State of Hawai‘i Perkins V State Plan

Public Comment

The Hawai‘i Career Pathway System provides lifelong learning and training for employment towards self-sufficiency and well-being as part of a competitively skilled workforce for employers and a thriving, sustainable Hawai‘i. A critical component of the Hawai‘i Career Pathway System is a system of career and technical education (CTE) whose purpose is to provide high-quality grades 6-16 formal learning experiences paired with work-based learning experiences that provide all learners the knowledge, skills, and competencies to full participate in, contribute to, and benefit from Hawai‘i’s economy and our communities. The CTE programs and programs of study (POS) designed and offered by the Hawai‘i Department of Education (HIDOE) and the University of Hawai‘i Community College System (UHCCS) serve as the core of the educational programming component of the CTE system and the larger Hawai‘i Career Pathway System.

The Perkins V State Plan includes strategies and activities to strengthen the state’s CTE system and system capacities to continually and systematically improve, innovate, and transform Hawai‘i’s CTE programs/POS in grades 6-14 that ensure systemic and equitable access and outcomes for all learners in in-demand, high-skill, high-wage career pathways.

Please read the full Hawai‘i Perkins V State Plan Draft documentation (PDF) and comment below. If you would rather comment in person, please see the Perkins Meeting Schedule for your area (PDF).

View public comments
Fill out my online form.

Public Comments


Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

I commend the State CTE Office for recognizing Perkins V is a special opportunity to rethink how Hawaii approaches our CTE and career pathways programs. The focus on improving the coordination of systems, sectors, and agencies is critical. At the same time, this coordination is highly complex, requiring a deep level of trust and shared accountability across partners. With this in mind, I felt the draft state plan to be lacking in key details around execution with important areas, including: page 11 “(Page 11) The HI-OSDCTE, together with the HIDOE and UHCCS, will employ a monitoring, evaluation, and feedback system to inform how well CTE programs/POS are being delivered to students across the state consistent with the size, scope, and quality criteria;” “(Page 14) The HI-OSDCTE developed a data dashboard application, in partnership with Nepris, that displays CTE program/POS participation and outcomes data at the statewide level and at the individual program delivery levels” and “(Page 17) occupations identified by the State Workforce Development Board or the county-level workforce development boards using valid and reliable LMI.” I would encourage the State CTE Office to strengthen these areas by adding in additional clarity and supporting details.

While the plan references “high-skill, high-wage, or in- demand industry sectors,” I find it disappointing to not see computer science directly referenced in the plan. Cybersecurity is referenced, but computer science is becoming foundational across multiple career pathways that broader integration seems beneficial. In fact, computer science courses should be offered in both CTE and non-CTE academic programs and dual-coded appropriately, and these courses should be used to meet a state’s graduation requirements for both CTE programs and academic core subjects. Computer science courses should be available to all high school students whether or not they are CTE pathway completers. Dual-coded computer science courses should be eligible for Perkins funding. The courses can be taught by CTE and non-CTE certified teachers who are prepared to teach computer science. States should clarify that one of the Advanced Placement (AP) Computer Science (either AP CS Principles or AP CS A) exams can substitute for an end-of-pathway industry certification, as well as an early college credit option.

Given the mindset shift intended by this plan, I would urge the State CTE Office to consider how bold, out-of-the-box approaches might be addressed. This includes rethinking our current system of hiring and compensating CTE teachers. Rather than a traditional model that relies on expensive professional development for educators, hybrid models that bring industry professionals into the classroom as co-teachers, such as Microsoft’s TEALS program, could be more efficient and effective. Rather than being volunteers, these industry professionals would be fairly compensated for their time. Similarly, much of the collaboration of the draft Perkins V plan is centered around the public University of Hawaii system. How might private Hawaii universities, mainland universities, or private boot camp models help to complement or supplement the work identified in the plan? Such an “unbundled” set of partners may provide the flexibility needed to realize the goals of this plan.

Mahalo again for your hard work on this plan and the opportunity to provide public comments.

David Miyashiro - Feb 9, 2020

While it is great that the plan recognizes the need for "qualified" CTE teachers, there does not seem to be a comprehensive approach to addressing this problem, especially at the secondary level. Professional development alone will not sufficiently address the number of CTE teachers needed, the quality of the teachers, and the assurance that current CTE teachers are in tune with the changes in the various industries.

The plan emphasizes the robustness of CTEs programs/POS, development of CTE programs/POS to address local needs, and continuous improvement. Much emphasis is placed on the "what" but the plan does not have clear measures of growth or success to drive these improvements. The Local Application plan seems to be an inadequate tool to be the driver of the change described.

As far as size, scope and quality, the descriptions sound like what the community would like to see in quality CTE programs; however, most of it does not seem like goals the HIDOE can actually achieve. For example, "adequate classroom and lab facilities--consistent with building industry standards for the types of spaces and activities--accessible by all students and large enough to support program enrollments" sounds great, but can the HIDOE afford to have these types of facilities for all programs in all pathways in schools on all islands to allow equitable access to all students? Even having instructors who are trained to industry standards would be very difficult for the HIDOE. The HIDOE cannot even find qualified CTE teachers and are covering the CTE courses with academic teachers. For scope, who determines the "coherent design, delivery, and support of components of CTE programs?" Will the criteria be consistent across programs? Who will set up the "systematic professional development activities" and what are the measures that will ensure the effectiveness and impact on student learning? For quality, the proposals sound more theoretical. Not sure that these will actually drive improvement. What will be the consequence, if any, for not accomplishing the goals?

Feb 4, 2020

The Hawaii Perkins V Plan focuses more on the organizational structure. Not enough emphasis is on ensuring quality programs. Having set committees and levels of "approval" will not ensure quality. It just seems like more bureaucracy. Further, the fluid creation of pathway advisory councils ensures "buy in" and support from business and industry for educational initiatives. Having these groups form around common interest would probably be more effective. More progressive thinking needs to go into this structure to have it make a difference.

The term "concentrator" is used throughout the document; however, it is not clear what exactly a concentrator is. The definition of a concentrator in the Perkins Law mentions "offer a sequence of courses", in the Hawaii plan the term "sequence" shows up in the braided graphic, but no where else. What is the vision of the concentrator? Cannot see the definition not being a sequence, or progression of courses; otherwise, it will impact the accountability for the use of funds.

The school/university recipients have not been accountable for outcomes or fiscal expenditures. The monitoring process and expectations for specific outcomes should be identified in the plan to ensure transparency and to ensure the public funds are being spent wisely. Further, OSDCTE monitoring the use of funds and the achievement of outcomes is like the fox guarding the hen house. Monitoring for appropriateness of expenditures and achievement of outcomes should be done by an external auditor--for that the plan needs clear descriptions of desired outcomes.

It is also unclear how in demand, high skill, and high wage will be defined. If not defined carefully, there will be no focus for the program expenditures/support.

Finally, the feasibility and equity should be considered. The plan seems to place priority on large schools instead of with special populations in rural communities.

Jan 23, 2020
  1. Adding more committees, meetings and decision-making at the “Eligible Agency” administrative level (OSDCTE) by creating a Policy Subcommittee, a Sectors and Pathways Program Quality Subcommittee, a Human Capital Subcommittee and a Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement Subcommittee will stall innovation, changes, and improvements because the scheduling and amount of meetings needed for subcommittees to make decisions will be inefficient. Having the eligible recipients (HIDOE and UHCCS) within their own organization handle the implementation of the goals and guidelines aligned to the State Plan would be more efficient for innovation and changes to impact quality improvements.
  2. Currently, HIDOE and UHCCS career pathway/CTE programs is NOT seamless and aligned to each other. It would seem rather difficult for advisory councils to meet when career pathways and programs in CTE are not the same for each eligible recipient.
  3. On page 14 in the State Plan Draft the data dashboard application should be with the partnership of NAPE or does Nepris also have a data dashboard that subrecipients will be using for participation and outcomes data?
  4. Please define exactly what is high-skill, high-wage, and in-demand so it’s clear in designing, integrating, and delivering of career pathways/CTE programs/POS scope components to be critical to the learning activities. Especially in Hawaii where there is not an abundance of industries and the cost of living is one of the worst in America. How do we define as high-wage and in-demand?

    As industry wants employees that have professional skills (not just employability skills) beyond just entry level skills. Employers are seeking employees who can keep and advance in jobs/careers not just employability or technical skills, they want people with professional skills. To produce a better workforce and equity for all students the State of Hawaii should focus on professional skills within the context of careers opportunities. Professional skills will make students become trainable, adaptive, flexible, problem solvers, critical thinkers and life-long learners. It comes down to the teaching and learning in CTE classrooms that are relevant and rigorous. Increasing career pathways and CTE program/POS is not the key factor that will ultimately improve our workforce and equity for future workers.
  5. Lastly, the State Plan for Perkins V for Hawaii should include guidelines for eligible recipients and subrecipients to easily understand the mandates of the Perkins V Law. The documents seem to be mostly in application format to the US Secretary of Education. In past, Perkins State Plans had a large portion of the State Plan dedicated to guidelines. It assisted in assuring compliance to the Perkins law based upon the State of Hawaii determinations for implementation. The State Plan was a significant factor to communicate the permissible and non-permissible expenditures for Perkins fund use for the State. Right now, without the Perkins use guidelines it seems too subjective and allows HI-OSDCTE to determine what should be UHCCS and HIDOE decisions. The State Plan, as written, seems to lack transparency.
Jan 23, 2020