as end of month just occurred since last report. iv. Wheel needs to be amended to add other entities/categories as appropriate. Manu Kaÿiama, Treasurer, needs to be caught up as she has missed several meetings. Colin, Sherlyn will meet with MK in Kailua, perhaps Sherlyn home. v. New Office Phone 523-NHEC. Toll Free 877.523-NHEC.

Respectfully submitted,

Sherlyn Franklin Goo

Native Hawaiian Education Council

State Council Meeting Friday, May 12, 2006 Pacific Guardian Center

MINUTES

Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 9:45a by President Maggie Hanohano.

She welcomed Wendy Mow-Taira to the NHEC, who now represents ALU LIKE, Inc. that formerly was represented by Jean Evans. Jean has left ALU LIKE, Inc., and is now working for the American Lung Association.

Kūpuna Na‘auao - led by Kūpuna Janet Kahalekomo, the kūpuna from all councils except for Ni‘ihau shared their mana‘o and gave pule for the meeting and its participants.

State Council Akana, Joshua Evans, Martha Hanohano, Maggie Malina-Wright, V. Leimomi For Arce, Anita Goo, Sherlyn Franklin Kahalekomo, Janet Panoke, W. Kahoÿonei - Kim, Moke For Hamamoto, Patricia Kanaÿiaupuni, Shawn Chun, T. Kamuela - Wilhelm, Puanani Mow-Taira, Wendy

Island Council Hawaiÿi Kauaÿi Länaÿi Maui Molokaÿi Niÿihau Oÿahu Akana, Janice Anakalea, Pumehana Paoa, Pua Aton, Kanani Romero, Don

Staff Kippen, Colin Kina, Heather Rosa, Erika

I. Mana‘o from Colin Kippen, ED: on the new NHEC Working Plan” Kukuna O Ka Lā (Rays of the Sun) A. The Move – Now fairly settled in this new facility that is centrally located near many agencies with whom we need to do business. B. NHEC is now stepping out of the shadow and into the Sun – metaphor of Kukuna O Ka Lā. Centralization is now our theme. 1. (See second page of handout) When Colin came to NHEC, the relationship between NHEC members, island councils, the executive committee, the ED could be graphically described as this handout – many, many boxes and centers all unrelated. 2. (See third handout) Kukuna O Ka La – Ka Onohi O Ka La - In this diagram, all are related. That is what NHEC is striving to look like. 3. (See fourth handout) Kukuna O Ka La – Shows further breakouts – e.g., ‘Eleu, the early childhood group. Other examples: a. Higher Ed – Chaminade

735 Bishop Street, Suite 218 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Phone: 808-523-6432 Fax: 808-523-6464 5/12/06, State Council Meeting b. Curriculum Development – ‘Ulukau c. NIEA 4. (See fifth handout) Same Template to report and budget activities. a. Will report to NHEC regarding activities in all four squares. b. Colin will now, given office is downtown, be involved in the legislature. 5. (See Goals in rectangular boxes on handout 4) These are directly from our Strategic Plan. a. Colin committed to work on these goals. b. Concern of Civil Right Commission’s Report - this and other pressures by those opposed to Native Hawaiian entitlements reinforce the need to show that programs funded under NHEA are making progress. Colin needs info from the Grantees in order to better represent NHEC and the programs of the NHEAct.

II. 2005 – 2006 Activities (See handout with four large pastel rectangles) A. Grantees - the following are areas that Colin is working on 1. Nā Lei Na‘auao (hui of Native Hawaiian charter schools - assisting with facilities issues. 2. ‘Ulukau (ALU LIKE, Inc.'s web-based information site) - facilitating the collection of more curricula to be entered on the site. 3. Tech training for grantees with U.S. Education Department (USEd) staff – concern re: "new" policies on carry overs, extensions, indirect costs. Colin researching and policy is unclear. Shawn suggests that along with going to D.C. to research further, NHEC should have a recommendation. Colin will research and find information regarding where policy has changed. Prior to going to DC, Colin will write recommendation letter to USED and attempt to obtain Hawaii Congressional support. This letter will address indirect costs, carry-overs and no cost extensions. Letter would also state that we do not agree that programs that have already negotiated an indirect rate should be able to keep that rate until the end of their contract 4. STEM meeting B. Island Advisories – Colin working to ensure that all Island Advisory Groups follow federal procurement procedures that State level adheres to. State Council has responsibility to ensure that these procurement procedures are followed at the Island levels. 1. Expenditures need to be pre-approved by Colin prior to spending the funds. 2. Food not an allowable expense from now on-per Francisco. No Protocol expenses if it includes food. 3. Travel – all must go through Heather. Must come to NHEC meeting if NHEC to pay for travel. C. Educational Entities 1. Nā Lau Lama (Best Practices Conference follow-on) – important to NHEC efforts that the best practices of the DOE are shared. 2. Tourism – Native Hawn Hospitality Assn. Colin attended the recent conference. 3. Ke Kula Kaiapuni O ‘Anuenue in restructure – issue for NHEC re: Hawaiian Language being endangered with NHLB. 4. Just4Kids – important for all who desire to find comparable schools/districts to learn from, share with. Shawn shared that the issue of separating NH was raised at the Just4Kids meeting and will now be taken care of. 5. Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs Conference on Education. – Colin doing training for facilitators of this conf. Theme: What are values that will drive any system that will be created for Hawaiian Learners. a. Shawn recommends that Colin let DOE (Pat Hamamoto) know what this is all about. AOHCC wants visioning, not complaining about status quo. Important for awareness for this group of individuals. Four or five main themes coming out of this meeting would be excellent and could mesh with Nā Lau Lama and other efforts. b. Kahoÿonei concerned about follow through afterwards. c. Kamuela – not Colin’s kuleana to ensure follow up. d. Sherlyn – have agencies at the table that are now aware of this AOHCC effort and can, as appropriate, take action. e. Kanani – Na Lau Lama has advocacy group to cull info, mesh, etc. NLL is platform for synthesis. f. Pua – Confirms that DOE and others can use AOHCC as part of platform. 5/12/06, State Council Meeting g. Kahoÿonei - be careful to ensure that all above does happen. h. Shawn – can drive resolutions, complementary. Nā Lau Lama has multiple supports, small and large: KS, DOE, OHA along with other agencies 6. National Forum on Educational Policy: Education Commission of the States – has a Native American, Native Hawaiian, Alaskan Native strand that works with grass roots for empowerment training in policy and advocacy. Colin wants to go and bring back tech training for Island Advisories. Colin can harvest info and see how it can blend with existing “live” community plans. Island Councils can decide if this is within their group’s priorities and can participate using their budgets. 7. WINHEC – Higher Ed, K-12, 0-8. August 2006. The executive council recommends NHEC pay for one representative. a. Kahoÿonei made motion, Martha seconded to send three at expense not to exceed $7,500. Discussion regarding priorities and budgeted expenses. One issue is to provide enough for Colin to work on reauthorization. Other is to ensure that we spend all our money because of the concern that carry overs, extensions are being threatened. Verli-Ann concerned about HI and her commitment to WINHEC. Colin reminds everyone that cannot put limit on dollar amount per federal law – bonfire representation. b. Amendment to delete money cap by Kahoÿonei, second by Martha to take off cap. Carried. Vote on amended motion tied and therefore not carried (5-5). c. Some intense discussions followed. d. Suggestion that Kūpuna Council recess to discuss resolution. Accepted. Five minute break at 11:54 am. Kūpuna exit. e. Meeting resumed at 12:14 pm. Kūpuna: Mahalo to Council for asking their mana‘o. Kukui still shining. Recommend that two go. f. Kahoÿonei motion, Martha second that two go. Discussion re divisiveness between grantees. Sherlyn suggests that if Kupuna have spoken and NHEC go with Kupuna advice. Martha agree. Kahoÿonei sees different way – cannot go piece by piece. If we go with Robert’s Rules, go all the way with Robert’s Rules. If we go with consensus, then all the way with consensus. Kanani – need to move forward with Kupuna advice. Have time constraints. Go forward. Kamuela questions last NHEC minutes that call for two people to conferences. Why did executive council recommend one? Maggie explains why – Fed constraints, Reauthorization and need for Colin to travel. Kupuna wisdom accepted.

D. Reports and Recommendations E. Operations 1. State Council Minutes – 2/3/06 2. Fiscal Report

III. 2006 – 2007 Activities & Budget Proposal A. Acceptance of new concept regarding NHEC, grantees, island advisories, educational entities and reporting: Kahoÿonei move, Janet seconded acceptance of new concept of Kukuna O Ka Lā presentation, structure, and detail. Discussion: 1. Shawn suggest we have way to see how progress is being made as we proceed. 2. Kanani – comment regarding Ka Onohi O Ka Lā, for HI Island, they can name their priorities and link it to the center ring. Recommend that this articulation be put into the diagram. Green is progress, red is stalemate. 3. Pua – grantees need to know that NHEC is the one to come to for provision of information to give to Feds. 4. Call for the Question to include suggestions in motion. Motion Carried. 5. Budget – Colin notes that budget attempts to break down where resources are going vis-à-vis structure/goals/objectives. Capacity building, technical assistance, assessment, alignment of ICs with School Community Councils, development of educational plans on each island etc., all need to be done. Need connection between feds and ICs. Bring Native Hawaiian serving institutions together. Trips to DC. Assistance to Heather a. Kamuela – those w/in each system know what each other is doing – need is to get this info out the public and NHEC. 5/12/06, State Council Meeting b. Kamuela and Kahoÿonei have concerns with new structure of budget that affects autonomy of ICs. c. Colin centralization key to affecting policy. Technical assistance, training and facilitation necessary from Ka Onohi O Ka Lä. d. Concern is what would happen if leadership changes. e. Felt that with such a momentous change, need time to take it out to Island Councils for feedback and discussion. f. Uncle Josh asked what would happen if an Island Council would choose not to participate in one of the knowledge-based NHEC forums? They would lose out on the knowledge. g. Centralization of the island council activities is a vast change to the present structure. Building Community capacity is something that Molokai has been working on. h. After much decision, the proposed budget was carried with one vote against, two abstentions.

IV. Next State Council Meetings – no time for this discussion.

The meeting was adjourned in Conference Room A-B at 1:35 pm.

A brief blessing of the offices was conducted by the Kūpuna Council with NHEC members who could stay participating. The blessing was a excellent start to NHEC's new beginning.

Respectfully submitted,

Sherlyn Franklin Goo

Native Hawaiian Education Council

Executive Council Meeting Monday, July 31, 2006 NHEC Office – Dillingham Transportation Building

MINUTES

Call To Order: The meeting was called to order at 12:55 p.m. by President Maggie Hanohano

Pule: A pule was given by Paula De Morales.

Attendance: In attendance were the following Executive Committee Members and Staff:

Maggie Hanohano, Chairman Paula DeMorales, Vice Chairman Sherlyn Franklin Goo, Secretary Manu Kaiama, Treasurer Colin Kippen, Executive Director Heather Kina, Office Manager Erika Rosa, Fiscal Officer

I. Activity Updates A. See Activities Report distributed B. Grantees Advisors – Colin will provide more specifics C. Report and Recommend 1. Francisco Ramirez coming re priorities 2. Paula to work on WIPCE report 3. Inspector General visit – meet and greet but need to take seriously (temporarily paused due to arrival of Linda Colburn who will assist EC in addressing the request that we establish our priorities for USED) II. Linda Colburn A. Need to address many issues that surround the establishment of the priorities and don’t want to make our full council do the same thing over and over again. Likely to be a problematic process. 1. Important to get consensus 2. Establish a working, credible process 3. Distribute the vulnerability all the way around the table B. Big Tent Metaphor 1. ID old players 2. High Altitude/New Voices a. Futurists b. Politicos i. USED ii. Congress iii. State DOE iv. State Leg c. Philanthropy i. Kamehameha Schools ii. QLCC iii. Castle iv. Business 3. Audience Visibililty – Oahu, high profile event

735 Bishop Street, Suite 218 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Phone: 808-523-6432 Fax: 808-523-6464 7/31/06, Executive Council Meeting a. Participants i. Stakeholders ii. Consumers iii. Other experts iv. Local stakeholders C. Little Tent 1. Half Day a. Participants i. Delegates from Big Tent ii. Local luminaries iii. Island Councils iv. Local b. Hear big tent stuff 2. Lunch 3. Half Day a. Participants i. Smaller group ii. Main players b. 1st half – Talk about Priorities c. 2nd half – Call to action d. Develop Instrument for Data Gathering e. Preliminary Synthesis f. Compare to EC Priorities g. Final D. Getting to the Big Picture Priorities 1. Many stakeholders a. Statewide b. Sector specific, e.g., early ed, hied c. Island specific 2. Can look to others to facilitate 3. Many are Ready for Structure – NHEC can facilitate a. Need to think through very carefully before we proceed b. If we have the Clarity and political will – then Linda Colburn would support and work with us. c. 100% commitment d. Can lead or have part III. Follow Up – Where to go next for NHEC? A. Linda’s Model gets us to exactly what NHEC is supposed to do 1. Similar to Na Honua Mauli Ola Process 2. How to build the process for us B. Our Process – thoughts 1. Past work a. AHCC b. Nä Lau Lama c. P-20 d. Kamehameha Schools e. CTE 2. Politicoes/Futurists a. What is the future? b. How does what we are doing fit. 3. Paula – probably same priorities for many 4. Manu – all players – now they know our voice, our agenda 5. Next Steps a. Colin to email to get names from us, folks who have held meetings like AHCC etc. b. When to do – fast c. Partners d. Colin to come up w/ preliminary agenda, numbers, locations e. Paula Moved – call for the Big Tent Meeting 1st wk in October. Manu second, come dream with us. Carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Sherlyn Franklin Goo

Native Hawaiian Education Council

State Council Meeting Wednesday, August 23, 2006 Pacific Guardian Center

MINUTES

Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 9:20a by President Maggie Hanohano.

Colin Kippen introduced Andrew Aoki, guest, who assists other groups in moving through forward, e.g., Healthy Start. He is with 3 Point Consulting and is assisting at no cost. Colin received the go ahead on items we have discussed with the USED and needs Andrew to help us.

State Council Akana, Joshua Evans, Martha Hanohano, Maggie For Kawaiÿaeÿa, Keiki For Arce, Anita Goo, Sherlyn Franklin Hokoana, Lui - Ishimura, Carole - Kim, Moke For Hamamoto, Patricia Kahalekomo, Janet Keala, David DeMorales, Paula - Inciong, Keoni Kaÿiama, Manu Malina-Wright, V. Leimomi

Island Council Hawaiÿi Kauaÿi Länaÿi Maui Molokaÿi Niÿihau Oÿahu Akana, Janice Keala, Flo Reyes, Eliza Romero, Don

Staff Guest Kippen, Colin Aoki, Andrew Kina, Heather Rosa, Erika

I. Kupuna Naÿauao A. Auntie Janet Kahalekomo began a pule, continued by Auntie Janice Akana and completed by Auntie Janet. B. Naÿauao by Auntie Janet to ask us all to care for ourselves in order to do best for our keiki.

II. Report from Executive Director – Activities Report A. Grantees Advisors 1. The Ulukau NHEA Curriculum Project has now been taken over by OHA 2. Science Technology Engineering and Math – Colin participated in a meeting on July 13 w/ DOE. Programs that have been developed by NHEA grants now can request for approval by DOE. The curriculum, if approved, can be used by the schools. Curriculum is culture based, will be put on Ulukau. Principals are able to alert their teachers about the curriculum. It was noted that it is important that there is knowledge about the success of the curricula – follow up evaluation is needed. (paused for introductions) B. Island Advisors – nothing at this point C. Educational Entities 1. Association of Hawaiiann Civic Clubs Summit – Colin facilitated this meeting at Chaminade. Plan to roll out educational program for the Hawaiian Nations with OHA funds.

735 Bishop Street, Suite 218 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Phone: 808-523-6432 Fax: 808-523-6464 8/23/06, State Council Meeting 2. Nä Lau Lama – effort to establish and define best ways of reaching Hawaiian Students. Colin – purpose to build bridge with DOE and its principals and complex superintendents to better serve Native Hawaiians. 3. Educational Commission of the States (ECS) School Community Councils Workshops, June 27-28 – assisting in empowering community to make a difference in the education of their own children. Very relevant to our Island Councils and how they can have maximum involvement – we can learn from this effort. 4. ECS National Forum, July 9 -14 – Colin participated and was benefited from it, especially in terms of liaising with state and national leaders in education. 5. WINHEC, August 4-10 – Verlie Ann Malina-Wright and Sherlyn Franklin Goo attended. Verlie lead and Sherlyn assisted in the Accreditation Working Group. Two groups up for accreditation – Sami from Norway and Seven Nations from Canada. Chaminade University will be hosting WINHEC next year. Sherlyn is working on EC. Verlie is K-12. 6. CHNA Convention, September 25-29 – Although we used it as a meeting opportunity for NHEC last year, we will not do so this year. 7. NIEA Convention in Anchorage, Alaska, October 18-22 – Conference hotel is sold out. 8. KS PASE Research Conference, November 15-16 – NHEC can benefit from this – the papers and research. D. Report & Recommend 1. Executive Director’s vist to Washington, D.C., June 6-12 a. Colin met with J. Conaty, B. Fine and F. Ramirez b. Congressional visits with key staff – the outcome…..as Colin is planning to follow up on their go ahead to enable NHEC to have more power – our key objective. i. NHEC is to have funding decision making as long as no conflict of interest, systematic and well thought out. ii. Colin – F. Ramirez coming 1st week in October – NHEC needs to pull Native Hawaiian Community together with business community, KS and others to develop visions and begin to establish priorities. October 4-5. Vision to be set through meetings in five program clusters, e.g., early ed. Then Island Councils can react as to how they can facilitate on their islands. NHEC will then establish priorities. iii. Lots of concerns about Colin’s plan from Manu, Verlie, Sherlyn, and Keoni, particularly in terms of it being top down and from non-Hawaiian speakers. iv. Andrew Aoki attempted to redescribe what he thought he and Colin worked on. Real goal is to gather people together in a forum with a perspective of what is going on around us and how we can shape our own destinies. v. Concerns were voiced about letting communities decide for themselves what is needed. The word “visionaries” might have been misused for the people that were mentioned as keynote speakers, e.g., DeeJay Mailer, Mitch D’Olier, Robbie Alm, David McClain.

III. Paused for report from Senator Inouye’s office A. Jennifer Sabas – what is going on in D.C. Political Climate 1. Senator Inouye tasked staff to focus on Native Hawaiian Programs. Assure efficient admin of programs. Get a plan for sustainability. Get on that track. Lots of governance issues on the table. Even if it is hard, can be hurtful. Have White House and both houses of Congress that are not on our side. Clearly demonstrated by failure of Akaka bill. DHHL bill also. All are being held. Same as Native Hawaiian Health. Need to track our own path. Cannot do business as usual. Example – Alaska Native Corporations. GAO reports show that goal of White House is to take ANCs out of business. Every opportunity to take us out is being done. Don’t know if NHEA is going to pass next year. a. Colin done good job of getting attn of USEDept. He has gotten their attn re: NHEA importance. Need to have NHEA is no longer outside the ballpark. We need to demonstrate that we CAN assess, evaluate and report. i. If you are a grantee, get off the board. Governance issues must be addressed. ii. Be sure you spend funds appropriately, do audit standup – take responsibility. b. For Senator Inouye, NHEC IS the granting authority, sets policy, and allocates the dollars. Then you work on sustainability – get foundations, KS and others at the table. Need capacity. B. Kawekiu Mossman confirmed – best assessments, evaluation etc. needed. 1. Questions 8/23/06, State Council Meeting a. Native American Languages Act status? Kawekiu – going to mark up soon. b. What is likelihood of NHEC getting the power? Need to demonstrate all of above. c. Comment by Colin – Sense of NHEC was desire to have that power. But need to do things to make it there. d. Verlie shared her experiences in DC with the NALA bill that revealed the exclusion of Native Hawaiians from entitlements relating to all indigenous groups. e. Colin summarized what Feds have agreed to have NHEC do: set the priorities, align GEPRA as standards beyond the act, subcontract to collect data on the impact of the funding to projects C. Jennifer: DKI Staff and Office open and available to assist NHEC to be able to do what it has to do. D. Kawekiu: Responding to question about NCLB, open to any input from us. Sabas – need input particularly about NHEA. Need input right away. Shorten bill info is needed.

II. D. (cont.) Back to Report and Recommends c. Lots of discussion about proposed agenda for “big tent” meeting i. Carol – suggests a panel of folks who have been through the trenches and have discovered some ways that work ii. Colin disagrees – too much complaining about what does not work iii. Don – what is goal, Colin? iv. Maggie – need structure that we all agree with. v. Sherl – doesn’t Carol’s suggestion work with that? vi. Maggie – concerned about non agreement with what will be outcome for our keiki. vii. Keoni – there is really no structure. In DOE, they get no input in terms of impact of any grants they give. viii. Martha – David Sing may have some of that data. We are not getting info from the students on what they are getting out of their education and what they need to do in order to make change for the future of Hawaii. ix. Don – can get data. KS and DOE have data. Get info from programs. Perhaps this conference can connect all. x. Colin – will be having many pre-meetings to force this re: data. xi. Andrew Aoki – prior to big meeting, need to get clear what NHEC is or should be. How do all the programs come together? How can NHEC gather all together. Get system unified, NH educ system is important – get common ground. NHEC – not sure what role is. Figure that out before jumping into this meeting. Get people to say “I like this NHEC.” “It can help us.” xii. Colin – I am not getting the data that our programs are making any difference. I put calls out and don’t get info. xiii. Sherl – sometimes you can’t get data, e.g, ECE no money to do longitudinal studies. xiv. More and more discussion…. d. Where do we go from here i. See Handout: “State Council Meeting 8/23/06 TASK DETAILS – PRIORITY SETTING MEETINGS. Many conversations going on with Colin. Need to move! ii. Need to have the right process. 1. Keoni – DOE gets the negative all the time. Standards are Non-culture biased, one way or the other. Ohana need to be involved. 2. Other discussion followed 3. Colin wants a group to be involved. Include Kupuna. 4. Maggie solicited volunteers: Keoni, Manu, Verlie, Carol/Keiki?? 5. Paula moved that Colin be allowed to put out RFPs for consultants, as needed, to help accomplish the big tent meeting, with stipulation that Colin provide a budget for the EC to review and approve. Manu second. Motion carried e. See Detailed TASKS REPORT – Indicators & Measures/GPRA i. (this is where Sabas’ report was supposed to be.) ii. Under Grantees Advisors – note that F. Ramirez will be meeting w/ new grantees when he comes in 10/4-5 etc. There will also be a new calendar so that grant rfps will be out earlier next year, that is why there is a rush for our “big tent” meeting E. Operations 1. Minutes – approved as distributed 8/23/06, State Council Meeting 2. Fiscal Report – Manu reported. See Consolidated Budget Report, October 1, 2005 – September 30, 2006. Lui Hokoana – suggests training/education for Island Councils on procurement post haste. Past practice has been that there is a one-year carry over as well as carry overs have been put back into the State budget. Need to work on that also.

IV. Tasks Report A. Board Development/Evaluation – Maggie discussed the need to revamp our board, particular due to commentary by Sabas. Need to stick to attendance requirements. Yet perhaps we need to look at new way of organizing ourselves. 1. Questions a. Grant readers and conflict of interest - example UH staff as reader when another program within the system is proposing. b. Don – ask if board be made of NHEC and advise the other groups in other quadrants of the Activities Report diagram. c. Maggie – has been discussed the one grantee be the spokesperson to others. 2. Current Board a. Service Providers i. Namaka Rawlins – not active last 1.5 yrs. ii. Sherlyn Franklin-Goo– INPEACE iii. Keiki Kawaiÿaeÿa – Kahuawaiola iv. Maggie Hanohano v. Pat Hamamoto – DOE vi. Lilette Subedi – vii. Verlie Ann Malina-Wright – ÿAnuenue viii. Lui Hokoana ix. Shawn Kanaÿiaupuni – KS x. Kamuela Chun xi. Manu Kaÿiama xii. Wendy Mow-Taira b. Consumers - Island Councils i. Josh Akana – Hawaiÿi ii. Janet Kahalekomo – Kauaÿi iii. Martha Evans – Länaÿi iv. David Keala – Maui v. Anita Arce – Molokaÿi vi. Ulu Kanahele – Niÿihau vii. Wayne Panoke – Oÿahu c. OHA – Reshela DuPuis d. Kupuna – Aunty Betty Jenkins e. Opio f. Makua- Makua 3. Lui to chair ad-hoc group to revise membership/devise transition plan. 4. Molokai – Moke Kim - announced that Flame Dart-Makahanaloa is new Molokaÿi IC Chair. Moke will provide Secretary with names of new officers. 5. Elections – after much discussion, it was determined by the Chair that elections will be held off until the next meeting that will be held on October 4 after the “big tent” meeting.

Meeting was adjourned at 2:16 pm with a pule by Aunty Janet.

Respectfully submitted,

Sherlyn Franklin Goo

Native Hawaiian Education Council

Executive Council Meeting Wednesday, September 6, 2006 NHEC Office – Dillingham Transportation Building

MINUTES

Call To Order: The meeting was called to order at 10:15 a.m. by President Maggie Hanohano

Attendance: In attendance were the following Executive Committee Members and Staff:

Maggie Hanohano, Chairman Paula DeMorales, Vice Chairman Colin Kippen, Executive Director Heather Kina, Office Manager Erika Rosa, Fiscal Officer

Priority Setting Events • Draft Agendas for the events were made • Facilitator and Consultant availability/bids/resumes were reviewed • Island Councils should be contacted on dates for their event • Invites went out to all past/present/new grantees. Need to invite Na Lau Lama heads and Assn. of Hawaiian Civic Club heads.

WIPCE Report • Final draft almost done but want to include Keiki’s Kauhale Matrix. Called her to get approval for public use, etc. Will need electronic version and her written approval for use. • Keiki approved use of Matrix and will email file.

Hawaiian School vs A School for Hawaiians: Kauhale Matrix • Discussed various uses

NIEA Convention • Requesting Attendees o State Council – Betty Jenkins(?), Keiki Kawaiaea, Paula DeMorales, Maggie Hanohano o Hawai‘i Island – Kaiulani Pahio, Mike Ikeda, Cathy Arnold o Läna‘i Island – Pam Alconcel o Kaua‘i Island – Pumehana Anakalea o O‘ahu Island – 0 o Maui Island – 0 o Ni‘ihau Island – 0 o Moloka‘i Island – 0 • Next Steps o Set conference call meeting o Kauhale Matrix feed back as an NHEC task / report back requirement

Data Contract • Using our existing data, contract data people to review, consolidate, research – common measurements, check accuracy and record updates, etc.

Website Miner

735 Bishop Street, Suite 218 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Phone: 808-523-6432 Fax: 808-523-6464 9/6/06, Executive Council Meeting • Job description reviewed • Goal: To engage our website audience on a pathway to finding information on NH education. To increase awareness of NHEC’s usefulness. • Suggestion: Hire temp. part timer, offer $16 an hour

Membership / Elections • Assessment of Membership: Call / send a letter to ask for participation to those members who are not in compliance with our ByLaws • Officer responsibilities and qualifications • Current Membership Structure doesn’t work, doesn’t fit. We should be looking at what it is we want to become and where we want to go. o Suggestion: A consultant to restructure our membership o Committee was formulated

Upcoming Meetings: • Castle Foundation / Center on the Family – Program Evaluations

DRAFT AGENDA Priority Setting Events

Pre-event Meetings: 9/18(Marina), 9/21(Marina / DD), 9/22(Marina / DD) Introductions: Who we are, what we do as NHEC. Who they are, what they do.

Topic: Indicators Each Cluster chooses 5 of the 7 NHEC indicators. Are these indicators something that you use or can live with? Talk about it. Additions will be secondary.

Topic: Data. Introduce accountability. Outputs are collected, not outcomes.

Topic: October 4th & 5th event and needs. Each Cluster needs to select own facilitator and recorder among the group. ‘Contracted’ Facilitator will keep clusters on track. ‘Contracted’ Facilitator will do a conference call with cluster facilitators and recorders in preparation of the 4th.

(Needs: ‘Contracted’ Facilitator & Recorder for each cluster meeting. Conference Call date and time for each cluster of the (5) clusters)

October 4th(Marina): Protocol: Kupuna

Opening: Paula DeMorales

Panel of Futurist: DJ Mailer, Pat Hamamoto (video), David McClain (video), Robert Witt, Carl Takamura, Mitch D’Olier, Kaipo Lum

Breakout Groups: Agree or disagree with the picture? How do your programs, as a cluster, meet the futurists’ picture for Hawaiians? What do you presently do, what do you want to do? Plot brand new Priorities? Plot sub-priorities using existing priorities?

(Needs: Pre-selected Cluster Facilitator and Recorder for each breakout group with ‘Contracted’ Facilitator to keep breakout groups on track.)

October 5th(Marina): Presentation: Jennifer Sabas – Accountablity and measurement ??Presentation Follow up: Shawn Kanaiaupuni - measurement

Panel: Reflections on Priorities

Discussion: Priorities

Islands: 10/13, 10/16, 10/17, 10/18, 10/19, 10/20