DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
DRAFT
TEC
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
Ka Piÿina
A Proposal For a New Education Workforce
Framework
Ka Piÿina represents the continuing gentle climb, ascent or rise to excellence—both in education and educators
September 1, 2009
SY 2009-2010 Pilot Version
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
Version 12
DRAFT
DRAFT
Contents
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Section
TEC
Topic
Page
1. Executive Overview
Overview of Framework Recommendations
5
2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview
Project Mission and Objectives
8
3. KS Education Workforce
Framework Strategy
Proposed Education Workforce Framework Strategy including Mission, Objectives and
Design Principles
16
4. Career Opportunities
Component or Blueprint
Design for career opportunity including career paths for education workforce
34
5. Performance Management and
Evaluation Component or
Blueprint
Design for performance management and evaluation
67
6. Professional Growth and
Renewal Component or
Blueprint
Design for professional development to support performance management and career
opportunity
85
7. Compensation and Reward
Component or Blueprint
Design for compensation and rewards (including cash and non-cash elements)
91
Version 12
2
DRAFT
Contents (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Section
TEC
Topic
Page
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness
Assessment
Assessment of readiness for transition to the new framework focused on:
1. External Market Salary Competitiveness (External Scan)
2. Employee Climate (Internal Scan)
3. Current Employee Demography (Internal Scan)
109
9. Formative and Summative
Evaluation
Evaluation of the new Educational Workforce Framework:
1. Formative – Is it operating as intended?
2. Summative – Are we seeing improvements in system goal
achievement (including student learning) as a result of the
Framework?
140
10. Pilot Work Plan
Detailed work plan for piloting and transition from current systems,
including communication plan.
148
11. Financial Analysis
Current “AS IS” and Cost/Benefit Forecast
178
12. Summary and Next Steps
High level summary of key framework concepts and next project steps to be
completed.
185
Version 12
3
Appendices
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT

TEC










DRAFT
Appendix A – Administrative and Management Career Family Evaluation Rubrics
National Staff Development Council (NSDC)
Appendix B – Danielson Framework Evaluation Rubrics
Appendix C – Performance Evaluation Process
Appendix D – Professional Development and Use of My Learning Plan Process
Appendix E – Ka Piÿina Work Plan – Mind Map
Appendix F – High Level Pilot Work Plan and Related Cost Estimates
Appendix G – KS Organizational Competencies
Appendix H – Modified Danielson Evaluation Rubrics for Educational Support Career Family
Appendix I - Draft Integrated Evaluation Rubrics with Nä Honua Mauli Ola and Christian Values
 I-1: Administration and Management Career Family (NSDC)
 I-2: Faculty Career Family (Danielson)
 I-3: Education Support Career Family (Danielson)
 I-4: Counselors (Danielson)
 I-5: Library Media Specialists (Danielson)
 I-6: Administration and Management Career Family (Interstate School Leadership Licensing Consortium-ISLLC)
Appendix J – Ka Pi`ina Pilot Position Classifications
Appendix K – Classroom Assessment and Scoring System (CLASS) Overview
Version 12
4
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
DRAFT
TEC
1. Executive Overview
Version 12
5
1. Executive Overview
DRAFT
Kamehameha Schools’ Education Workforce Framework
This proposal is the work of the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team (CPT) and recommends the implementation of a new Education Workforce Framework. The new
framework aims to increase and strengthen the capacity of its education workforce while recognizing existing and supporting future, more effective levels of individual
professional growth, performance, skills, attributes and contributions which ultimately result in improved student learning.
The framework is comprised of four components or blueprints:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
1. Transparent career paths and opportunities that provide career progression and professional growth with both explicit and implicit leadership roles and
functions such as coach and mentor;
TEC
2. An enhanced performance management and evaluation system that focuses on continuous development of key organizational and professional core
competencies with an appreciation for and sensitivity to both Hawaiian cultural and Christian values;
3. An enhanced professional growth and renewal program that links directly to career opportunities and performance management and evaluation while
supporting the identification and use of daily professional growth and renewal opportunities; and
4. An integrated compensation program that will align and reward the effective delivery of educational programs and services which leads both an increase in
the number of native Hawaiians served and improvements in student learning.
The Ka Piÿina CPT recommends that these four framework components be piloted for at least a year before further implementation considerations are made. The
following report provides detailed blueprints for each framework component, a detailed pilot work plan and detailed forecasts of the costs and benefits associated with
an initial pilot, implementation and evaluation of the pilot and framework.
Version 12
6
Current Challenges…Leading to the Education Case for Change
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
In the Profession
– Declining supply of teachers (e.g., K-12, early childhood, locally and nationally)
– Single salary schedules based on credentials and longevity (vs. performance)
– No differentiation for subject, grade, student profile, geography, etc.
– A changing environment, greater expectations for both teachers (e.g., NCLB) and student achievement
– In the State, there are limited early childhood education career tracks
– Generational differences exist between leaders, administrators and teachers
– Widening student profile diversity
– Limited opportunities for graduate and post-graduate early childhood education
At KS
–
–
–
–
–
Mid-way (2008-2009) in the strategic plan horizon (2000-2015)
Three years into the Education Strategic Plan horizon (2005-
Organization wide Climate Survey feedback re: Accountability and Communication
Shifting role of educators beyond instruction, multiple foci
• Native Hawaiian cultural integration
• Standards-based instruction
• Integration of instructional technology
• Broader diversity of student needs
Emerging and maturing system support processes
• No structured, concerted, planful, integrated approach to develop staff in a variety of leadership roles - mentors, supporters, collaborators, leaders, etc.
• No succession planning efforts or passing on and sharing of experiences;
• Unclear career mobility
• No systemic performance review and training framework or approaches
• Concentrated depth of experiences and profiles in geographic and programmatic areas
Because of these challenges, Kamehameha Schools embarked on a system-wide effort to institutionalize workforce capacity building.
TEC
Version 12
7
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
DRAFT
TEC
2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview
Version 12
8
2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview
DRAFT
The following information about the Ka Piÿina effort is provided from the initial project charter with updates:
Project Identification
Project Name
Ka Piÿina: Education Workforce Capacity Building
Executive Sponsor
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Dr. Rod Chamberlain, Vice President, Campus Strategies (CS)
TEC
Project Owners
Dr. Mike Chun, President & Headmaster, KS-Kapalama (KSK)
Dr. Stan Fortuna, Headmaster, KS-Hawaii (KSH)
Lee Ann De Lima, Headmaster, KS-Maui (KSM)
Chris Pating, Vice President, Strategic Planning & Implementation
Terry Lock, Director, Community Based Early Childhood Education (CBECE)
Phyllis Unebasami, Director, Literacy Instruction and Support (LIS)
Dr. Juvenna Chang, Director, Extension Education Services (EES) (until 6/30/08)
Anthony “Tony” LeBron, Director, Extension Education Services (EES) (effective SY 08-09)
Shawn Kanaiaupuni, Director, Public Education Support (PEdS)
Terry Kelly, Director of Program Support Division (PSD)
Nolan Malone, Director, Research and Evaluation (R & E)
Janet Na, Director, Strategic Planning & Implementation Reporting (SPI&R)
Janis Kane, Director, Human Resources (HR)
Project Manager
Sylvia Hussey, Vice President, Educational Support Services (ESS)
Version 12
9
2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview (Continued)
DRAFT
Project Identification
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Core Project Team* School Year 2007 – 2008
TEC
Roy Alameida – KSH Hawaiian History Teacher (until 6/30/08)
Rhonda Alexander-Monkres – KSM Human Resources Manager (until 6/30/09)
John Colson – KSH Middle School Principal (until 6/30/08)
Mark Ewald – KSK High School Math Teacher
Andrea Hajek – KSM High School Spanish Teacher**
Rick Heyd – KSK High School Social Studies Teacher
Denise Johnson – CBECE Regional Coordinator East Hawaii (until 6/30/08)
Ronnie Kopp – KSK Elementary Vice Principal**
Anthony “Tony” LeBron – EES, K Scholars Program Director; EES Director (effective SY 08-09)
Miki Maeshiro – LIS, Resource Teacher
Laura Noguchi – KSK High School Speech Department Chair**
Laurie Seto – KSK Middle School Curriculum Coordinator**
Kalani Wong – KSM Chaplain
* Supported by Consultants: Alan Yue and Sandy Miyasato of Resources Global Professionals, Honolulu, Hawaii and Marc J. Wallace, Jr., Ltd of Teacher
Excellence Through Compensation (TEC), Lake Bluff, Illinois.
** Pilot Support Team member effective 7/1/09 to 6/30/10.
Version 12
10
2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview (Continued)
DRAFT
Project Identification
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
New Team Members Added During School Year 2008-2009
TEC
Michelle Barte – EES, Assistant Director, K-Scholars
Wendell Davis – KSH Chaplain
Deidre Harris – CBECE Project Manager **
Karen Hayashida – KSH Human Resources Manager (until 6/30/09)
Liana Honda – KSH Elementary Teacher
Alt Kagesa – KS Human Resources, Staff Development Manager (until 6/30/09)
Lois Nishikawa – KSM Middle School Principal
Elaine Nuÿuhiwa – KSK Executive Administrator
Edwin Otani – CS, Professional Development Coordinator
Brandy Sato – KSK Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment Director
Bill Speck – Research & Evaluation
Michelle Yoshida – KS Human Resources, Compensation Manager (until 12/31/08)
New Team Members Added During School Year 2009-2010
Kamuela Binkie, KSM Outreach Director**
BJ Mau, HR, Project Manager
Darrell Kim, Educational Technology Services (ETS), Senior Analyst
** Pilot Support Team member effective 7/1/09 to 6/30/10.
Version 12
11
2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview (Continued)
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Kamehameha Schools (KS) is a statewide independent education system that provides direct service educational opportunities to approximately 1,500 pre-school students at
over 30 statewide sites and 5,400 K-12 students on three campuses. In addition to these 6,900 PreK-12 students, during fiscal year ending June 30, 2008, Kamehameha Schools
provided more than 1,000 preschool scholarships, delivered literacy instruction and other services through educational collaborations, reached over 7,000 students through inschool, intersession and summer programs, awarded over $14 million to over 2,000 students for post-high education and helped to support 3,300 students in Hawaiian-focused
charter schools. Founded by the will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, a descendant of Hawaiian royalty and the great-granddaughter of Kamehameha I, KS’ mission is to fulfill Pauahi’s
desire to create educational opportunities in perpetuity to improve the capability and well-being of people of Hawaiian ancestry.
TEC
To deliver these services and programs, there are over 1,300 full time and part time and 1,400 temporary KS statewide education positions including, classroom teachers and
instructors, counselors, curriculum coordinators, administrators, managers and directors, education and library assistants, student activities coordinators, librarians, program
specialists, instructional technology support, resource teachers, trainers, substitutes, co-curricular staff, etc., that deliver and support education services. These positions constitute
KS’ primary education work force whose responsibility is to implement educational strategies toward the mission of KS.
Beginning in 2004, KS’ Education Group began to work on further articulating the education strategies of the overall KS Strategic Plan which spans the years 2000-2015. The
purpose of the resultant Kamehameha Schools’ Education Strategic Plan (ESP) is “to articulate an integrated strategic focus to enhance and sustain positive educational
outcomes for greater numbers of Native Hawaiian children, with a specific emphasis on young learners (ages 0-8) within the State of Hawai`i over the next 5 to 10 years.
The objective of the Education Strategic Plan is to increase the capability and well being of the Native Hawaiian people by creating long-term intergenerational change via
education.” The completion of the ESP in June 2005 helped to focus and channel the collective attention and commitment of the Education Group units (campus-based and
community-based) toward a common strategic purpose—creating intergenerational change. Since the ESP’s approval, the Education Group initiated and completed a number of
activities to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and support for ESP actions, including completion of and/or substantial progress toward integrated program planning, tactical
plan development, organizational function alignment, collaboration establishment, student learning standards development, curriculum mapping, technology systems
implementation and increased operational efficiency and effectiveness. The creation of a framework to support efforts to more effectively recruit, retain and reward a qualified
education work force is a logical ‘next step’.
Version 12
12
2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview (Continued)
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
In prior years, individual education units, system-wide, used separate and often disparate recruiting, programming, faculty support, professional development, performance
review and compensation practices. During the 2005-2006 school year KS looked at all the different education workforce roles and recognized a need to be more intentional in
support and growth of educators. During the 2006-2007 school year, an organization-wide climate survey highlighted the topics of accountability and constructive feedback. In
addition to the survey, a small group of administrators reviewed KS’ many teacher performance review processes affirming that there indeed existed separate, disparate and
inconsistent practices throughout the KS educational system—from campuses to pre-schools to community-based programs. In addition, this small group discovered significant
dissatisfaction with these different practices.
TEC
Through a series of initial KS education leadership focus groups in the fall of 2007, several topics were discussed including: 1) the current “AS IS” environment and state of the
KS’ education work force capacity; 2) the desired future or “TO BE” state of the work force as it related to mindsets, skills, competencies and abilities; and 3) the related challenges,
strategies, activities and resources needed to address the gap between the existing “AS IS” state and the desired “TO BE” state of KS’ education work force.
The results of these conversations indicated that because KS’ ESP is so mission critical, its education work force is large, distributed and varied and the current education
environment is increasingly demanding, capacity building work is necessary now. The development of a new, integrated education workforce capacity building framework and
model requires the alignment of a variety of elements including skills, attributes, merit, performance, compensation, succession, progression, career opportunities, leadership, core
competencies, student growth and achievement, mentorship, professional development, and a system-wide, aligned faculty performance review process. The discussion of merit
pay or pay for performance (e.g., P4P) was held among KS education leadership and is a part of the general education profession ‘conversation’, therefore, the framework would
include merit pay and pay for performance discussions, but these topics would not be the sole focus or reason for a new framework. The capacity building framework needed to
be comprehensive and congruent in order to more specifically, intentionally and effectively address all of the elements needed to build KS’ education capacity.
Version 12
13
2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview (Continued)
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Four Education Workforce Framework components or blueprints were developed and are presented in this proposal:
TEC
1.
Career Opportunities – Defining career path opportunities
2.
Performance Management and Evaluation – Defining expected core organizational, professional and functional competencies and describing its
related levels of evaluated performance as a basis for professional and career development and rewards
3.
Professional Growth and Renewal – Defining the processes, including those embedded in the job, that will be employed to support and develop
core organizational, professional and functional competencies at each career level
4.
Compensation and Rewards – Defining the rewards that will be in place to encourage, support and reward career growth and performance among
the education workforce
In addition, the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team developed recommendations for piloting and implementing the four blueprints as well as a financial cost and benefit
forecast regarding the proposals. These are also presented in this document:
1.
A Work Plan for Piloting – laying out the steps for conducting pre-pilot preparation activities in SY 2008-2009 and piloting three integrated strands
over the next school year (SY 2009-2010)
a.
Career Opportunity and Performance Management and Evaluation Strand – during which new career paths and performance
assessment and management procedures will be identified, tested and refined
b.
Professional Growth and Renewal Strand – during which existing and new professional growth and renewal opportunities and
processes will be identified, tested and refined as derived from career opportunity choices and performance management and evaluation
tools
c.
Compensation and Rewards Strand – during which new salary schedules, pay incentives, and non-cash rewards which are triggered by
the actions in the previous two strands will be modeled and reviewed
Version 12
14
2. Ka Piÿina Project Overview (Continued)
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
2. A Financial Forecast – Projecting costs and benefits associated with implementing the new Educational Workforce Framework based on
variables and assumptions
a. Costs associated with the pilot (SY 2009-2010) and its related strands
b. Costs of the new framework over the next 5 to 10 years compared with the forecasted costs of current compensation schedules
c. Positive features of the new Education Workforce Framework.
TEC
Version 12
15
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
DRAFT
TEC
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy
Version 12
16
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy
DRAFT
The foundation of the newly drafted Education Workforce Framework links strategically to KS’ mission as follows:
Mission
Create educational opportunities, in perpetuity, to improve the capability and
well-being of people of Hawaiian ancestry.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Extend and
improve the
reach
TEC
1
Increase the number of Hawaiian
learners served
Constituent-Focused
Strengthen the
organization
2
Improve student learning
Operational Management
Regulatory & Societal
7
Be the best managed
organization in non-profits/
education institutions
4
Be a trusting, ethical and
accountable organization
14
Be the education foundation of
choice in the state of Hawaiÿi for
Native Hawaiians
10
Effect sustainability concepts into
the facilities of the organization
5
Mitigate high risk areas within the
organization
3
Strengthen the people
8
Be a leader in the use of
technology in the workplace
9
Practice ÿIke and Nohona Hawaiÿi
11
Maximize endowment return
12
Maximize financial assets
13
Optimize land assets
6
Organize a strong Hawaiian lahui
to improve the well-being of Hawaiians
and protect Hawaiian assets
Strengthen the
people
Strengthen the
endowment
Version 12
17
DRAFT
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
After the launch of Ka Pi`ina as a project (in October 2007), an organization-wide effort, identified as the Total Rewards project and led by Human Resources, began. Like
Ka Piÿina, the Total Rewards project also sought to find ways to “strengthen the people”. The organization-wide Total Rewards project is now known as Lawena Ulu Pono
referring to the actions and choices that enhance growth an achievement and bring satisfaction throughout the life cycle of an employee. It also refers to the many benefits
and wealth of resources afforded to the employees that ensure their growth and achievement throughout their employment with KS.
TEC
The overall organizational HR strategy is defined by three key pillars:
1. Workforce Planning – Anticipating and planning for future staffing needs throughout the organization;
2. Talent Management – Ensuring that people resources are deployed appropriately, developed for future assignments, and meet organizational goals;
3. Leadership Development - The strength of the organization is anchored in leadership excellence, needing effective leaders and clear opportunities to identify
and develop leaders.
As illustrated on the next page, Business strategy drives the Human Resources’ strategy which prioritizes the employee experience. The employee experience enables the
Human Resources strategy which allows KS to execute mission aligned plans and strategies. The whole system is intended to support both the extension and improvement
of the reach to Native Hawaiians and the improvement in Native Hawaiian student learning.
The Human Resources’ strategy prioritizes the Employee experience in the following five areas or elements: attract, develop, engage, achieve and reward.
Page 20 provides a comparative of elements between the Lawena Ulu Pono organization wide project and Ka Pi`ina.
Version 12
18
DRAFT
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
Fulfilling our Mission
External factors (e.g., economics, technology, demogaphic) influence
Total Rewards Project
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Business Strategy
TEC
Drives
Total RewardsHR
Project
Strategy
Prioritizes
The Employee
Experience
KS Strategic Plan
Workforce Planning
Education Strategic Plan
Financial Strategic Plan
Attract
Develop
Talent Management
Engage
Group specific strategic
or tactical plans
Leadership Development
Unit specific
Operational plans
Achieve
Enables
Executes
Reward
19
Version 12
19
DRAFT
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Comparative Elements of the Projects
TEC
Lawena Ulu Pono
Ka Pi`ina
Attract
Attract and recruit talent
Attract and recruit talent
Develop
Career ladders/paths
Professional development
Career opportunities
Professional growth and renewal
Engage
Engage our employees
Engage our employees
Achieve
Performance mgmt
Annual and mid year
Performance mgmt
Annual and mid year
Reward
Base pay
Some incentive pay
Pay for performance
Base Pay, stipends
Incentive or variable pay
Pay for performance
Recruit
Retain
Reward
Version 12
20
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
TEC
Kamehameha Schools is an educational
institution that was begun through the will
of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, a devout believer
in Jesus Christ and a faithful leader of her
Hawaiian people. Throughout her life, Ke
Ali`i Pauahi exemplified Christian and
Hawaiian values. The thirteenth and
fourteenth articles of her will describes her
desire to have the trustees and teachers be
persons of the Protestant religion. Her
charge was to have students that would be
educated in “morals and in such useful
knowledge as may tend to make good and
industrious men and women.”
Education
(Philosophy of Education)
Ka Pi`ina, the KS Education
Workforce Framework Strategy is
supported and framed within the
context of three fundamental and
foundational elements and the
related supporting documents—
Christian Values (Spiritual Guiding
Principles), Hawaiian Culture (Lahui
Vision) and Education (Philosophy
of Education).
Christian Values
(Spiritual Guiding Principles)
DRAFT
ÿO ke kahua ma mua, ma hope ke kükulu.
[The foundation comes first and then the
building. Learn all you can, then practice.]
The belief statements of the Philosophy of
Education that follow are inspired by the
example of Ke Aliÿi Pauahi and are based on
sound educational principles. In a fashion
similar to what the ÿÖlelo Noÿeau above
suggests, the philosophy provides the
foundation upon which Kamehameha Schools
builds its educational practices as we
implement the Strategic Plan.
Hawaiian Culture
(Lähui Vision)
We are devoted to a successful and vibrant future for Native Hawaiians. We seek to improve the
capability and well-being of people of Hawaiian ancestry through education. Our vision, therefore, is to
empower Native Hawaiians in ways that ensure the vibrancy of Hawaiian society in perpetuity.
Version 12
21
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
DRAFT
“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a
future.” (Jeremiah 29:11)
Spiritual Guiding Principles
1. There is only one God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We will worship God alone.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
(Exodus 20:3-6)
TEC
2. We embrace the Bible as the inspired, authoritative witness to the Word of God, and a guide for life’s experiences.
(2 Timothy 3:16)
3. Prayer is the essential link of communication from mankind to God. (Ephesians 6:18)
4. All we do is dependent upon the aid of our Heavenly Father. (Psalm 62:5-8)
5. Our lives in word, thought and action should be Christ-like. Our heart, mind, attitude and behavior should reflect His love, understanding and compassion. (Galatians
5:6)
6. Demonstration of a positive spirit is renewing, refreshing and vital for a positive educational experience.
(Philippians 2:14-16)
7. With Jesus Christ as our role model, we demonstrate servant leadership with respect and humility.
(John 13:17)
Version 12
Shared with the Core Project Team by Kahu Kalani Wong on behalf of nä Kahu
(Tri-Campus Kahu)
22
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
DRAFT
He Nu’ukia Lähui Hawai‘i
A Native Hawaiian Vision
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
As a vibrant Hawaiian Society, that includes all people who share and actively support this vision, we…
TEC
1. Live in a spiritual world of great richness and complexity.
2. Demonstrate the kuleana to mälama ‘äina for Ka Pae ‘Äina ‘o Hawai‘i and support other efforts throughout the Pacific region
and the larger global community.
3. Are supported by ‘ohana that are nurtured by and contribute to a larger community network.
4. Are committed to ensuring the health and well-being of nä känaka, ka ‘ohana, ke kaiaulu, ka lähui, and kö Hawai‘i Pae ‘Äina.
5. Express ourselves in our ‘ölelo makuahine.
6. Foster various behaviors, practices, and perspectives consistent with and contributing to a Hawaiian worldview.
7. Convey our own histories in our own voices.
8. Express ourselves through our artistic traditions.
This vision assumes that our vibrant future
9. Reflect our ancestral heritage daily.
includes Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians.
10. Are creative, innovative, and firmly rooted in tradition.
Together, we share responsibility to improve
11. Lead and control our own governance and institutions.
the well-being of Native Hawaiians. Native
12. Facilitate learning that enables the highest levels of human achievement.
Hawaiians have distinct kuleana in this
society which derives from their ancestral
heritage and the adverse circumstances of
history. Hence, throughout this document,
the term “our” reflects the voice of Native
Hawaiians and their particular kuleana.
“Our” further reflects the critical
involvement of non-Hawaiians in
forwarding this vision and participating in its
realization.
Shared with the Core Project Team by Ho`okahua, Hawaiian Cultural
Development Office, subsequently adopted by the CEO Team
Version 12
23
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
DRAFT
Kamehameha Schools’ Philosophy of Education
In order to support our education mission, KS adopted the following as its Philosophy of Education. It should be treated as a guide for the design of any
organizational system including the Education Workforce Framework. The design principles to follow in the next section reflect this philosophy:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Kamehameha Schools’ Philosophy of Education
TEC
ÿÖlelo Noÿeau: Hawaiian Proverbs and
Poetical Sayings #2459
Mary Kawena Pukuÿi
ÿO ke kahua ma mua, ma hope ke kükulu.
The foundation comes first and then the building.
Kamehameha Schools Philosophy of
Education
The belief statements of the Philosophy of Education that follow are inspired by the
example of Ke Aliÿi Pauahi and are based on sound educational principles. In a fashion
similar to what the ÿÖlelo Noÿeau above suggests, the philosophy provides the
foundation upon which Kamehameha Schools builds its educational practices as we
implement the Strategic Plan.
We believe that Kamehameha Schools as a
Hawaiian institution and its learners have a
responsibility to practice and perpetuate
ÿIke Hawaiÿi as a source of strength and
resilience for the future.
Therefore, Kamehameha Schools will:
 foster pride in the Hawaiian culture, language, history and traditions that serves
as its foundation.
 integrate ÿIke Hawaiÿi into its educational programs and services.
 strengthen the relationship and the responsibility of its learners to the ÿäina, its
resources and traditions.
Learn all you can, then practice.
Version 12
24
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Kamehameha Schools’ Philosophy of Education (continued)
TEC
We believe that every learner possesses a
unique combination of talents, abilities,
interests and needs and that each is able
to achieve higher levels of excellence.
Therefore, Kamehameha Schools will:
 acknowledge the uniqueness of each learner.
 assist each learner in achieving core understandings and skills.
 offer enrichment opportunities to encourage each learner to develop
individual talents and interests.
 strive to be available and affordable to encourage broad participation of
the learning community.
We believe that the earliest years of a
child's life are the most critical to
development and set the stage for future
learning.
Therefore, Kamehameha Schools will assist by providing early childhood
educational services that support families as the primary educators of their children
We believe that positive and nurturing
relationships are an essential foundation
of learning.
Therefore,
 all members of the Kamehameha community that includes learners, staff,
families and alumni are role models and will demonstrate attitudes and
behaviors consistent with Hawaiian culture and Christian values.
 all will develop and support positive connections and interactions with
learners.
Version 12
25
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Kamehameha Schools’ Philosophy of Education (continued)
TEC
We believe that all learners create
meaning by building on prior
knowledge, actively using their
learning in personally relevant ways
and contributing positively to the
global community.
Therefore, Kamehameha Schools programs will:
 support the learning process through a diverse and integrated
curriculum and a range of services that are enhanced by the use of
relevant technologies, real-life connections, and authentic
experiences.
 encourage learners to use their learning in service to their ‘ohana, the
community and the world.
We believe that the quality of
instruction is enhanced by
collaboration, professional
development and the application of
research based practices.
Therefore,
 Kamehameha Schools will:
-- provide time and resources for professional development and
collaboration.
-- support and engage in research and evaluation activities to
improve the quality and effectiveness of education
-- extend professional development opportunities to its learning
communities.
Each member of the learning community will commit to ongoing
Version 12development and collaboration to optimize learner success
professional
26
DRAFT
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Kamehameha Schools’ Philosophy of Education (continued)
TEC
We believe that education is enhanced
by involvement of the learner and all
members of the learner’s community.
Therefore, Kamehameha Schools programs will:
 provide opportunities for learners to share in and assume greater
responsibility for their own development.
 promote the active involvement of families.
 encourage open communication and seek input from those impacted.
We believe that the effectiveness of our
institution in meeting its mission is
enhanced by collaboration and
partnerships.
Therefore, Kamehameha Schools will:
 recognize and encourage the good works of other programs and
institutions.
 contribute to building a network of services to meet the life-long
educational needs of Hawaiians.
Version 12
27
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
DRAFT
Design Principles
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
In order for the new Education Workforce Framework to achieve its goal of strengthening the people it must conform to recognized design principles. These principles are
drawn directly from a number of sources (e.g., mission, vision, values, etc.), including a consideration of KS’ Philosophy of Education. They are also the product of
experience and empirical research on those designs and practices that maximize student learning. The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team developed and adapted them from the
various research activities conducted over the past year. We recommend that the following principles be used for two purposes: (1) as guides for developing and piloting
blueprints for each of the four framework components and (2) as standards against which to evaluate and improve each component over time.
TEC
Framework Component #1: Career Opportunities
Kamehameha Schools’ provides career opportunities for all to:
1. Grow professionally via a variety of strategies.
A. Career/ladder growth across/between programs.
2. Seek and qualify for leadership opportunities.
A. Create opportunities to take on leadership roles while continuing in current role (e.g. teacher leaders, mentoring).
B. Increased levels of leadership (e.g., administration, teacher leadership, informal and formal opportunities).
3. Encourage ‘risk taking’ without being penalized (e.g., creation of internal internships, return rights).
4. Consider multiple career opportunities and paths.
A. Within career ladder (vertical)
B. In a specialized role (e.g. project work, subject matter expert, mentor, coach)
C. Across a variety of education units (horizontal)
Version 12
28
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
DRAFT
Framework Component #2: Performance Management and Evaluation
Kamehameha Schools’ performance management and evaluation process:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
1.
TEC
Is used to:
A. Improve quality of instruction, achievement and services;
B. Direct its work force by communicating the unit’s objectives;
C. Measure professional growth and staff development;
D. Measure the implementation of program curriculum;
E. Implement cascaded and joint goals;
F. Determine, measure and document satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance;
G. Measure the level of performance of all personnel.
2.
Is meaningful and manageable when:
A. The process is fair to everyone;
B. There is understanding and buy-in from both the evaluator and staff member;
C. Evaluations are conducted by trained evaluators;
D. The process is helpful, welcomed and valued.
3.
Captures all relevant dimensions of performance including:
A. Multiple foci on aspects and elements of the staff member’s performance (e.g., holistic approach);
B. An express commitment to supporting individual performance and growth;
C. Student learning and growth considerations;
D. Collaborative efforts and supports;
E. KS’ organization wide competencies; and
F. An integration of Hawaiian cultural and Christian values and practices.
Version 12
29
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
DRAFT
Framework Component #2: Performance Management and Evaluation (continued)
Kamehameha Schools’ performance management and evaluation process:
4. Provides multiple facets and methods for providing feedback, which may include, but not be limited to: observation (e.g., live and video), portfolio
presentation, conversation, reflection, feedback from peers, supervisor, stakeholders (e.g., parents, students, etc.), mentors, direct reports and everyone (e.g., 360
degree).
5. Links to multiple career growth opportunities
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
A. Supports growth in knowledge and skill
TEC
B. Recognizes added responsibilities
C. Links to best practices
D. Supports student learning
6. Drives the professional growth and renewal process.
A. Includes support for improvement (e.g., personal professional development plan)
B. Includes mentoring as a critical component
Version 12
30
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
DRAFT
Framework Component #3: Professional Growth and Renewal
Kamehameha Schools’ professional growth and renewal program:
1. Supports workforce capacity building through:
A. Cascaded links (e.g., mission, strategic plan, education strategic plan, campus, department).
B. Demonstrated commitment to individual professional growth, including a recognition of different career levels.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
C. Development and support of a multi-faceted workforce (e.g., depth and breadth of expertise).
TEC
D. Resources that are adequate and effective.
E. A meaningful and manageable process.
F. Active engagement in a professional learning community.
G. A combination of job embedded and beyond the work day activities as a part of the role and responsibilities of all staff members.
H. Positive impacts on student learning and outcomes.
2. Is meaningful and manageable.
A. Use of system-wide available tools (e.g., Success Factors, Blackboard, My Learning Plan).
B. Use of common processes.
3. Integrates with the performance evaluation process and provides career opportunities.
A. Driven by the performance evaluation process (e.g., personal professional growth and renewal plan).
B. Provides additional career opportunities (e.g., trainer, facilitator, teacher, leader, lead, special projects).
C. Supports professional recognition through certification, licensing, publication, industry and community leadership.
Version 12
31
DRAFT
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy (Continued)
Framework Component #3: Professional Growth and Renewal(continued)
Kamehameha Schools’ professional growth and renewal program:
4. Supports integrated `ike and nohona Hawaii activities (e.g., huaka`i, lokahi wheel, ho`oponopono)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
5. Supports a variety of opportunities, strategies, tools and mechanisms to enable effective professional
growth and renewal.
TEC
Version 12
32
3. KS Education Workforce Framework Strategy
(Continued)
DRAFT
Framework Component #4: Compensation and Rewards
Kamehameha Schools’ compensation and reward program:
1. Is transparent and clear to understand.
2. Recognizes demonstrated cultural, indigenous knowledge and skill.
3. Supports a competitive base salary/benefits package.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
A. Maintains competitive compensation packages.
TEC
B. Allows a steady, reliable lifestyle with options for increases.
C. Provides a foundation for incentive or variable pay opportunities.
D. Focuses on more effective and efficient recruitment and retention strategies.
4. Rewards improvements in staff performance, process efficiencies, process and program effectiveness, career growth and student learning objectives
and outcomes, considering:
A. A wide range of job roles and responsibilities.
B. An integrated approach to recruiting and rewarding.
5. Provides a variety of options for compensation.
A. Cafeteria menu of benefits-choices.
B. Cash and non-cash considerations (e.g., alternate work year, flex time, etc.).
C. Acknowledge “extra” expertise that is voluntarily shared (i.e., coaching, mentoring).
D. Formal recognition of excellence.
Version 12
33
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
DRAFT
TEC
4. Career Opportunities Component or Blueprint*
* Something resembling a blueprint (as in serving as a model or providing guidance) ; especially : a detailed plan or program
of action <a blueprint for victory>
Version 12
34
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint
The Education Workforce Framework – Three Career Families
For the sake of design and analysis, the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team (CPT) identified three groupings or “career families” within the education workforce:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Career Family Description
TEC
Position Title Examples
Administration and Management
Principal, Assistant Principal, Director, Assistant Director, Curriculum Coordinator, Manager,
Education Coordinator, Assistant Educational Coordinator
Faculty
Teacher, Librarian, Counselor, Literacy Resource Teacher, Program Specialist, Instructional
Specialist
Educational Support
Library Assistant, Teaching Assistant, Computer Lab Coordinator, Science Lab Assistant, Literacy
Support Specialist
Positions grouped into each career family share common general competencies, external labor markets, advancement methodologies, and career paths. For a
complete list of positions in the education workforce, refer to Appendix J.
Four Education Workforce Framework Components
Four framework components, comprising a workforce framework to strengthen the people in these families, are illustrated by the figure on the next slide.
Version 12
35
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT
Three Education Workforce Career Families
Administration and
Management
Faculty
Education Support
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Four Education Workforce Framework Components or Blueprints
TEC
1
Career Opportunities
2
Performance Management and Evaluation
3
Professional Growth and Renewal
4
Compensation and Rewards
Version 12
36
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
The first Education Workforce Framework blueprint outlines career opportunities for the three career families. The blueprint defines career advancement as growth in a
professional career by increasing both breadth and depth of skill with related compensation and rewards. KS will provide resources for exploring and implementing best
practices and encourage staff involvement in such activities as professional advancement and leadership roles. Staff routinely will engage in defining their career paths by
setting and fulfilling realistic, professional goals towards improving student learning and personal professional growth and renewal. The purpose of the blueprint is to
define explicit and progressive career levels or stages for staff members. The emphasis in design is to provide both depth and breadth in the progression of a career at KS
as illustrated in the following chart:
TEC
Depth of
Competency or Professional Levels
Description of Breadth and Versatility
Opportunities
Depth
Teacher, Administrator, Mentor,
Evaluator, Trainer, Facilitator, Department
Head, Project or Initiative Participant
Advanced Professional
Career Professional
Professional
Entry
Breadth
Breadth/Versatility
Depth and breadth are achieved by providing staff members in each education workforce career family opportunities to grow through advancement within the occupation
and/or taking on roles that create opportunities to exercise breadth and versatility skills.
Version 12
37
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
The following illustration shows how career opportunities might operate for the education families:
Career Level
Career
Family Track
Faculty*
Administration and
Management Track
Primary Track
Role/Specialist Track
(Curriculum, Instruction, and
Assessment)
(Research, Projects,
Internships)
Master
Leader
(organization, internal and
external)
Advanced Professional
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
(approx 7+ years)
TEC
Career Professional
(approx 5+ years)
Professional
(approx 3 to 5 years)
Entry
(approx 0 to 3 years)
Mentor
Division Director
Principal
Curriculum
Program Director
Vice Principal
Internships
Educator/ Faculty Leader
(unit level)
Education Support
Supervisor, Specialist,
Coordinator, Facilitator
Teacher, Librarian, Counselor, Literacy Resource Teacher,
Program Specialist
Technician, Designer
Teacher, Librarian, Counselor, Literacy Resource Teacher,
Program Specialist
Assistant, Aide
Internships Leading to a Career in Education
Career opportunities for all three career families are arranged in a career path that encourages development through all four career levels of the profession. For example, the Entry and
Professional levels in the Faculty family supports a primary focus on curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Beyond these levels, however, a number of alternative career path
opportunities arise including continuing in the classroom (Primary Track), growing into a specialist and taking on a Role/Specialist Track to include a broader scope of participation
outside of the classroom or making a career move into administration (Administration and Management Track).
* See additional descriptors on the next slide.
Version 12
38
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
Career Level
Faculty
Primary Track
(Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment)
Role/Specialist Track
(Research, Projects,
Internships)
Advanced Professional
(approx 7+ years)
Approximately 20% in the classroom with students
Approximately 80% working with adults
Master
Examples: Analyzes data, creates an academic achievement
plan, designs and delivers professional growth and renewal
activities, leads and/or supports Mentor Teacher in
professional learning communities (PLC), provides
instructional coaching, team teaches, identifies researchbased instructional strategies, contributes to evaluation
process of other teachers, engages in direct support of new
teachers, supports mentor teachers.
Leader
Examples: Participates in organization wide projects,
contributes to industry-related mission-aligned
initiatives, organizes presentations and/or academic
contributions, represents KS with local organizations
(e.g., Hawaii Association of Independent Schools [HAIS],
National Association of Independent Schools [NAIS],
Native Hawaiian Education Council (NHEA), University
of Hawaii (UH), Native Hawaiian Chamber of
Commerce).
Career Professional
(approx 5+ years)
Approximately 20% working with adults
Approximately 80% in the classroom with students
Mentor
Examples: Analyzes data, works with Master teacher to
implement academic achievement plan, leads PLC meetings
with oversight and support from Master educator, coaches
mentees and provides feedback on instructional practices
of other educators
Educator/ Faculty Leader
(unit level)
Examples: Participates or leads unit level project,
represents the unit in organization wide initiatives.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Career Family
and Track
TEC
Version 12
39
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT
Faculty: Primary Track
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
What are the responsibilities of mentor and master educators? What are the differences between the two positions?
TEC
Master teachers function in a unique manner relative to the traditional teacher. Their primary role is, with the principal and/or curriculum coordinator, to analyze student
data and create and institute an academic achievement plan (curriculum, instruction, and assessment) for the school. Master teachers lead cluster groups (i.e., a
professional learning community) and provide demonstration lessons, coaching and team teaching to career teachers. They also spend, on average, two hours per day
teaching students. Master teachers collaborate to identify research-based instructional strategies to share with career teachers during cluster group meetings. They
contribute to the evaluation process of other teachers by reviewing goals, bodies of evidence, and conducting formal classroom observations. Master teachers may
also partner with the principal in sharing some of the responsibility of interacting with parents. Master teachers are actively involved in enhancing/supporting the
teaching experience of entry level teachers. Master teachers engage in direct support of new teachers (New Teacher Support Program).
Mentor teachers, through the leadership team, participate in analyzing student data and creating the schools' academic achievement plan. With oversight and support from
the master teacher, they lead cluster meetings, and as a result, mentor teachers also provide classroom-based follow-up and extensive feedback on the instructional
practices of entry and professional level teachers. Planning for instruction is in partnership with other mentor teachers and entry/professional teachers, with the input
and guidance of the master teacher. Mentor teachers are required to engage in professional development activities that are both self- and team-directed.
Adapted from Teacher Advancement Program: Teacher Evaluation and Performance Award.
Version 12
40
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
Career Family: Administration and Management
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Career opportunities in this career family are arranged in a career path that encourages development through four levels (Entry, Professional, Career Professional and
Advanced Professional). Each level requires progressive levels of administrative practice with movement through the levels in most cases by promotion to a new position
(e.g. Manager to Director, Vice Principal to Principal). Breadth and depth in an administrative and management career will be achieved through a series of assignments and
promotions requiring progressive experience and growth in related competencies.
TEC
Organization wide competencies (refer to Appendix G) refers to the following six competencies:
1. ACCOUNTABILITY - Takes responsibility for decision making and accomplishing objectives.
2. CHANGE EFFECTIVENESS - Readily adjusts to and embraces changes to meet organizational needs and/or conditions.
3. COLLABORATION AND TEAMWORK - Works cooperatively and collaboratively with others throughout the organization in alignment with the organization's
objectives.
4. COMMUNICATION - Interacts effectively and persuasively with others in the workplace to solicit and share both written and verbal information, and generate
commitment.
5. HAWAIIAN CULTURAL COMMITMENT - Demonstrates cultural commitment by learning, promoting, and
modeling, ‘Ike and Nohona Hawai`i.
6. INNOVATION - Identifies and integrates creative ideas into new or existing products/services and promotes effective problem-solving
Career Level
Advanced Professional
Positions
Qualifications
Refer to the tables on the following pages
Illustrative Org-Wide Competencies
Refer to Appendix G
Career Professional
Professional
Entry
Version 12
41
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
Career Level
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Advanced
Professional
TEC
Position Titles
This career level is not assigned based upon
position. See qualifications below for placement at
this level.




Qualifications
Advanced degree (Masters or
Doctorate), preferably within related
field or educational degree as
determined by job description or
equivalent indigenous education or
professional standing within the
field or combination of education
and experience to meet position
expectations.
Approximately 7-10+ years of
progressive, related experience.
Demonstrated leadership and
outstanding organizational skills to
direct and manage multiple tasks
and meeting competing deadlines.
Outstanding problem-solving skills
to identify and resolve existing orVersion 12
potential problems.
Qualifications






Experience with managing,
supervising and developing large,
complex organizations, systems and
resources (both financial and
human).
Some form of mastery as evidenced
by certification such as NBCT, HAIS,
DOE or comparable indigenous
education credentials.
Completed KS internal (yet to be
developed) Level IV supervisory &
leadership academy courses.
Ability to collect, analyze, synthesize
& use data to impact student
outcomes.
Excellent interpersonal (e.g.,
communication, counseling,
motivation, development,
mentoring, support), writing and
change management skills.
Leads by example of creating and
maintaining a positive, challenging,
productive and supportive work
environment.
Illustrative Org-Wide
Competencies
Refer to Appendix G
42
•
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
Career Level
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Career
Professional
TEC
Position Titles
Qualifications
This career level is not assigned based upon position.
See qualifications below for placement at this level.

Qualifications





Advanced degree (Masters or
Doctorate), preferably within related
field or educational degree as
determined by job description or
equivalent indigenous education or
professional standing within the field
or combination of education and
experience to meet position
expectations.
Approximately 7-10+ years of
progressive related experience.
Demonstrated leadership and
outstanding organizational skills to
direct and manage multiple tasks and
meeting competing deadlines.
Outstanding problem-solving skills to
identify and resolve existing or
potential problems.
Version 12




Experience with managing,
supervising and developing large,
complex organizations, systems and
resources (both financial and
human).
Some form of mastery as evidenced
by certification such as NBCT, HAIS,
DOE or comparable indigenous
education credentials.
Completed KS internal (yet to be
developed) Level III supervisory &
leadership academy courses.
Ability to collect, analyze, synthesize
& use data to impact student
outcomes.
Excellent interpersonal (e.g.,
communication, counseling,
motivation, development, mentoring,
support), writing and change
management skills.
Leads by example of creating and
maintaining a positive, challenging,
productive and supportive work
environment.
Illustrative Org-Wide
Competencies
Refer to Appendix G
43
•
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
Career Level
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Professional
TEC
Position Titles
Qualifications
The following positions are automatically
assigned at this career level or based on
individual qualifications, can be placed
at a higher career level.

 Principal
 Assistant Principal
 Division Director
Director Program Services
Director Medical Services
Director CBECE
Director Extension Education
Director Literacy
 CBECE Educational Coordinator
 Dean
 Athletic Director
 Academy & Curriculum Coordinator
 Curriculum & Assessment Coordinator
 Curriculum Director
 Director of Curriculum Support & Dissemination
 Director of Instruction
 Director of Boarding







Bachelors degree preferably within related field or
educational degree as determined by job description or
indigenous education equivalent
Approximately 4 to 7+ years of progressive related
experience
Leadership and organizational skills to direct and
manage multiple tasks and meeting competing
deadlines.
Problem-solving skills to identify and resolve existing or
potential problems.
Completed KS internal (yet to be developed) Level II
supervisory & leadership academy courses.
Ability to collect, analyze, synthesize & use data to
impact student outcomes
Demonstrated interpersonal (e.g., communication,
counseling, motivation, development, mentoring,
support), writing and change management skills.
Leads by example of creating and maintaining a
positive, challenging, productive and supportive work
environment.
Illustrative Org-Wide
Competencies
Refer to Appendix G
Version 12
44
•
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
TEC
Career Level
Position Titles
Entry
 Vice Principal
 Asst CBECE Educational
Coordinator
 Asst Director Enrichment
 Associate Athletic Director
 Asst Director of Boarding
 Director of Campus Outreach
 Program Director
Director Enrichment
Director Post High Counseling
Director Kamehameha Scholars
Virtual Strategies & DL Mgr
 Student Activities Coordinator
Qualifications








Bachelor degree preferably within
related field or educational degree as
determined by job description or
equivalent non-western
Up to approximately 3 years of
progress related experience
Completed KS internal (yet to be
developed) Level I supervisory &
leadership academy courses
Leadership and organizational skills to direct and
manage multiple tasks and meeting competing
deadlines.
Problem-solving skills to identify and resolve
existing or potential problems.
Ability to collect, analyze, synthesize & use data to
impact student outcomes
Demonstrated interpersonal (e.g., communication,
counseling, motivation, development, mentoring,
support), writing and change management skills.
Leads by example of creating and maintaining a
positive, challenging, productive and supportive
work environment.
Illustrative Org-Wide
Competencies
Refer to Appendix G
Version 12
45
•
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
Career Level
Advanced Professional
Subject Matter Expert Role/Leadership Role


DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT

TEC


Career Professional





Professional Learning Community Participation
Responsible for division or multiple program

budget creation and maintenance.
Expert with KS policies, procedures and

established laws and ability to promote ethical
conduct & compliance.

Ensure stakeholder understanding through a

variety of methods.
Supervises multiple projects, departments and

staff.

Expert with educational pedagogy and educational
leadership pedagogy.
Responsible for department, division, or multiple 
program budget creation and maintenance.
Proficient with KS policies, procedures and

established laws and ability to promote ethical 
conduct & compliance.
Anticipates stakeholder and public relations issues.
Supervised and evaluated 2 or more staff
Proficient up to date, research based pedagogy.
Version 12

Leads, designs, develops & implements long-range plans
for team.
Provides structured instructional interventions and
monitors progress.
Facilitates team meetings.
Leads in unit, regional, school, tri-campus &/or systemwide projects or initiatives.
Provide peer assistance & coaching & mentoring
Develops, implements, and monitors the professional
growth and renewal strategies for unit/division and
individuals.
Contributes to design, develop & implement long-range
plans for team.
Leads team meetings.
Involved each year in leadership as evidenced by any or
all of the following:
 Leads meetings.
 Leadership role in multiple and varied aspects of
school/educational setting life.
 Participation and/or leadership in unit, regional,
school, tri-campus &/or system-wide projects or
initiatives.
Implements and monitors the professional development
strategies for unit/division and individuals.
46
•
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
Career Level
Professional
Subject Matter Expert Role/Leadership Role


DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT



Entry
TEC






Responsible for department budget creation 
and maintenance.

Knowledgeable with KS policies, procedures
and established laws and ability to promote
ethical conduct & compliance.

Responds to stakeholder and public relations
issues.
Supervised and evaluated 2 or more staff
Practices up to date, research based
pedagogy.
Limited budget exposure, may have had

oversight of department.
Seek kökua through internal and external
resources to adhere to KS policies,

procedures and established laws and ability
to practice ethical conduct & compliance.
Limited knowledge of school governance i.e.
health, safety, welfare of student, faculty,
staff, parent community.
Responds to stakeholder and public relations
issues.
Occasional supervision of staff and
evaluation.
Familiar with up to date, research based
pedagogy.
Professional Learning Community Participation
Implements long-range plans for team.
Participation and/or leadership in unit, regional,
school, tri-campus &/or system-wide projects or
initiatives.
Implements the professional development
strategies for unit/division and individuals.
Participation and/or leadership in unit, regional,
school, tri-campus &/or system-wide projects or
initiatives.
Demonstrates understanding of the professional
development strategies for unit/division and
individuals.
Version 12
47
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT
Career Family: Administration and Management
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Administrators with less than 3 years of experience would be hired at the Entry level. It is expected that Administrators would advance to the Professional level. Selected
Administrator positions have been recommended for placement at the Professional level. These positions require that all Professional level criteria are met and are not
eligible to start at the entry level. This aligns with the minimum qualifications within the career family description for these positions.
TEC
KS’ existing SR schedule will be maintained because this affirms the KS pay philosophy to assign appropriate pay based on market benchmarks and internal equity. KS
conducts salary market surveys every three years to validate or adjust the position grade level placement within the SR schedule. Each benchmarked position is assigned
to a grade to reflect market pay and internal equity. Non-benchmarked positions assigned to grades by Kamehameha are based upon internal equity. Job descriptions are
reviewed to ensure each position was fairly evaluated based on the nature of the work performed. New hires or KS transfers to a new position at a different grade level
will be placed within the grade level range based on the following and assigned an annual salary.
Hiring rates are largely driven by the incumbent’s credentials relative to the position’s minimum requirements and internal policy guidelines. Market data may indirectly
influence where a starting salary is set if there is evidence to suggest that the lower portion of the range is not as competitive as needed to recruit desired talent, then
individual will be placed in a Ka Pi`ina career level. Ultimately, only staff who are consistently exceptional performers, should occupy the upper zone of a grade range.
Initial career level placement will be affirmed or adjusted after one year performance period.
Version 12
48
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
Career Family: Administration and Management
.
Hiring in the middle of the range should be
for those who are fully competent in the
job; demonstrated skills, knowledge and
expertise to handle all aspects of the job
effectively
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Hiring in the lower portion of the range
should typically occur when the
incumbent meets the minimum
qualifications and expected to perform the
basic duties and responsibilities of the job
TEC
10% Below Midpoint
10% Above Midpoint
Market Zone
Developing Zone
$37,500
$31,700
Entry Level
Hiring in the upper portion of the range
should be limited to highly qualified
incumbents that demonstrate specialized
skills, knowledge and expertise that far
exceed normal expectations
$40,400
Professional Level
$43,300
Career Level
$49,100
Advanced Level
Market 50th percentile
Version 12
49
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT
Career Family: Administration and Management
.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
The following are recommended “rules of the road” proposed by the Core Project Team for Administrators advancing from one career level to the next in the new career
opportunity model:
TEC
1. Staff member submits official request to move career levels at beginning of work year (no later than Aug 15) to supervisor. This will place staff member
under “full review” for the upcoming performance year.
2. Supervisor & staff member will develop and agree on measurements to be met during the career level movement year which include appropriate rubric
level and list of career level qualifications. Rubric will be measured based on current Success Factors rating. Career level qualifications will not be rated on
Success Factors, they will be in the Success Factors goal box and either rated as met or did not meet.
3. At end of the evaluation year, if staff member and supervisor disagree on career level movement decision then the opportunity will exist to submit review
by an appeal panel (details to be developed). Make up of the appeal panel will include one administrator, one faculty member, one education support
member, and a Human Resources representative.
4. We recommend provisions that would allow KS to place an Administrator coming to KS from outside of KS into the appropriate Career Level (Entry,
Professional, Career Professional, Advanced Professional) on a probationary basis, based on an initial evaluation at the time of hire. A full evaluation would
be made of the Administrator during the first year to confirm the initial placement.
5. Advancement for Administrators from Entry to other career levels will be based on assessment of performance and competency in the following areas:
KS Organization-wide competencies (e.g., Accountability, Change Effectiveness)
3 Domains (e.g., Context, Process, Content) of the National Staff Development Council developed rubric
Other supervisor/evaluator determined elements
Version 12
50
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT
Career Family: Administration and Management
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
.
A detailed matrix providing thumbnail definitions of administrative and management competencies within the three domains of each of the career levels is provided in
Appendix A to this proposal. It is contemplated that this work will be supplemented and infused with a Hawaiian world view and synchronized with any Kula Hawaii
activities.
TEC
Because advancement is performance based, there is no recommended minimum or maximum number of months or years that an Administrator should stay at one level
or another. However, based on experience, spending at least three years at one level before advancing to another level of administration and management increases the
opportunities for success because of the foundation of experiences acquired by the Administrator.
If someone within KS system transfers (not new hire) into the Administration track, an opportunity to return to the previous position, is proposed for consideration (e.g.,
one year return option to same position).
Version 12
51
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
Career Family: Administration and Management
.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
One Grade Promoted
Two Grades Promoted (Rare)
Career Level Change
TEC
Developing Zone
6%
10%
10-12%
Position in New Range Prior to Increase
Market Zone
3%
5%
10-12%
Premium Zone
0 - 2%
0 - 2%
10-12%
• General principles:
 Promotional increases are aligned with progressions between grades and drive appropriate pay positioning
within the new range.
 Pay following a promotion should be in line with salaries for employees already in the job and comparative to
what a new hire would be offered.
 Ideally, a promotional increase will result in pay consistent with the developing zone of the range.
 Pay at or above the market zone for a recently promoted employee should be an exception.
 One grade promotion, 0-6%
 Two or more grades, 0-10%
• Transfers
 Team members who transfer across positions in the same role and in the same geographic structure typically are
not eligible for increase; however, if Kamehameha asks them to transfer or if the move increases skill breadth, they
may be eligible for a 4% increase.
• Demotions
 Demotions include moves due to reorganization and involuntary or voluntary changes in job
 Team members who move from one position to a different position in a lower grade will have their pay reduced to the
maximum of the new range (if needed).
Version 12
52
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
Career Family: Faculty
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
The career opportunities for faculty also call for four career levels beginning with Entry. Entry is proposed to be considered an “up or out” level in that all faculty would be
expected to spend no more than three years at this level. A faculty member who could not qualify for promotion to the next level from Entry would not be retained and
counseled to seek another career opportunity. While this type of “no-experience” direct hire from college does occur at KS, this is the exception at this point, rather than the
rule. Given the industry challenges to recruit and hire qualified and effective teachers, the Core Project Team anticipates that KS will seek other sources (other than the
traditional colleges of Education) to recruit and hire.
TEC
Career Level
Advanced Professional
Approximately 20% in
the classroom with
students
Approximately 80%
working with adults
Instructional Practice
Danielson Distinguished
Professional Learning Community Participation








Develops long-range plans for teams.
Provides instructional interventions.
Leads team initiatives, activities and meetings.
Participates and/or leads unit, regional, school, tri-campus &/or system-wide
projects, initiatives or activities.
Team teaches w/ colleagues.
Demonstrates, models lessons and/or trains.
Develops and helps to implement curriculum or instructional strategies.
Observes & provides peer assistance and coaching as a Master faculty member.
Version 12
53
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
Career Family: Faculty
Career Level
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Career Professional
TEC
Instructional Practice
Professional Learning Community Participation
Danielson Distinguished
Involved each year in leadership as evidenced by any or all of the
following:
 Lead team meetings.
 Promotes culture of professional inquiry, growth and renewal.
 Collaborate with Master or Advanced Professional Faculty
members.
 Leadership role in at least one aspect of school life.
 Participation and/or leadership in unit, regional, school, tricampus &/or system-wide projects or initiatives.
Professional
Danielson Proficient
Actively participates and volunteers making a substantial
contribution; self-directed participation
Entry
Danielson Basic
Induction; may participate as invited to do or required by the unit.
Approximately 80% in the
classroom with students
Approximately 20%
working with adults
Version 12
54
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
Leadership Role
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Advanced
Professional
TEC
Approximately
20% in the
classroom with
students
Approximately
80% working
with adults
 May teach one or two
classes.
 Frequently
contributes as a
resource or support to
administration.
 Represents the unit in
internal or external
activities, including
presentations at
conferences,
committees or
community
organizations and
events.
 Contributes to faculty
evaluations.
Subject Matter Expert Role
Qualifications
 Conducts research that
 Minimum 7 yrs
adds to the original body of
experience
knowledge and evidence
 Masters, Ph.D, or
for the benefit of improving
proof of contribution
student learning.
to profession,
 Disseminates knowledge.
including but not
limited to, research,
 Provides training on subject
publication, post high
matter content, process,
(including university)
strategy, methodology, etc.
teaching,
 Some form of mastery as
presentations,
evidenced by certification
training, community
such as NBCT.
work and/or awards.
 Indigenous credentials,
professional certificate in
the subject area they teach
and how it relates to other
disciplines.
 Apprenticeship
Version with
12
recognized artisan or
ancestral arts
Work Year
Org-Wide
Competencies
Expanded
Work Year
Refer to
Appendix G
55
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
Leadership Role
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Career
Professional
TEC
Approximately
80% in the
classroom with
students
Approximately
20% working
with adults
 Relationships w/
colleagues are
characterized by
mutual support &
cooperation. Faculty
member takes
initiative in assuming
leadership among the
faculty through
mentoring or other
area/unit leadership
(e.g., department,
content area,
geographic area) role.
Subject Matter Expert Role
Qualifications
 Role opportunity as
 Minimum 5 yrs
subject matter expert.
experience
 Some form of mastery as  Bachelors degree + 30
evidenced by certification
credits
such as NBCT.
 Full credentials or
 Indigenous education
alternative certificate or
credentials, professional
advancement process
certificate in the subject
(e.g., hula--> `üniki)
area they teach and how
it relates to other
disciplines.
 Apprenticeship with
recognized artisan or
ancestral arts
 Brings unique life
experiences and skills that
can be integrated and
12
shared in theVersion
KS context
in particular olelo Hawaii
abilities.
Work
Year
Org-Wide
Competen
cies
Regular
Faculty
Work
Year
Refer to
Appendix
G
56
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Professional
TEC
Entry
Leadership Role
Subject Matter Expert
Role
Qualifications
Work
Year
Org-Wide
Competencies
Relationships w/
colleagues are
characterized by mutual
peer supports and
cooperation.
 Some form of mastery
progression as
evidenced by
certification such as
NBCT.
 Non-Western
credentials,
professional certificate
in the subject area they
teach and how it relates
to other disciplines.
 Apprenticeship with
recognized ancestral
artisan and kumu
• Minimum of 3 yrs
experience
• Must have met all entry
level requirements
• Professional
certification
Regular
Faculty
Work
Year
Refer to
Appendix G
Maintains cordial
relationships w/
colleagues to fulfill
duties that are
• Learning from other
 Recent graduate
subject matter experts and  May have degree in
content areas and
subject area
Version 12
contributing where
 No previous teaching
experiences and expertise
experience w/BA
Regular
Faculty
Work
Year
Refer to
Appendix G
57
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
Career Family: Faculty
Advancing in the Faculty Career Path
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
The following are recommended “rules of the road” envisioned by the Core Project Team for faculty advancing from one level to the next in the new
career opportunity model:
TEC
1. Teachers with no previous experience would be hired at the entry level. It is expected that a new teacher would spend at least one year and, at most, three years at
this level. A “fast tracker” could advance after a minimum of one year at Entry. If a teacher could not be promoted from Entry to Career after three years, they
would not be retained and counseled toward another profession or career path. While this type of “no-experience” direct hire does occur at KS, it is the exception
at this point, rather than the rule. Given the industry challenges to recruit and hire qualified and effective teachers, the Core Project Team anticipates that KS will
seek other sources (other than the traditional colleges of Education) to recruit and hire.
2. KS will develop provisions for bringing new faculty and internal transfers with experience into KS career levels above Entry. Such provisions would allow KS to
place new faculty and internal transfers into the appropriate Career Level (Career, Career Professional, Advanced Professional) on a probationary basis, based an
initial evaluation at the time of hire. A full evaluation would be made of the faculty during the first year to confirm the initial placement.
3. It is expected that most teachers will achieve the Career Professional level during their careers at KS. It is not expected that all teachers will choose to achieve the
highest, Advanced Professional, level. This level reflects truly outstanding career achievement. Note: A review of current teacher placements will be a part of a
‘virtual’ pilot exercise and information gathered from the pilot will inform next steps.
Version 12
58
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
Career Family: Faculty
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Advancing in the Faculty Career Path (continued)
TEC
4. Advancement from one career level to the next is proposed to be based on performance and evaluated on several dimensions:
a.
Competencies;
* Organizational core competencies
* Functional competencies
** Instructional practice (defined by the Danielson Framework for Teaching)
** Administrative practice
b.
Achievement of personal professional development goals; and,
c.
Achievement of outcomes including, where appropriate, student learning results.
5. We expect that teachers would spend a minimum of one year and maximum of three years at the Entry Level, a minimum of three years at the Professional Level,
and a minimum of three years at the Career Professional Level. Thus a “fast tracker” could conceivably achieve the Advanced Professional Level in 7 years at KS.
6. Each staff member will have the choice to return to a previous level or role with the appropriate and related role, responsibility and related compensation
adjustments.
Version 12
59
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT
Career Family: Education Support
The roles and responsibilities of Education Support staff are varied throughout KS and can generally be “clustered” into two large categories—instructional and
operational. Education Support staff interact with students in an instructional setting (e.g., classroom, lab, resource centers, aina) and operational setting (e.g.,
playground, dining hall, performances and events).
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
The career opportunities for Education Support staff also calls for four career levels beginning with Entry. Entry would be an “up or out” level in that all Education
Support would be expected to spend no more than three years at this level if their responsibilities include a majority of instructional responsibilities. Staff members who
could not qualify for promotion to the next level from Entry would be counseled to consider other opportunities or focus more on operational activities.
TEC
For the instructional rubric, the Danielson framework domains were reviewed and modified for a more appropriate recognition of the responsibilities of Faculty
members and Education Support staff in the common instructional setting. In addition, rubrics from existing KS evaluation forms and tools with regard to the
performance of operational tasks (e.g., supervision, timeliness, accuracy and quality of work) were incorporated into Domain 1 – Planning and Preparation as it related
to non-instructional or operational responsibilities.
Appendix H provides a more detailed description of instructional and operational support evaluation rubrics as adapted from the Danielson framework.
Version 12
60
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT
Career Family: Education Support
Career Levels
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Advanced Professional
TEC
Instructional and
Operational
Professional Learning Community Participation
Refer to Appendix H for
modified Danielson
evaluation rubrics for
instructional and
operational
responsibilities
Involved each year in leadership as evidenced by any
or all of the following:
• Lead team meetings
• Promote culture of professional inquiry, growth and
renewal
• Leadership role in at least one aspect of school life
• Participation and/or leadership in projects or
initiatives at the Division, community, tri-campus
and/or system-wide level.
Career Professional
Version 12
Involved each year in leadership as evidenced by any
or all of the following:
• Lead team meetings
• Promote culture of professional inquiry, growth and
renewal
• Leadership role in at least one aspect of school life
• Participation and/or leadership in unit level projects
61
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
Career Family: Education Support
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Advanced
Professional
TEC
Approximately
20% in the
classroom with
students
Approximately
80% working
with adults
Leadership Role
Subject Matter Expert
Role
Qualifications
Work
Year
 May work with other
unit leaders on unit
level initiatives.
 Frequently
contributes as a
resource or support to
administration.
 Leads unit level
initiatives.
 Supervises other
support staff,
including
contributions to or
performance of
evaluations.
 Participates in and
contributes to projects
or initiatives that at the
unit level involve a
certain process, practice
or topic.
 Role opportunity as
subject matter expert
 Non-Western
credentials, professional
certificate in the subject
area they support and
how it relates to other
disciplines
 Apprenticeship with
recognized ancestral
artisan and kumu
 Minimum 7 yrs
experience
 Bachelors degree +
additional pertinent
course work or training
 Area related
experience
Extended
Year
Org-Wide
Competencies
Refer to
Appendix G
Version 12
62
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
Career Family: Education Support
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Career
Professional
TEC
Approximately
80% in the
classroom with
students
Approximately
20% working
with adults
Leadership Role
Subject Matter Expert
Role
 Relationships w/
colleagues are
characterized by
mutual support &
cooperation.
 Takes initiative or
accepts assignment of
leadership among
peers and staff.
 Participates in and
contributes to projects
or initiatives that at the
unit level involve a
certain process, practice
or topic.
 Role opportunity as
subject matter expert
 Non-Western
credentials, professional
certificate in the subject
area they support and
how it relates to other
disciplines.
 Apprenticeship with
recognized ancestral
artisan and kumu.
Qualifications
 Minimum 3 yrs
experience
 Bachelors degree
 Area related work
experience
Work
Year
Regular
Faculty
Teacher
Work Year
Org-Wide
Competencies
Refer to
Appendix G
Version 12
63
DRAFT
4. Career Opportunities Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Career Family: Education Support
TEC
Leadership Role
Subject Matter Expert
Role
Qualifications
Work
Year
Org-Wide
Competencies
Professional
Relationships w/ colleagues
are characterized by mutual
support & cooperation
Mastery of their subject
area content or
operational area of
responsibility
• Minimum of 3 yrs
experience
• Must have met all entry
level requirements
• Professional certification
Regular
Faculty
Teacher
Work
Year
Refer to
Appendix G
Entry
Maintains cordial
relationships w/ colleagues
to fulfill duties that the
school requires
No specific area of
expertise expected upon
entry
 Recent graduate
 May have degree in
subject area
 No previous teaching
experience w/BA
 Non-credentialed
Regular
Faculty
Teacher
Work
Year
Refer to
Appendix G
Version 12
64
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT
Career Family: Education Support
Advancing in the Education Support Career Path
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Following are recommended “rules of the road” envisioned by the Core Project Team for Education Support staff advancing from one level to the next in
the new career opportunity model:
TEC
1.
Education Support (ES) personnel with no previous experience would be hired at the entry level. It is expected that a new ES would spend
at least 1 year and, at most, 3 years at this level. A “fast tracker” could promote to Career after a minimum of 1 year at Entry. Staff members
who could not qualify for promotion to the next level from Entry would be counseled to consider other opportunities or focus more on an
operational emphasis unless performance in an operational emphasis is also unsatisfactory.
2.
We will have to develop provisions for bringing new ES personnel with experience into KS career levels above Entry. Such provisions
would allow KS to place a new ES into the appropriate Career Level (Professional, Career Professional or Advanced Professional) on a
probationary basis, based an initial evaluation at the time of hire. A full evaluation would be made of the ES during the first year to confirm
the initial placement.
3.
It is expected that most ES will achieve the Career Professional level during their careers at KS.
Version 12
65
4. Career Opportunity Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT
Career Family: Education Support
Advancing in the Education Support Career Path (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
4.
TEC
Advancement for education support staff from Entry to Advanced Professional will be based on assessment of performance and
competency in the following areas instructional and operational areas:
A. Instructional and Operational Practices
B. Professional Learning Communities Participation
C. Leadership Role
D. Subject Matter Expert Role
E. Work Year
F. KS Organization-wide competencies (refer to Appendix G)
5.
We expect that Education Support personnel would spend a minimum of 1 year and maximum of 3 years at the Entry Level, and a minimum
of 3 years at the Professional Level. Thus a “fast tracker” could conceivably achieve the Career Professional Level in 4 years at KS.
Version 12
66
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
DRAFT
TEC
5. Performance Management and Evaluation
Component or Blueprint
Version 12
67
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint
DRAFT
Performance Management and Evaluation
The second Education Workforce Framework component or blueprint is performance management and evaluation. It is a core KS workforce process that is designed
to support the development and application of the skills and performances we need to maximize student learning. It is not just performance appraisal, but rather an
ongoing process as illustrated below:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Goal Setting
TEC
Formal
Evaluation &
Review
Step 6
Step 1
Step 2
Performance
Management and
Evaluation Cycle
Practice &
Reflection
Step 5
Step 4
Mid Period Checkpoint (including a
Review if appropriate)
Provision of
Supports
Practice &
Reflection
Step 3
Performance Management and
Evaluation Process Supports
Professional Development, Growth and
Renewal Coaching, Mentoring
and Feedback
Version 12
68
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint
(Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Performance Dimensions
Performance management and evaluation at KS will focus on three core dimensions for all educational workforce members and job families:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Competencies
Core & Functional
TEC
Performance Goals/Outcomes
(e.g.,
Related to Student Learning)
Personal and/or Professional
Development Goals
• Functional Competencies for Administrators  Use National Staff Development Council (Refer to Appendix A)
• Functional Competencies for Faculty  Use Danielson (Refer to Appendix B)
• Functional Competencies for Education Support Use Modified Danielson (Refer to Appendix H)
Version 12
69
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint
(Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Summary of Organizational Competencies
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Competency
TEC
Definition
Accountability
Takes responsibility for decision making and accomplishing objectives
Change Effectiveness
Readily adjusts to and embraces changes to meet organizational needs and/or conditions
Collaboration and Teamwork
Works cooperatively and collaboratively with others throughout the organization in alignment with the organization's
objectives
Communication
Interacts effectively and persuasively with others in the workplace to solicit and share both written and verbal information,
and generate commitment
Hawaiian Cultural
Commitment
Demonstrates respect for and appreciation of ÿIke and Nohona Hawaiÿi and understanding of the implications for
Kamehameha Schools and its stakeholders
Innovation
Identifies and integrates creative ideas into new or existing products/services and promotes effective problem-solving
Refer to Appendix G for a copy of the organizational competencies along with the related descriptors. While the organizational competencies are part of the
Education Workforce Framework, piloting these competencies will not be required in SY 09-10 to allow for broader messaging throughout the Education Group.
Version 12
70
Competency
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint
(Cont’d.)
DRAFT
1. ACCOUNTABILITY
Takes responsibility for decision making and accomplishing objectives
 Takes initiative to accomplish tasks and make decisions, using the appropriate resources
 Demonstrates a strong sense of commitment and timeliness in executing on goals and solving problems, while ensuring
quality
 Recognizes linkages between actions and the organizational vision (i.e., line of sight) and uses this knowledge when
making
decisions
SAMPLE
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Non-Exempt
TEC
Exempt/Individual
Contributor
Manager/Supervisor
 Persists to achieve personal and
Director/CEO Team
 Takes personal
 Takes personal responsibility
 Empowers the organization to
responsibility for assigned
tasks, asking for assistance
where needed; prioritizes
and systematically
organizes assigned tasks
while allocating own time
efficiently; takes ownership
of own career by
continuously seeking
opportunities for
development
 Balances a sense of
timeliness with a
commitment to quality while
working to meet goals; asks
for assistance or guidance
when needed
 Gains familiarity with the
organizational vision and
works to understand the
linkage between own
for completing assignments
group objectives, maintaining
and making decisions, using
commitment to goals in the face of
the appropriate resources
obstacles; holds others responsible
 Acts in a timely manner to
for accomplishing their objectives,
solve problems/meet goals in
lending support when needed
the required time frame, which  Commits and delivers on personal
may require action/support
and group goals in a timely manner

outside one’s immediate area;
and with a high standard of quality
ensures quality standards are
by monitoring group progress
met
toward goals and checking for
 Makes decisions while
quality
considering the alignment of
 Ensures that own actions/decisions
actions
with the organizational
and actions/decisions of staff are in

Refer
toDescribed
AppendixatGfour
forlevels
a copy of the organizational
competencies
along with the related
vision
alignment
with the organizational
vision; ensures staff is familiar with
the vision and has clear line of sight
between their daily
actions/decisions and the
organization’s strategic priorities
Version 12
take initiative and follow through
on commitments, emphasizing
that permission is not needed
to do what needs to be done;
holds managers and their staff
accountable for results
Instills a sense of responsibility
throughout the organization for
honoring time commitments in
the achievement of goals and
for ensuring high-quality
standards
Ensures the organizational
vision is communicated; actively
works to create understanding
of and commitment to the vision
throughout the employee
population through talk story
sessions (paleo meetings, town
hall meetings, brown bags,
briefings, etc.)
71
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Performance Dimension Assessment
Performance dimensions assessed for Administration and Management will be defined as follows:
Competencies
KS Organizational Competencies (Refer to Appendix G)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Administrators Rubric (Refer to Appendix A)
TEC
Professional
Development Goals
As documented in My Learning Plan (MLP)
Performance
Goals/Outcomes
Student learning gains, process efficiencies and effectiveness, etc.
Performance dimensions assessed for Faculty (e.g. teachers, librarians and counselors) and Education Support staff will be defined as follows:
Competencies
KS Organizational Competencies (Refer to Appendix G)
Faculty: Danielson Framework’s four dimensions (Refer to Appendix B)
Education Support: Modified Danielson Framework (Refer to Appendix H)
CBECE Teachers and Teaching Assistants: Classroom Assessment and Scoring System (CLASS) (Refer to
Appendix K)
Professional
Development Goals
As documented in either My Learning Plan (MLP) or hard copy HR forms
Performance
Goals/Outcomes
Results – where possible, related to student learning gains
Version 12
72
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint
(Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Performance Assessment Evidence & Tools
Performance assessments in the new framework will be detailed, objective and evidence-based. The plan for faculty, for example, involves an evaluation to be
conducted annually and a full evaluation to be conducted in making the decisions to promote to the next career level or once every five years at a given level –
whichever comes first.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
The artifacts or bodies of evidence to be used in the faculty annual and full evaluations are described on the next page. Similar types of bodies of evidence can be used
by both the Administrator and Management and Education Support career families, ensuring the relevance of the artifacts.
TEC
The Ka Pi`ina framework does not prescribe the quantity or quality of the artifacts. The discussion should be held between the staff member and the
evaluator/supervisor at the beginning of the evaluation period to determine the appropriate number of, types and quality indicators of the artifacts or bodies of
evidence before the evaluation period begins.
The Ka Pi`ina framework does prescribe for the pilot period at least the following three tools that will be used in the Performance Management and Evaluation process:
1. Success Factors – The Core Project Team created a Ka Pi`ina Support Plan to capture the staff member’s goals in the three dimensions noted earlier. This web-
based, hosted application, allows staff members to enter and update their goals as needed and is the same system (different form) in use by other KS staff
members.
2. Blackboard – While in current use at KS as an instructional tool, Blackboard for Ka Pi`ina’s purposes will be used as a repository for storing the artifacts and
bodies of evidence used in evaluation.
3. My Learning Plan – In use by the KS Maui campus for the past five years, this professional development request, approval and recording tool has been rolled out
to the KS Hawai`i campus and in some KS Kapälama campus units. All professional development efforts for the Ka Pi`ina pilot will be recorded in My Learning
Plan.
Version 12
73
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint
(Cont’d.)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Example Artifacts and Bodies of Evidence for
the Portfolio
TEC
Full Evaluation - New (first yr) Faculty, Performance
Improvement Plan, Five-Year or next career level
advancement (learning unit based)
DRAFT
Annual Evaluation
(lesson based)
Samples and analysis of student work
As it relates to the unit
As it relates to the lesson plans of the observation
Capture instructional practice (formal) –
observation, video, combination
Minimum of 2 observations and/or videos (or 1 if using
NBCT)
One (1) live observation
Assessment of student learning
Samples of varied assessment used
Samples of varied assessment used
Resources/handouts
Samples of instructional aids
Samples of instructional aids
Unit lesson plans
An entire unit
One or two lesson plans in support of the
observation taken
Personal staff development plan: Learning goals
(system, campus, department, personal), selfreflection
Refer to existing hard copy forms that vary from educational
site.
Refer to existing hard copy forms that vary from
educational site.
Survey or other 3rd party input: peer, parent,
student input (as developmentally appropriate),
Counselor, Community/Collaborator,
Instructional Specialist, Site-Based Administrator,
Industry Professional, Other Content Instructor,
Community Professional and/or Higher
Education Professional
Survey results or other documents
Survey results or other documents
* Note: The primary reason artifacts are gathered is for evaluation, however, artifacts may
also be used for training, mentoring and coaching purposes with appropriate permission.
Version 12
74
DRAFT
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.)
Recommended Frequency of Checkpoints
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Following is a chart describing the recommended frequency of performance review checkpoints for each education workforce career family and level:
TEC
Administrator
Management
Faculty
Education Support
Advanced Professional
Mid-Year
Advanced Professional
Mid-Year
Advanced Professional
Mid-Year
Career Professional
Mid-Year
Career Professional
Mid-Year
Career Professional
Mid-Year
Professional
Mid-Year
Professional
Mid-Year
Professional
Mid-Year
Entry
No less than 3 times in a year or quarterly
Entry
4 times a year
Entry
4 times a year
Version 12
75
5. Performance Management and Evaluation
Blueprint (Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Performance Evaluation Rubrics
Performance evaluation rubrics were adapted from foundational sources and will need to be tested in the pilot for each education workforce career family. The Core
Project Team’s recommendations for performance rubrics are:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Career Family Description
TEC
Recommended Performance Rubrics in Pilot
Administration and Management
The National Staff Development Council’s (NSDC) developed rubrics including modified
language for KS applicability, see Appendix A
Faculty
Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching, see Appendix B or the Classroom Assessment
Scoring System (CLASS) , see Appendix K for early childhood education educators
Educational Support
Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching, modified for KS applicability, see Appendix H
The following pages provides a high level sample of the individual rubrics and related structure (e.g., domains, components, elements):
1. The domain structure for the NSDC rubric
2. The Danielson Rubric along with a sample of the component and elements. The Framework
assesses faculty on 20 standards within 4 domains of functional, instructional competencies.
3. The CLASS rubric which will be piloted by the Community Based Early Childhood Education (CBECE) unit and provides an overview of the
domain and dimension structure.
Version 12
76
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Performance Evaluation Rubric – Administrator
We recommend using the National Staff Development Council’s rubric for Administrators & Management which contain the following domains—Context, Process and
Content:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Context Domain:
Learning Communities: Staff development that improves the learning of all students organizes adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with those of the
organization.
Leadership: Staff development that improves the learning of all students requires skillful leaders who guide continuous instructional improvement.
Resources: Staff development that improves the learning of all students requires resources to support adult learning and collaboration.
TEC
Hawaiian Cultural Commitment: (Addition made by Ka Pi‘ina working group): Demonstrates cultural commitment by learning, promoting, and modeling, ‘Ike and
Nohona Hawai‘i.
Process Domain:
Data-Driven: Staff Development that improves the learning of all students uses disaggregated student data to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and
help sustain continuous improvement.
Evaluation: Staff Development that improves the learning of all students uses multiple sources of information to guide improvement and demonstrate its impact.
Researched-Based: Staff development that improves the learning of all students prepares educators to apply research to decision making.
Design: Staff development that improves the learning of all students uses learning strategies appropriate to the intended goal.
Learning: Staff Development that improves the learning of all students applies knowledge about human learning and change.
Collaboration: Staff development that improves the learning of all students provides educators with the knowledge and skills to collaborate.
Hawaiian Cultural Commitment: (Addition made by Ka Pi‘ina working group): Demonstrates cultural commitment by learning, promoting, and modeling, ‘Ike and
Nohona Hawai‘i.
Version 12
77
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Performance Evaluation Rubric – Administrator (continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
We recommend using the National Staff Development Council’s rubric for Administrators & Management which contain the following additional domain:
TEC
Content Domain:
Equity: Staff development that improves the learning of all students prepares educators to understand and appreciate all students, create safe, orderly and supportive
learning environments, and hold high expectations for their academic achievement.
Quality Teaching: Staff development that improves the learning of all students deepens educators’ content knowledge, provides them with research-based
instructional strategies to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepares them to use various types of classroom assessments appropriately.
Family Involvement: Staff development that improves the learning of all students provides educators with knowledge and skills to involve families and other
stakeholders appropriately.
Hawaiian Cultural Commitment: (Addition made by Ka Pi‘ina working group): Demonstrates cultural commitment by learning, promoting, and modeling, ‘Ike and
Nohona Hawai‘i.
Version 12
78
5. Performance Management and
Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Performance Evaluation Rubric – Administrator (Continued)
Learning Communities: Organizing adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with the school or
division and system
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Desired Outcomes
TEC
PREPARES TEACHERS/ INSTRUCTORS 
INSTRUCTORS FOR SKILLFUL
SKILLFUL COLLABORATION
Just Beginning
Provides support to learning
learning teams and/or whole
whole school or division
division meetings throughout
throughout the stages of group
of group development by
by supplying a skilled group
group facilitator.
Basic
(Know)

Provides opportunities 
opportunities for team
team leaders to learn
learn about group
group process, group
group dynamics, the
the stages of group
group development, and
development, and group
and group decisiondecision-making.
Schedules multiple
multiple sessions
throughout the year as
year as well as coaching
coaching experiences.
Proficient
(Apply)
Distinguished
(Transfer to others; Committed;
Committed; Passionate)
Provides training and

and support to develop
develop staff members
members to serve as
serve as skilled
facilitators who provide
provide support during
during whole school or
school or division and
division and learning
learning team meetings.
Proficient Outcomes +
Outcomes + Ensures that
Ensures that the role of
role of group facilitator
facilitator becomes the
becomes the
responsibility of everyone
everyone and rotates as
rotates as the skill level of
level of group members
members increases.
SAMPLE
A complete copy of the modified National Staff Development Council rubric is found at Appendix A.
Version 12
79
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Performance Evaluation Rubric – Faculty and Education Support (Continued)
TEC
Adapted from: “Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching”
by Charlotte Danielson, ASCD Pub., 2008
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Domain 1: PLANNING AND PREPARATION
Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
Component 1c: Setting Instructional Outcomes
Component 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction
Component 1f: Designing Student Assessments
Domain 2: THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
Component 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport
Component 2b: Establishing a Culture of Learning
Component 2c: Managing Classroom Procedures
Component 2d: Managing Student Behavior
Component 2e: Organizing Physical Space
Domain 3: INSTRUCTION
Component 3a: Communicating with Students
Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Component 3d: Using Assessment in Instruction
Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
Domain 4: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Component 4a: Reflecting on Teaching
Component 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records
Component 4c: Communicating with Families
Component 4d: Participating in a Professional Community
Component 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally
Component 4f: Showing Professionalism
Version 12
80
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Performance Evaluation Rubric – Faculty and Education Support (continued)
Following is an example of the rubrics for the first of five components of the first domain – Planning & Preparation
DOMAIN 1: PLANNING AND PREPARATION
COMPONENT 1A: DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF CONTENT AND PEDAGOGY
Elements: Knowledge of content and the structure of the discipline • Knowledge of prerequisite relationships • Knowledge of content-related pedagogy
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
L E V E L
TEC
O F
P E R F O R M A N C E
ELEMENT
UNSATISFACTORY
BASIC
PROFICIENT
DISTINGUISHED
Knowledge of content and the
structure of the discipline
In planning and practice, teacher
makes content errors or does not
correct errors made by students.
Teacher is familiar with the important
concepts in the discipline but may
display lack of awareness of how these
concepts relate to one another.
Teacher displays solid knowledge of
the important concepts in the
discipline and how these relate to one
another.
Teacher displays extensive knowledge
of the important concepts in the
discipline and how these relate both to
one another and to other disciplines.
Knowledge of prerequisite
relationships
Teacher’s plans and practice display
little understanding of prerequisite
relationships important to student
learning of the content.
Teacher’s plans and practice indicate
some awareness of prerequisite
relationships, although such
knowledge may be inaccurate or
incomplete.
Teacher’s plans and practice reflect
accurate understanding of prerequisite
relationships among topics and
concepts.
Teacher’s plans and practices reflect
understanding of prerequisite
relationships among topics and
concepts and a link to necessary
cognitive structures by students to
ensure understanding.
Knowledge of content-related
pedagogy
Teacher displays little or no
understanding of the range of
pedagogical approaches suitable to
student learning of the content.
Teacher’s plans and practice reflect a
limited range of pedagogical
approaches or some approaches that
are not suitable to the discipline or to
the students.
Teacher’s plans and practice reflect
familiarity with a wide range of
effective pedagogical approaches in
the discipline.
Teacher’s plans and practice reflect
familiarity with a wide range of
effective pedagogical approaches in
the discipline, anticipating student
misconceptions.
Version 12
A complete copy of the Danielson Framework rubrics is attached as Appendix B at the end of this document.
81
DRAFT
5. Performance Management and Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.)
Performance Evaluation Rubric – CBECE Faculty and CBECE Education Support
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
As work by the Core Project Team (CPT) continued on the Education Workforce Framework, early childhood educators at KS advised the CPT that review work and
preliminary implementation discussions were in progress for the implementation of the Classroom Assessment and Scoring System (CLASS) in CBECE. An example of the
domains and dimensions are noted below and an overview is provided at Appendix K.
TEC
Version 12
Adapted from CLASS Website: http://www.classobservation.com/what/dimensions.php?type=1
5. Performance Management and
Evaluation Blueprint (Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Accountability for Performance Management
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Accountability for performance management will be shared by the employee, peers, and supervisors. We anticipate in the case of faculty, for example, that each
faculty member will actively participate in setting professional development and outcome goals. In addition the faculty member will maintain and contribute
evidence and reflections to portfolios. Identified master teachers and administrators will share accountability to coach and mentor. In addition they will, along with
others, conduct observations and evaluations. Consistent with the design principles stated earlier, multiple ways of gathering and providing feedback for
performance management and evaluation purposes are supported.
TEC
Training
All parties to the performance management process must be trained in the process. We will use the pilot to develop and test all training protocols. Employees will
need training in how to set goals, document performance, and write reflections. Observers will need to be trained in reliable and valid observation techniques. They
will need to calibrate their evaluations with others on the same subject. Master teachers, supervisors and administrators will require training on coaching and
mentoring.
Performance Evaluation Appeals
In the case of dissatisfaction with the performance evaluation result, we envision a progressive process that considers the use of a peer review panel or process.
During the pilot, a Core Project Team sub group will engage pilot participants and other interested staff to design and propose a peer review panel or process
which will provide both professional review opportunities and a mechanism for an evaluation appeal process.
Version 12
83
5. Performance Management and Evaluation
Blueprint (Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Program of Assistance
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
In the case of progressively unsatisfactory performance the following steps are proposed:
TEC

Notify employee in writing of KS’ intent to place a staff member on Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

Formulate PIP before implementation.

Develop PIP cooperatively, seeking the assistance of Human Resources or other supports and the Evaluator’s determination shall prevail.

List specific deficiencies/standards not being met.

State corrective steps to be taken by employee, including appropriate timeframes for the corrective steps.

Document assistance to be offered, provided and/or supplied.

Establish clear measurable/observable assessment techniques to determine employee success.

Provide peer assistance and supports as reasonable and practicable.

Conduct mid-period/plan review conference.

Unsatisfactory improvement may result in a recommendation for the employee to not be retained.

Satisfactory improvement will be noted in the Professional Evaluation

A PIP becomes a permanent part of the employee’s personnel file.
Version 12
84
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
DRAFT
TEC
6. Professional Growth and Renewal Component or Blueprint
Version 12
85
DRAFT
6. Professional Growth and Renewal Blueprint
Professional Growth and Renewal
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Professional Growth and Renewal is the third blueprint in the Education Workforce Framework. It is a core process that allows KS to develop and grow the talent it
will need in it’s strategy to “Strengthen the People”. As indicated in the illustration below, professional growth and renewal consists of many activities, opportunities
and experiences. At the core, however is the time embedded in daily schedules to allow for development. Professional growth and renewal is not “something that
happens” to people periodically – rather it is integrated into the professional practice of education. Professional growth and renewal is also considered a two-way
investment: 1) KS’s investment in a staff member’s skill, ability, personal growth and career; and 2) The staff member’s investment in themselves to enhance effective
professional practices and improvements in student learning, growth and achievement.
TEC
Cohort
Mentor
Groups
Publication
and
Presentation
Research
and
Development
Professional
Learning
Teams
Professional Growth
and Renewal
Expertise
Development
Book
Studies
Peer
Observation
and
Coaching
Conference
Attendance
Professional
Coursework
Version 12
86
6. Professional Growth and Renewal Blueprint
DRAFT
Professional Growth and Renewal Opportunities
The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team developed an initial enumeration of professional development opportunities. The following list notes those
opportunities that already exist as well as those which should be considered in the future:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Current Opportunities (“As Is”)
TEC

















Summer school leadership
Parrent fund (KSK only)
WASC leadership
Teacher exchange
B-credits
Academic club leadership
Support for credit courses, advanced degrees and certifications
Distance learning/classroom
In-service days with national/local consultants
Sabbatical Admin internship
Pre-service teacher supervision
Immersion school teacher
Lead teacher role
Peer observation
National/local conferences & workshops
Intra-inter grade level and department meetings
Candidate support provider services (e.g., NBCT)
Proposed Opportunities (“To Be”-considered)















Job rotation
Internship
Job shadow
K-credits
Peer mentoring
ÿAha Alakaÿi Nä Kumu (academy for KS leader growth)
Teach for America
Community-based mentoring
Land-based, place-based
Professional learning communities
KS partnership with local university to offer degree cohorts for staff
One week paid per year to engage in professional development or
service learning opportunity
Bring continent conference to Hawaiÿi
Sabbatical for administrators & other non-faculty staff
Support for non-exempt staff to attend continent conferences
Version 12
87
6. Professional Growth and Renewal Blueprint
DRAFT
Professional Growth and Renewal Opportunities (Cont’d.)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Current Opportunities (“As Is”)
TEC





















Proposed Opportunities (“To Be”-considered)
Staff development library
Critical friends
Book study
Nohona afternoon classes
ÿIke Hawaiÿi Home Hoÿonaÿauao
Huakaÿi wahi pana field trip to special cultural sites
Nohona Hawaiÿi classroom (elective) & web-based (mandatory)
Koa planting
Online learning – KS & other
Educational organization membership & attendance
Student mentoring
New teacher orientation day
Project-based management work
Professional development as one event that takes place during in-service days
In-service out-sourced
Hawaiian cultural committee
Broker education via UHH courses on specific subject areas
Service learning
Leadership training
Standards-based change process
Team meetings: age group, etc.
Version 12
88
DRAFT
6. Professional Growth and Renewal Blueprint
Embedded Professional Development
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
In addition to formal training off the job, professional development at KS can be embedded as part of every working day. Following is an example of a schedule at the
KSK-Elementary School showing how time is made available outside the classroom for professional learning groups (labeled ‘Release’ time):
TEC
v
v
v
v
v
v
Version 12
89
6. Professional Growth and Renewal Blueprint
DRAFT
Professional Development Process
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
All staff will participate in growth and renewal activities. Some of these sessions are required trainings which take place during the school day, such as planned inservice. Professional growth also includes peer and instructional coaching and collaboration opportunities which extend beyond the school day. As staff grow within
the profession and move further along the Career Levels, additional growth opportunities become available, as listed in the Career Path Model (refer to Chapter 4, page
37).
TEC
Professional development as a process will link directly with Career Opportunities and Performance Management and Evaluation. The resulting professional
development plans will be the source of information putting appropriate professional growth and renewal experience into play for the year. Finally, the resulting list of
professional growth and renewal opportunities will be consulted in finalizing individual professional development plans.
The process is illustrated as follows:
(and improved student learning)
Version 12
90
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards
Component or Blueprint
TEC
Version 12
91
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint
Compensation and Rewards
The fourth blueprint in the Education Workforce Framework component is Compensation and Rewards. It is a core KS process that is designed to support
and reward the development and application of the skills to maximize student learning. We recommend orchestrating three critical elements of
compensation and rewards.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Recognition and
Quality of Work Life
TEC
Most educators associate performance pay
or merit pay with the variable pay
descriptor on page 96 where there is some
Variable
pay at risk. The Core Project Team did look
Pay
at a bonus approach based on a number of
factors, however, the majority of the work
focused on the base salary reward strategy.
Base Salary
Variable Pay
Version 12
92
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT
Base Salary Schedule
The compensation design principles recommended by the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team (CPT) tell us that KS’ base salary program should fulfill the
following requirements:
1. Salary levels must be competitive enough to enable KS to attract new teachers and retain them throughout their careers.
2. Salaries that accelerate career earnings will be a key factor in attracting and retaining education workforce members.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
3. Salary progression should reward career growth and increasing levels of professional practice.
TEC
Ka Piÿina recommends that KS adopt a salary schedule for each Education Workforce Career Family that has salary levels throughout that are competitive with
external markets and that bases upward movement in pay (raises) on progressive career level achievement and contribution. In addition we recommend the
payment of stipends that do not become a part of base salary in recognition of performing roles (e.g. coaching department head, subject matter expert) while that
person is in that role. Such a policy is known as Career Based Pay (CBP). Under CBP, an education workforce member earns additional compensation (in the form
of a raise or stipend) as they achieve new career levels and/or take on additional roles. CBP, therefore, rewards increases in human capital value.
The Ka Piÿina study has determined that KS’ current salary levels are competitive with relevant external professional markets (see Section 8: Readiness
Assessment below). There are differences in benefits offered between KS and other schools, however, for purposes of the Ka Piÿina project, we recommend
continuing KS’ current benefit program and adopting the following CBP salary schedules, studying specific benefit areas as needed. Further the CPT recommends
continuing current salary levels in the new salary schedules.
Version 12
93
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
Base Salary Schedule (Continued)
Career Family Position Examples:
Principal, Assistant Principal, Director,
Assistant Director, Curriculum
Coordinator, Manager, Education
Coordinator, Assistant Educational
Coordinator
Proposed Administrator/Management Schedule
Entry
Maximum $
Professional
$
Career Professional
Professional
$
Advanced
Professional
$
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
+
Stipend
TEC
Minimum $
$
$
$
Close to Current Maximum SR Grade 40*
Range
Career Level
50.0%
12.0%
Current Minimum SR Grade 34*
* During the virtual pilot activity, the minimum and maximum SR grade levels will be reviewed and adjusted as needed.
Major Features:
1.
Follows an industry trend to move away from steps for administrators.
2.
Minimum Entry column is proposed to be the minimum for the range in the current SR schedule.
3.
Maximum in the Career Professional column is proposed to be close to (or a little above) the
current maximum for the range in the current SR schedule and is intended to be competitive to
reward sustained, satisfactory professional performance over an Educator’s career.
4.
Movement between the career levels is proposed to reflect a 12.0% differential.
5.
The difference between the minimum and maximum of each career level column is proposed to be 50%.
An above market premium is proposed to be paid to those who fulfill the extended requirements of the
Advanced Professional career level.
Version 12
94
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
Base Salary Schedule (Continued)
Option #1: 20 Steps
Proposed Faculty Career Family Salary Schedule
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Step
TEC
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Range Spread
Step
Career Level
Entry
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4.96%
2.45%
12.0%
Career Level
Career Professional
Professional
Professional
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
58.39%
58.39%
Version 12
Advanced Professional
Professional
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Career Family Position
Examples: Teacher,
Librarian, Counselor,
Literacy Resource
Teacher, Program
Specialist, Instructional
Specialist
+
Stipend
Current Step 1
1 Salary in the
the Faculty 10
10 Month Schedule
Schedule
58.39%
Very close to the
the Step 25
(highest) salary for
salary for the MA
MA lane.
95
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
Base Salary Schedule (Continued)
Option #2: 15 Steps
Proposed Faculty Career Family Salary Schedule
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Step
TEC
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Range Spread
Spread
Step
Career Level
Entry
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4.96%
2.45%
12.0%
Career Level
Career Professional
Professional
Professional
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
58.39%
58.39%
Version 12
Advanced
Professional
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Career Family Position
Examples: Teacher,
Librarian, Counselor,
Literacy Resource
Teacher, Program
Specialist, Instructional
Specialist
+
Stipend
Current Step 1
1 Salary in the
the Faculty 10
10 Month Schedule
Schedule
58.39%
Very close to the
the Step 25
(highest) salary for
salary for the MA
MA lane.
96
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Base Salary Schedule (Continued)
TEC
Major Features of both Option #1 – 20 Steps and Option #2 – 15 Steps:
1.
Step 1 salary in the Entry column is proposed to equal Step 1 BA in the current 10 month schedule.
2.
Maximum in the Career Professional column is proposed to be close to Step 25 (highest) salary in the MA lane of the current 10 month schedule
and is intended to be competitive to reward sustained, satisfactory professional performance over an Educator’s career.
4.
Movement between the career levels is proposed to reflect a 12.0% differential.
5.
Education lanes have been replaced by career levels (e.g., Entry, Professional, Career Professional and Advanced Professional).
6.
An above market premium is proposed to be paid to those who fulfill the extended requirements of the
Advanced Professional career level.
Version 12
97
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
Base Salary Schedule (Continued)
Proposed Education Support Schedule
Current SR Ranges XX to YY
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Entry
TEC
Professional
Career Profesional
Profesional
Maximum $
$
$
Minimum $
$
$
Advanced
Professional
+
Stipend
$
Current Minimum SR Grade Lowest*
Range
Career Level
65.0%
12.0%
Career Family Position Examples:
Library Assistant, Teaching Assistant,
Computer Lab Coordinator,
Science Lab Assistant, Literacy
Support Specialist
Close to Maximum SR Grade Highest*
* During the virtual pilot activity, the minimum
the minimum and maximum SR grade levels will
grade levels will be reviewed and
adjusted as needed.
Major Features:
1.
Minimum Entry column is proposed to be the minimum for the range in the current SR schedule.
2.
Maximum in the Career Professional column is proposed to be close to (or a little above) the
current maximum for the range in the current SR schedule and is intended to be competitive to
reward sustained, satisfactory professional performance over a career.
4.
Movement between the career levels is proposed to reflect a 12.0% differential.
5.
The difference between the minimum and maximum of each career level column is proposed to be 65%.
6.
Like the Faculty career family, an above market premium is proposed to be paid to those who fulfill the extended requirements of the Advanced Professional
career level.
Version 12
98
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
Variable Pay
Following the compensation design principles, the Ka Piÿina CPT recommends that KS complement the base salary program with variable pay. Variable
pay is proposed to take the form of an incentive payment that does not roll into base pay. It would only be paid when KS performance goals are met or
exceeded. Such a program is known as Student Based Performance Awards (SBPA).
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
We envision SBPA at KS having the following characteristics:
TEC

The payment usually is in the form of a lump sum cash award.

Awards can be paid to every education workforce member in a school, campus or division based on student learning gains.

The payment does not become part of base pay. It must be re-earned. SBPA is complementary to Career Based Pay (CBP)
The following page provides a sample variable pay computation.
Version 12
99
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
Variable Pay (Continued)
Example: Each division or campus would have a balanced scorecard that contained six key metrics and measures representing all critical areas of the unit’s
operation. The following table is an illustration of such a scorecard and the related measures for variable pay purposes:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Critical Success Factor
TEC
Measure
Weight
Prior Year
Below
Threshold
Actual
Threshold
50% of
Goal
Goal
125% of
Goal
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
125.0%
25.0%
Percent
Accomplishment
1. Campus Academic Performance
Reading Gain
Math Gain
6.0%
6.0%
50.0
51.0
50.0
51.0
52.0
53.0
54.0
55.0
56.0
57.0
6.0%
6.0%
2. School Academic Performance
Reading Gain
Math Gain
20.0%
20.0%
50.0
51.0
50.0
51.0
52.0
53.0
54.0
55.0
56.0
57.0
20.0%
20.0%
3. Retention Rate
4. Student Satisfaction
5. Student Attendance
6. Financial
Retention Rate Percent
Student Satisfaction Rate
Attendance Rate
Expense per Student
12.0%
12.0%
12.0%
12.0%
92.0%
75.0%
96.0%
$17,100
94.0%
95.0%
76.0%
78.0%
96.0% .96.5
$17,100
$17,200
96.0%
80.0%
97.0%
$17,100
97.0%
82.0%
97.5%
$17,000
12.0%
15.0%
12.0%
12.0%
Note:
Overall Performance
100%
Target Incentive:
Earned Incentive
Salary
Bonus
Overall Performance must achieve at least 60% for there to be a payout
103.0%
5.0%
5.2%
$70,000
$3,605
An explanation of this example is found on the next page.
Version 12
100
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
Variable Pay (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Following are the major features of an SBPA program:

Learning improvements are measured at the various unit levels (e.g., tri-campus, campus, CEI Division, CEI Program) on all factors critical to instructional goals
and objectives.
TEC

A possible KS wide component.

The scorecard includes stakeholder and school operations measures.

All education workforce members participate in the program. In fact some schools extend participation to all personnel including support and trades
employees to encourage a sense of team work in achieving common educational goals.

Improvement goals are set each year according to a continuous improvement over prior year actual principle.

Goals are set based on value-added methodology as part of the school accountability process.

Payouts are made once a year and can be expressed as a percent of base salary or in flat dollar amounts.

Target incentive levels are significant in order for the incentive to be meaningful (e.g., 5% of base salary earned in the example on the previous page).

Performance on each measure is tracked during the year. At the end of the year percent accomplishment is calculated for each goal by multiplying the percent
of goal achieved (0% to 125%) by the weight associated with each measure. The percent accomplishment calculations are summed across all measures in the
scorecard to achieve an overall measure of accomplishment against goal (103.0% in the example).

Overall performance is multiplied by the target incentive (5% in our example) to derive the earned incentive (5.2% in our example – 103% times 5%
rounded).

The bonus earned is derived by multiplying the earned incentive times base salary earned during the year (5.2% times $70,000 = $3,605 in the example on the
previous page).
Version 12
101
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
What Can KS Expect from SBPA?
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team believes that SBPA can become a powerful compensation and reward element for KS by achieving the following results:
1. Focusing education workforce members on critical success factors in the strategic plan.
2. Developing insights and understanding of key measures of the enterprise.
3. Developing keen focus on both existing and destination measures.
4. Developing “line of sight” between individual education workforce members and the results we must achieve – a sense that one knows how
he or she contributes to that measure in what they do and a sense that we can really make a difference through our efforts.
5. An effective incentive for increased efforts towards common goals.
6. A celebration of both individual and collective success.
TEC
Recommended Next Steps with SBPA
The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team recommends the following steps during the pilot with SBPA (if individual pilot participants or units choose to pilot SBPA):
1. Confirm the “Scorecard.” Make sure we have the right critical success factors and measures, including the consideration of existing initiatives (e.g., TriCampus Standards Project, CBECE Positive Behavioral Supports).
2. Assure that the data on each measure is reliable and warehoused in a way that allows for timely and user-friendly retrieval.
3. Make a final determination of participation and level (e.g., Should there be a campus component and a KS wide component?).
4. Establish and pretest the goal setting process.
5. “Dry run” the program, without pay implications under all scenarios to see how the program works.
6. Establish and pretest the communication process under the program.
7. Consider next steps, including implementation, after a pilot year.
Version 12
102
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
Recognition and Quality of Work Life
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
The third pillar of the Ka Piÿina compensation and reward blueprint is non-cash recognition. The survey results reviewed in Section 8: Gap Analysis and
Readiness Assessment below told us that non-cash quality of life elements such as KS’ Mission are as (if not more) important a factor in attracting,
motivating and retaining talent as cash compensation. KS already is rich in recognition. The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team (CPT) recommends that we build
on that strength and improve on what is already an effective reward component. The CPT’s recommendations for continuing and enhancing both
recognition and quality of work life elements follow.
TEC
Recognition
Recognition refers to a broad array of non-cash elements that are symbolic and can be very effective in celebrating and encouraging individual and group
achievement. Following are recognition elements that currently exist that we recommend continuing (the list is not exhaustive and there may be many
more elements operating currently):
•
Formal: KS-wide Service Awards (annual staff recognition), monthly management report(s), e-mailed letters of commendation; division
newsletters; individual awards (national-award given by college or student), ÿAha Alakaÿi (Leadership Conference); organization-wide staff
activities (e.g., May Day, Christmas Party, Year-End Party).
•
Informal: Nohona Hawaiÿi activities, community service activities; internal year end email of celebration and recognition, birthday cards and
emails, personal internal email of acknowledgement and recognition, holiday service, service award gift cards, handwritten Christmas cards, staff
retreat, leadership retreat, celebrations including food (hoÿokipa); apparel/uniforms; movie tickets; t-shirts; umbrellas; thermos; bags; candy and
staff socials (especially those in which families are encouraged), weekend sports activity with families (e.g., baseball, swimming).
Version 12
103
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
“As Is” Recognition
TEC






















Staff appreciation luncheon for operations crew
Logo wear
Teacher appreciation (e.g., T-shirts, thermos, umbrella, bags, candy)
Recognition at staff meetings
Mahalo and acknowledgements of support and “good” work done in weekly bulletin
Community recognition or appreciation
Student and parent appreciation
Accreditation celebration
Recognition of teachers when they earn an advanced degree or National Board Certification
Flextime, work from home
Teacher appreciation day
KSM Red Wagon Award
Send thank you cards
Academic Club Trophies (School/Individual students);
TV Coverage (Song contest/Christmas concert);
Staff/Teacher Appreciation Day Gifts
Service Awards
Certificate of recognition (e.g., teacher, team)
Staff celebrations for accomplishments
Päÿina
Ice cream parties
Staff social twice a year
Version 12
104
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
“To Be” Recognition
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team identified the following additional areas of recognition that can build upon and further improve existing recognition
activities:
TEC








Provide each department a budget for small thank you recognition gifts
KS “bucks” for purchases at the school bookstore or technology
Money for staff socials, including families
Personal visit, email, phone call by unit leader, or senior leader sharing observations and congratulations of a job well done.
Take a day off awards
Day off on your birthday
Flex time awards
Peer recognition
Version 12
105
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
“As Is” Quality of Work Life Elements
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Quality of Work Life encompasses a broad array of non-cash and often intangible elements that include the “touch and feel” of an institution, its culture, values, and
climate. The following list of Quality of Work Life elements that currently exist that we recommend continuing (the list is not exhaustive and there may be many more
elements operating currently):
TEC





















Mission guided
Great facilities and resources
Funding of strategic efforts
Limited class size for faculty
Adequate preparation time
Reduced bureaucracy and more empowerment for work/life balance
Manageable schedule
Supplies, coffee service, copy service
Environment where conflict is addressed and people are held accountable
Adoption benefits
Payment for membership fees for professional organizations
Professional development support, equitable access to college classes, professional subscriptions
Good working environment
Support for life-long learning
Flextime or alternative work schedules
Job security
Time (work embedded) for staff development and collaboration
Support (e.g., mentoring, coaching)
Access to enabling technologies
Hawaiian and Christian values based work environment
Excellent staff
Version 12
106
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
“To Be” Quality of Work Life Elements
The Ka Piÿina CPT identified the following additional elements of Quality of Work Life that should be further considered:
 Complementary athletic event cards for staff
 Emergency planning for families in need
 Staff counselor
 Free lunch for staff at campuses
 Child care on in-service days
 Prayer circles for staff
 Adequate staffing so staff can take breaks
 9.75 month/11 month/9.5 month work year for non-educators
 Manageable workloads
 Relocation for internal candidates that is advertised, promoted, and guidelines are flexible to accommodate current life cycle
 Work space – clean and modern and working
 Support of learning communities
 Comp-time;
 Improved empowerment to make decisions
 Childcare and/or eldercare support for last minute situations
 Technology (laptop, phone, wireless set-up, video conference) to support off site offices
 Job sharing options
 Leave donation program
 Fitness center affiliation
 Paid family leave
 Paid community service leave
 Job Sharing
 Vacation buy/sell
 Financial planning advisors
 Health and or weight loss trainers
 Concierge service
Version 12
TEC
107
DRAFT
7. Compensation and Rewards Blueprint (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
“To Be” Quality of Work Life Elements (Continued)
TEC








Automated system to secure subs (Current practice teachers have to secure their own subs)
Coffee bar on site
Toolkit of information to deal with childcare and eldercare
Resource support for students (i.e. special needs)
Additional leave time for new parents or to care for elder parents
Wellness programs on-site incentives
Transition into retirement – phased decrease in work hours
Shuttle service between office locations
Review and consideration of the above elements for “next steps” actions should be done on an organization-wide basis.
Version 12
108
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment
TEC
Version 12
109
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment
The Core Project Team conducted a readiness assessment during the September 2008 design sessions which will be refined and finalized as a follow-up to the
meetings. We conducted several analyses:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
1.
2.
TEC
External Scan – How competitive are our current salary levels?
Internal Scan – Is the employee climate ready for change? What are the barriers? What are the enablers?
Core Project Team members reviewed the following source documents to prepare for this session:


Ka Piÿina Survey March 2008 results and subsequent analysis conducted by Research and Evaluation in May 2008;
Any other summaries of this survey.
3. Internal Scan – Demographics – The Core Project team reviewed Human Resources prepared demographic analysis.
Version 12
110
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
The Case for Change
Salary Schedule for School Year 2008 - 09
10.00 months
190 days
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Change is difficult and can be threatening to many. Change will also entail financial cost.
In order to build support for the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team’s (CPT) proposal for a new
Education Workforce Framework a compelling case for change was needed.
TEC
The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team examined each of KS’ workforce framework elements
(career opportunity, performance management and evaluation, professional growth and
renewal and compensation and rewards). The CPT conducted a gap analysis by
comparing KS’ current practice (the ‘as is’) with what is being proposed (the ‘to be’
blueprints). The results of this analysis forms the basis of the case for change. The team
consulted artifacts, descriptions of current practice, anecdotal information, survey
information and the four education workforce framework blueprints in forming the
proposals. Following is a summary of their findings.
Career Opportunities “As Is”
The 25 Step Salary Schedule
Version 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MA
PhD
BA
BA + 30 BA + 60 MA + 30 MA + 45 MA + 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
46,013
47,951
49,196
50,857
52,103
53,405
47,162
49,150
50,426
52,129
53,406
54,740
48,342
50,379
51,686
53,431
54,741
56,107
49,550
51,638
52,979
54,765
56,108
57,511
51,036
53,186
54,568
56,409
57,792
59,237
52,313
54,516
55,932
57,820
59,238
60,717
53,621
55,879
57,330
59,264
60,718
62,236
54,961
57,276
58,764
60,747
62,237
63,790
56,336
58,709
60,233
62,265
63,793
65,385
58,025
60,469
62,040
64,133
65,705
67,347
61,980
63,590
65,737
67,348
69,030
63,531
65,181
67,380
69,032
70,756
65,118
66,810
69,065
70,757
72,525
66,746
68,480
70,791
72,526
74,339
68,749
70,535
72,915
74,703
76,568
72,298
74,738
76,569
78,482
74,105
76,606
78,485
80,445
75,958
78,521
80,447
82,456
77,857
80,485
82,457
84,518
80,194
82,899
84,931
87,054
82,197
84,971
87,056
89,229
84,253
87,095
89,231
91,460
86,359
89,274
91,461
93,746
88,517
91,505
93,748
96,089
91,174
94,251
96,560
98,973
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
The Case for Change (Continued)
Career Opportunities (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
“As Is” Message
TEC





Longevity vs. accountability
Stay in your position and receive steady pay growth
Extra work doesn’t pay
Professional development not tied to career development
Career opportunities far and few in between because tied to
single position rather than to several levels or layers of
opportunity
 Community work not on equal footing as campuses and other
positions
 No road or path to career development so have to blaze your
own trail and at times end up in a ball of fire!
“To Be” Message
 Want good people, keep you happy, give you opportunity to
improve and want you to stay
 Value highly talented and motivated people and exceptional
performance
 Not locked into one thing at KS. If you stay at KS, overtime you
will have opportunity to serve in different positions to meet
mission
 Don’t have to leave your job/island for other opportunities
 There is free exchange of career opportunities between campus
and community areas of the organization
 You have choices
 Can make movements without penalties
Why The Proposed Career Opportunity Blueprint is an Improvement




Allows and encourages talented and motivated people to grow, “grow your own”
Employees are motivated w/ different opportunities
Retention - Develop bench strength in organization – larger pool of qualified candidates for single incumbent positions
Retention – employees stay interested in their careers. Version 12
112
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
The Case for Change (Continued)
Performance Management and Evaluation “As Is”
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT

TEC












Some standard based assessment
 Danielson’s
 Success Factors
Some attention to performance reviews
Inconsistency of evaluation methods across campus
Unclear criteria for a 3,4,5 rating in regards to Success Factors performance review
Not all performance reviews are based on EPR’s /Job descriptions
Limited opportunity for “bottom-up” feedback
Lack of “coaching” component; should be more than mid year
Unclear expectations
Inconsistent use of evaluation for faculty across the system; Unclear on rating criteria
Not all JD’s based on Essential Position Responsibilities (EPR’s)
Most wait until the end of the performance year before starting
Present system does not have ongoing feedback;
Accountability is not enforced
Version 12
113
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
The Case for Change (Continued)
Performance Management and Evaluation (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
“As Is” Message
TEC
“To Be” Message
 Unclear outcomes in regards to merit increase
 Not a priority
 A- schedule; no link to performance to pay; poor performance not held
accountability
 Create a culture to support staff who are motivated, creative etc.
 Express the importance of system
 Having clear outcomes
Why The Proposed Performance Management & Evaluation Blueprint is an Improvement
 Measures the level of performance
 Inclusiveness
 Communicates the organization’s unit’s objectives
Version 12
114
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
The Case for Change (Continued)
Professional Development “As Is” – Illustrative Offerings
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Current Opportunities (“As Is”)
TEC

















Proposed Opportunities (To Be - in addition to As Is)
Summer school leadership
Parent fund
WASC leadership
Teacher exchange
B-credits
Academic club leadership
Support for credit courses, advanced degrees and certifications
Distance learning/classroom
In-service days with national/local consultants
Sabbatical Admin internship
Pre-service teacher supervision
Immersion school teacher
Lead teacher role
Peer observation
National/local conferences & workshops
Intra-inter grade level and dept mtgs
Candidate support provider services (e.g., NBCT)
















Job rotation
Internship
Job shadow
K-credits
Peer mentoring
ÿAha Alakaÿi Nä Kumu (academy for KS leader growth)
Get subs so teachers can attend staff development
Teach for America
Community-based mentoring
Land-based, place-based
Professional learning communities
KS partnership with local university to offer degree cohorts for staff
One week paid per year to engage in professional development or
service learning opportunity
Bring continent conference to Hawai’i
Sabbatical for administrators & other non-faculty staff
Support for non-exempt staff to attend continent conferences
Version 12
115
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
The Case for Change (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Professional Growth and Renewal
TEC
“As Is” Message
“To Be” Message
 KS has lots of professional development opportunities available
in a variety of ways however much of it is based on budget
availability and the opportunities are not known to all.
 Professional development does not proactively connect to
succession planning.
 Professional development is there to help you move across a pay
schedule for A-staff.
 Professional development opportunities are offered during key
business hours whereby faculty must leave students to attend.
 Professional growth and renewal is available for all and is
accessible to all.
 We value and foster life long learning in KS staff.
 Supervisors are provided with clear guidelines to support
succession planning and growth for their staff in multiple career
paths.
 Professional growth and renewal is organized in a way that
meets the career option needs of all.
 Professional growth and renewal opportunities can be imbedded
into the work day.
 Offerings of internal workshops can be balanced and offered at
optimal times so that student learning is not impacted.
Why The Proposed Professional Growth and Renewal Blueprint is an Improvement
 Professional growth and renewal will be:
Clearly organized, understood, and linked to career development and strategic initiatives.
Communicated to staff and include a variety of opportunities, including career coaching services that proactively builds options
and internal capacity.
Version 12
Flexible to accommodate all career path options within the diverse KS organization.
116
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
The Case for Change (Continued)
Salary Schedule for School Year 2008 - 09
10.00
Compensation and Rewards “As Is”
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
 We’re always checking to see what everyone else is
doing
TEC
 We’re reactionary to selected concerns (e.g. loud
voices that may not be representative of the majority)
190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
months
days
BA
BA + 30
1
2
46,013
47,951
47,162
49,150
48,342
50,379
49,550
51,638
51,036
53,186
52,313
54,516
53,621
55,879
54,961
57,276
56,336
58,709
58,025
60,469
61,980
63,531
65,118
66,746
68,749
Version 12
MA
PhD
BA + 60 MA + 30 MA + 45 MA + 60
3
4
5
6
49,196
50,857
52,103
53,405
50,426
52,129
53,406
54,740
51,686
53,431
54,741
56,107
52,979
54,765
56,108
57,511
54,568
56,409
57,792
59,237
55,932
57,820
59,238
60,717
57,330
59,264
60,718
62,236
58,764
60,747
62,237
63,790
60,233
62,265
63,793
65,385
62,040
64,133
65,705
67,347
63,590
65,737
67,348
69,030
65,181
67,380
69,032
70,756
66,810
69,065
70,757
72,525
68,480
70,791
72,526
74,339
70,535
72,915
74,703
76,568
72,298
74,738
76,569
78,482
74,105
76,606
78,485
80,445
75,958
78,521
80,447
82,456
77,857
80,485
82,457
84,518
80,194
82,899
84,931
87,054
82,197
84,971
87,056
89,229
84,253
87,095
89,231
91,460
86,359
89,274
91,461
93,746
88,517
91,505
93,748
96,089
91,174
94,251
96,560
98,973
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
The Case for Change (Continued)
Compensation and Rewards (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
“As Is” Message
TEC
“To Be” Message
 That we value people differently
 Longevity on the teacher’s schedule is valued
 We value teachers in a traditional setting – not really so in the community
outreach programs
 We only focus on compensation as a measurement of value without
considering other elements
 The intent is we are market-based for SR and WG, but the perception may
not be that way – the different job markets may be sending messages that
we value people differently
 Our job evaluation process has allowed the perceptions that
Kamehameha’s situations are unique as opposed to focusing on skills and
competencies being the foundation of job evaluation.
 We reward you through pay based on performance, we don’t
acknowledge time in the position
 Job evaluation process/methodology should focus on skills and core
competencies
 Core competencies bring a qualitative way to value positions
 We recognize both quality and quantity for a cross section of
recognizing and rewarding
 Compensation isn’t the only way to reward and recognize value
Why The Proposed Compensation Blueprint is an Improvement
 Integrate qualitative and quantitative method of tying in compensation
 We’re not leading with compensation (i.e. if we pay you more we’ll get better results), we present a holistic approach – leading with career opportunities,
then performance management, professional development and finally reward/recognition
 Integrated workforce strategy that aligns and supports overall strategic goals and desired outcomes.
Version 12
118
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Readiness Analysis
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Introducing new workforce frameworks is not without risk. Research shows that, overall, the success rate for making the transition is about 60%.* That
means that 40% failed over time. The major factor leading to failure is the fact that change was introduced in organizations which were not sufficiently
prepared.
TEC
The purpose of KS’ readiness assessment is to gauge KS’ readiness for a new framework. Specifically, we want to identify any barriers to success and
make plans to alleviate them. In addition we want to identify those factors that currently exist that will be serve as enablers for success. We want to take
steps to maximize them. The readiness assessment is an objective, data-based analysis of an organization’s readiness for change. The analysis looks at
both and external and internal scan:
Assessment Element
Questions Asked
External Scan
Market Survey
Are our compensation levels sufficiently competitive with relevant external labor markets?
Internal Scan
Climate
Do employee expectations line up with the changes we propose?
Are there any cultural or organizational barriers to successful change?
Demography
What is the demographic makeup of our current workforce?
Does that demography create any barriers to successful change?
Does that demography create any enablers to successful change?
* Allan Odden and Marc Wallace, How To Create world Class Teacher Compensation St. Paul: Freeload Press, 2008
Version 12
119
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
External Scan - External Market Benchmarking
Following are the results of data analyzed by the KS Human Resources Division. The data is effective in the 2008-2009 school
year.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Method
TEC
KS faculty salary schedule was compared to Hawaii Association of Independent Schools (HAIS) consolidated data and the State Department of
Education (DOE). The data is for the 2008-2009 school year. KS was compared to these benchmarks. Averages and medians were calculated for
comparisons. According to accepted compensation methodology, KS’ data was kept out of the average and median calculation to allow for a clean
comparison.
Results
Following are comparisons of KS to the market at four key points of comparison:
KS
43,591
BA Entry Salary Step 1
HAIS High
HAIS Low
42,654
39,533
Average
KS Pct of Average
40,860
106.7%
Median
KS Pct of Median
40,626
107.3%
DOE*
40,866
Comparison Point #1
Version 12
120
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Results (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
KS
TEC
58,774
MA Entry Salary Step 10
HAIS High
HAIS Low
62,420
49,181
Average
KS Pct of Average
55,178
106.5%
Median
KS Pct of Median
54,557
107.7%
KS
Highest Column Salary Step 12
HAIS High
HAIS Low
67,032
68,617
52,994
Average
KS Pct of Average
63,107
106.2%
Median
KS Pct of Median
62,216
107.7%
DOE*
57,614
Comparison Point #2
DOE*
75,003
Comparison Point #3
Version 12
121
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Results (Continued)
Highest Salary
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
KS
TEC
HAIS High
93,764
92,245
HAIS Low
DOE*
76,684
75,003
Comparison Point #4
Average
80,816
KS Pct of Average
116.0%
Median
78,008
KS Pct of Median
120.2%
Version 12
122
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
What Do We Conclude from the External Scan?
1. IS KS competitive with the market?
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Yes, KS is competitive. Where we are not competitive is applying the “2 for 1” (years of teaching experience) rule when bringing in teachers
with previous experience.
TEC
2. Are we where we should be – given our compensation design principles?
Yes we are on target. We need more room to grow talent, however and provide options within compensation to cover all groups of staff.
3. Will KS’ salary position, as evidenced by this data, serve as a barrier or enabler to a successful implementation of the new workforce framework?
It would depend on the experience of the teacher we are trying to attract. There are two barriers: (1) the reaction from “A” Schedule staff if we
move from “step and column,” and (2) the “2 for 1” rule for external candidates. Our salary position could be a barrier for those who have been
with KS, but it may also be an enabler for newer teachers who want to be fast tracked and rewarded.
Version 12
123
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Internal Scan - Climate
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team reviewed responses to the March 2008 Ka Piÿina survey and the May 2008 analysis prepared by the Research and
Evaluation Division (e.g., responses to open ended questions). The CPT analyzed the results in the context of the four framework components (Career
Opportunities, Performance Management and Evaluation, Professional Growth and Renewal and Compensation and Rewards) and asked the
following questions, the results of which follow in subsequent pages:
TEC
1.
Does the data identify any barriers to a successful implementation of that framework component?
2.
Does the data identify any enablers that will help with a successful implementation of that framework component?
3.
What actions would we recommend for overcoming barriers and maximizing the impact of enablers?
Version 12
124
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Career Opportunities
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
1. Barriers
 Clearly defining terminology (e.g. individual performance vs. team performance)
 Lack of trust
 Understanding and perception of what is “performance-based” means versus “merit”
TEC
2. Enablers
 A large number of people (~70%) agree or strongly agree to reward based on performance but a smaller amount was agreeable if base pay
is at-risk
 Majority of teacher staff who have worked less than 10 years may not have a mistrusting history and may be more open to change
 50% of teachers are either neutral or disagree/strongly disagree to the current teacher performance evaluation system so at least have not
wedded to current system; incumbents may be open to change
 More than half feel the retirement benefit are competitive, vast number of employees are younger and have time to save in 401K
(although recent market impacts have reduced all 401K value), possibility to market benefits based on demographics
3. Overcoming Barriers/Maximizing Enablers
 Good communication
 Transparency
 Q&A
 Clear definition
 Well-run pilot
 Provide various venues for people to provide feedback
Version 12
125
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Performance Management and Evaluation
TEC
1. Does the data identify any barriers to a successful implementation of that framework component?
 Demographics relationship to age and where they are in the schedule
 False perception
 Trust, fairness, and consistency
 Why change?
 Longevity not being credited anymore
 Prospect of “merit” pay goes against a collegial atmosphere and the KS family setting
 If we’re going to marry pay to performance we have to message that it is fair. Fair does not necessarily mean “equal.”
 Will evaluators be fair in their judgments?
2. Does the data identify any enablers that will help with a successful implementation of that framework component?
 Existing staff may have a choice
 The belief of having a career (advancement) rather than a job
 We already have a portfolio system in place.
3. What actions would we recommend for overcoming barriers and maximizing the impact of enablers?
 Leveraging the mission
 To educate more in a quality way
 Recognize the good work of employees
 Incremental change
Version 12
126
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Professional Growth and Renewal
TEC
1.
Does the data identify any barriers to a successful implementation of professional growth and renewal opportunities?
 Professional development is perceived to be only a one time event or only for degree advancement.
 Perception that budget restricts and/or limits participation in professional development opportunities. People compete for KS funding.
 Lack of budget understanding to repurpose funds to accommodate professional development opportunities.
 The current professional development approval process is varied and practiced differently throughout the organization.
 Professional development is limited to select staff only.
 The perception that professional growth and renewal opportunities are limited to professional development classes, workshops or off site activities.
2.
Does the data identify any enablers that will help with a successful implementation of the professional growth and renewal blueprint?
 High interest with professional growth and renewal opportunities and using this as a means for career advancement
 Web based professional development sites which allows staff to have a one-stop shop to answer many common professional development questions
 Communicate the use of and allow access to Hawaiian miles to subsidize travel costs for education units
Version 12
127
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Professional Growth and Renewal (continued)
TEC
3. What actions would we recommend for overcoming barriers and maximizing the impact of enablers?
 Create career coaches within system to help guide staff and supervisor/administrators through the process
 Create or identify opportunities within the system that is job embedded
 Create system that clearly connects opportunities to career ladders or options
 Organize professional growth and renewal opportunities in a format that recognizes a variety of settings including those that are job embedded such as
projects, professional learning communities, etc.
 Create budgetary guidelines that are clear, understood, and flexible in support of professional growth, renewal and life long learning
 Gather information to determine if KS per person professional growth and renewal investments are comparable to other organizations
 Develop a set of clear criteria for prioritizing professional development, growth and renewal opportunities in the education unit
 Develop a system plan to provide professional development, growth and renewal opportunities in support of strategic outcomes (e.g., student learning,
extending the reach)
Version 12
128
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Compensation and Rewards
TEC
1. Does the data identify any barriers to a successful implementation of the compensation and rewards component?

Insufficient awareness and/or information and understanding about performance at team and school/unit level – what would it look like?

Strong satisfaction with current salary range and benefits could be a barrier if we move dramatically away from the current process. Although
70% of the respondents were faculty, nearly 44% are staff with longevity of 5 years or less so that may put a different perspective on things.

Negative perceptions of the performance management system could be a potential barrier to a successful reward and recognition program

The existing perceptions about the compensation system may be a potential barrier.

Within the Extension Education Services it seems that there is no room to grow from a Program Specialist up a career ladder. Once you reach
the end, there is no place to go. The expectation for those who are in Extension, who are in teaching or counselor positions, that there are
disparities in pay between those in “A” schedule and themselves.

Why does “meets expectation” as a performance increment count as a percentage of a raise? Teachers wonder why the “step” is also
considered a cost of living allowance (COLA).

Does it (pay for performance) work?

A pay raise should be based on employees performance throughout the year, not just one judgment once a year, but on a series of judgments
made throughout the year.
Version 12
129
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Compensation
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
1. Does the data identify any barriers to a successful implementation of the compensation and rewards component? (continued)

Performance should be rated based on results for the year time period rather than on one or two incidences.

Pay is correct. Zero errors on paycheck. Errors erode trust in the system. There is a basic expectation that the paycheck is going to be accurate,
that questions can be answered, and that errors don’t reoccur.

No pay for performance.

Fairness in the process.
TEC
2. Does the data identify any enablers that will help with a successful implementation of the compensation component?

Strong satisfaction with current salary range and benefits could be an enabler (nearly 70%)

Advancement based on doing job better.

64.5% of the response group were Faculty which is encouraging that they are interested in what’s going on.
3. What actions would we recommend for overcoming barriers and maximizing the impact of enablers?

Layered communication approach to message in increments and layers up to the point of pilot and implementation so people are afforded time
and opportunity to get comfortable with information.

Integrate Ka Piÿina with the Total Rewards concepts so the focus is on the holistic approach
Version 12
130
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Internal Scan - Demography
The following pages include data that describe various demographics of each major grouping of the education workforce (e.g., administration/management, faculty and
education support). The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team examined the following data for implications relating to workforce challenges over the next several years:
1. The distribution of employees by years of service to KS;
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
2. The distribution of employees by age;
TEC
3. Turnover rates.
The source of the data is the March 2008 survey conducted by the Core Project Team.
Version 12
131
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Distribution of Faculty By Years of Service to KS
400
356
350
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
300
TEC
250
172
200
150
100
49
52
39
50
15
23
26 to 30
31 Plus
0
0 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 20
21 to 25
Version 12
132
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Distribution of Faculty By Age
234
250
188
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
200
TEC
149
150
84
100
51
50
0
20 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 to 60
60 Plus
Version 12
133
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Distribution of Administrators By Years of Service to KS
25
25
22
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
20
TEC
15
9
9
9
10
7
5
5
0
0 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 20
21 to 25
25 to 30
30 Plus
Version 12
134
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Distribution of Administrators By Age
30
30
25
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
20
TEC
18
20
17
15
10
5
1
0
20 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 to 60
60 Plus
Version 12
135
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Distribution of Educational Support By Years of Service to KS
120
107
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
100
TEC
80
59
60
26
40
17
20
17
3
5
0
0 to 5
6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 31 Plus
Version 12
136
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
Distribution of Educational Support By Age
64
70
57
53
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
60
TEC
50
40
33
27
30
20
10
0
20 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 to 60
60 Plus
Version 12
137
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Turnover Rates
TEC
FY 2006 - 2007
Terminations
Number Pct Trn
Vol
123 6.6%
Invol
15 0.8%
Total
138 7.4%
FY 2007 - 2008
Terminations
Number Pct Trn
Vol
132 6.9%
Invol
12 0.6%
Total
144 7.6%
FY 2005- 2006
Terminations Number
Pct Trn
Vol
152
8.5%
Invol
12
0.7%
Total
164
9.1%
Comparative Turnover Data
U.S. Department of Education
Elementary
Secondary
Urban Fringe
Rural
8.6%
8.5%
8.2%
8.8%
Version 12
138
DRAFT
8. Gap Analysis and Readiness Assessment (Continued)
What Do We Conclude from the Demographic Data?
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
The Ka Piÿina Core Project Team drew the following implications from the data analysis:
1. Is distribution of KS’ education workforce by years service skewed in any direction?
Overall, the faculty is relatively new to KS. Almost 75% of the faculty, for example, have less than 10 years service. 50% have 5 years or less service. The
same pattern is true of administrators and educational support personnel. However, further analysis by unit, indicated that most of the new faculty were in
the community-based units (vs. campus-based) primarily because of the recent rapid growth in new hires in the Extension Education Services (EES),
Community Based Early Childhood Education (CBECE), Public Education Support (PES) and Literacy Instruction and Support (LIS) Divisions.
TEC
2. Is the distribution of KS’ education workforce by age skewed in any direction?
As in the case of years service, the faculty is age of the respondents tended to be less than 40 years of age. 45% of the faculty are 40 years of age or less. 22%
of administrators and 37% of educational support employees are 40 years of age or less. However, as noted above, a more detailed analysis by unit will yield
pockets of staff member experience and ages.
3. Do you predict that KS will experience a crunch in replacing education workforce members in the near future?
Given expected growth in students served, especially in EES, LIS, CBECE, PES, KS needs to be concerned with strengthening its ability to attract and retain
highly talented professionals for an entire career. Also, given the relative number of faculty, administrators, and education support employees who fit into the
“Boomer” category (28% of faculty, 55% of Administrators and 36% of educational support employees) and will be retiring in a few years, KS should be
aware of and engaged in more plan-ful succession planning and staffing efforts.
4. Should turnover be a concern?
The data turnover rates in all three education workforce families is very low at 7.6%. KS turnover rates compare favorably with benchmark data from the U.S.
Department of Education. Never the less, turnover at any level will put pressure on KS for effective staffing and succession planning.
Version 12
139
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
DRAFT
TEC
9. Formative and Summative Evaluation
Version 12
140
9. Formative and Summative Evaluation
DRAFT
Reaping the Benefits of the New Education Workforce Framework
The Ka Piÿina project represents an enormous investment by Kamehameha Schools. Tracking and evaluating results along the way will be essential in
order to capitalize on the potential of this investment. Failure to do so may result in a lost opportunity to optimize the positive impact of the new
Education Workforce Framework on KS’ over-all mission and objectives.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Following is the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team’s recommendation for tracking and assessing the new framework. Specifically, we recommend that KS
adopt both a formative and summative evaluation model as follows:
TEC
1. Formative Evaluation - Formative evaluation asks – “Is it working the way it’s supposed to?” It aims to assess and improve the operation and
administration of a new education workforce framework such as standards - based assessment or career-based pay. research and experience
suggest that periodic formative evaluation (in the pilot and ongoing after full implementation) is necessary to keep a program functioning as it
was designed. We know that programs that go unattended, year after year, lose effectiveness and degenerate into entitlements.
2. Summative Evaluation – Summative evaluation asks, “Are we getting the bottom line results we expected – and if not, what do we
need to fix?” It asks program impact questions, for example:
a.
Have participant skills improved as a result of the career-based pay program?
b.
Are we recruiting and retaining the adequate numbers of educators with the skills we desire?
c.
Have student learning gains increased and can we attribute those gains to the new education workforce framework
program (e.g., embedded professional development)?
The following evaluation model incorporates both formative and summative evaluation of the new Education Workforce Framework.
Version 12
141
DRAFT
9. Formative and Summative Evaluation
Formative Evaluation
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Pilot (Mid 2009 - Mid 2010)
TEC
Summative Evaluation
Near Term (1 to 2 years out from pilot)
A. Career Opportunities & Performance
Management and Evaluation
Teacher (and other) Recruitment
Teacher (and Other) Retention
B. Professional Growth and Renewal
Skills and Competencies
Longer Term (2 to 3 years out and
beyond)
Student Learning Gains Improvement
C. Compensation & Rewards
1. Piloted and ready to implement in KS?
2. Reactions and readiness for broader
implementation?
D. Statistical Data, Qualitative Research
and Anecdotal data
Leading Indicators
Have we seen improvements in
recruitment and retention of highly
qualified personnel?
Have students affected by the pilot achieved
higher learning gains than those who were
not affected by the pilot?
Statistical and Survey Data
Statistical data and Multivariate Analysis
Mid Term Indicators
Long Term Indicators
Version 12
142
9. Formative and Summative Evaluation
DRAFT
Leading Indicators – Questions in the Formative Review of the Ka Piÿina Pilot
Ultimately, the test of the proposed Education Workforce Framework will be the degree to which KS has realized significant increases in workforce skills,
having highly competent educators in the classroom and long term improvements in student learning gains. In order to get to the answer to these
questions we need to address the following formative questions mid-way through and at the end of the Pilot Implementation:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Assessment Area
TEC
What We Must Do
1. Implementation Issues
Our experience is that new education workforce framework programs encounter numerous unforeseen
implementation problems ranging from overly optimistic timelines to performance measures that turn
out to be hard to apply in practice. Many participants may not experience the system as the designers
intended because of these problems. Therefore, it is important to investigate how teachers,
administrators, and assessors experience the system during the pilot so that implementation problems
can be identified and modifications to the system made before it is scaled up.
2. Participant Reactions
We have found that employee reactions to the system should be systematically assessed because these
help to forecast whether the system will be accepted when it is scaled up and whether it will have the
motivational impacts desired. An understanding and acceptance of the teaching standards in a new
career based pay system, for example, a perception that the assessment system is fair, and a perception
that the process has a positive impact on teaching are all likely to be necessary for the long-term viability
of the new program as a vehicle for attracting and retaining quality teachers and encouraging
professional growth. It is also important to find out if the participating employees felt prepared to take on
the challenge of classroom practice assessment. Participants need to be prepared to avoid feeling
overwhelmed by the process. TEC’s model assesses teacher perceptions and attitudes in each of these
areas.
Version 12
143
9. Formative and Summative Evaluation
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Leading Indicators – Questions in the Formative Review of the Ka Piÿina Pilot (Continued)
TEC
Assessment Area
What We Must Do
3. Pre-requisites for Quality
Assessments
Prerequisites for Quality Assessments - At the pilot stage, we need to insure that the prerequisites
for quality assessments (reliability and validity) are in place. They include clear standards,
appropriate assessment procedures, trained assessors, and methods of promoting a consistent
assessor frame of reference. We must assure, for example, that assessors agree in their
evaluations of the same staff member. In addition, we must ensure that assessors’ attitudes and
motivations don’t compromise the validity of their observations. Our experience shows that for
assessors to be motivated to make, and to succeed in making, accurate and reliable evaluations,
they need to:
(a) Understand the teaching standards,
(b) Have the time and opportunity to collect evidence and apply the standards,
(c) Accept the standards as an adequate representation of good teaching, and
(d) Perceive that the consequences of accurate evaluation are desirable.
Version 12
144
DRAFT
9. Formative and Summative Evaluation
Leading Indicators – Questions in the Formative Review of the Ka Piÿina Pilot (Continued)
In order to address the implementation and employee issues just discussed, we will ask the following questions:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Pilot
TEC
Question
Assessment
Timing
1. How was the assessment and other components of the career
enhancement program actually Implemented?
 Review of actual accomplishment
against project timelines
 Interviews/Focus Groups
2. How did participants react to the new program?
Interviews/Focus Groups
Regularly (e.g., monthly)
throughout the pilot
implementation period
(including mid-term)
3. How effective was the orientation to the new program?
Interviews/Focus Groups
4. How effective was the training provided?
Interviews/Focus Groups
5. Where requirements for reliable (error free) and valid (relevant)
observations and measurements present?
Review of procedures
Interviews/Focus Groups
Version 12
145
9. Formative and Summative Evaluation
DRAFT
Summative Evaluation – Mid and Long Term Assessment Questions - Ongoing
Effective education workforce frameworks require on-going evaluation both formative and summative, after the pilot. Periodic formative evaluation (as
just described) will lead to continuous improvement in such programs over the long term.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Summative evaluation goes beyond formative evaluation by asking program impact questions that we raised earlier (p. 113):
TEC
1.
Have participant skills improved as a result of the career-based pay program?
2.
Are we recruiting and retaining the adequate numbers of educators with the skills we desire?
3.
Have student learning gains increased and can we attribute those gains to the new framework (e.g., embedded professional
development)?
Version 12
146
DRAFT
9. Formative and Summative Evaluation
Summative Evaluation – Mid and Long Term Assessment Questions – Ongoing (Continued)
Summative evaluation requires longitudinal research. Student learning gains must be tracked over time and related statistically to teacher performance
assessments. Such an evaluation requires that we address the following questions:
Post Pilot – On-Going
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Question
TEC
Assessment
Timing
1. Is KS able to recruit and retain quality educators, overall,
and in areas where there have been shortages?
 Salary Levels
 Staffing Data
 Turnover Data
On-going annually
2. Has sufficient professional development been provided
for Faculty to learn and adopt instructional strategies
embodied in the new vision for instruction and new
evaluation system? Can we conclude the same for
Administrator and Education Support employees?
 Review of schedules
 Interview/Focus Groups
On-going annually
3. Are Faculty, Administrators and Management and
Education Support employees pleased with the
operation of the new systems?
Interview/Focus Groups
On-going annually
4. Have student learning gains improved, in sufficient
magnitude, for all groups of students?
Longitudinal value-added
assessments of student
learning gains
On-going annually
Interviews/Focus Groups
On-going annually
Version 12
5. Are KS education leadership and policy makers, faculty
association leadership and parents satisfied with the
147
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
DRAFT
TEC
10. Pilot Work Plan
Version 12
148
Questions For An Education Workforce Framework Pilot
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
In formulating the work plan for piloting the new Education Workforce Framework, the following questions were considered:
TEC
1.
Why a pilot?
2.
What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the
various roles and responsibilities.
3.
What blueprints will we pilot (e.g. performance management/evaluation, professional growth and renewal, career opportunities,
compensation/rewards)?
4.
What education units will participate in the pilot?
5.
What positions in the education workforce matrix (e.g., administrator, faculty, education support and other) will be included in the pilot?
6.
What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any related dependencies?
Version 12
149
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Questions For An Education Workforce Framework Pilot
TEC
7.
Will there be a formative assessment of the pilot? If yes, what will it cover and how will it be conducted?
8.
Will there be a summative assessment of the pilot? If yes, what will be evaluated and how will the evaluation be conducted.
9.
What resources, both in terms of time, people and dollars, will be required to complete the pilot, including the following elements?
a.
Pilot participants
b.
Evaluators
c.
Administrative costs associated with conducting the pilot
d.
Tools (e.g., electronic systems, manual processes) needed for the pilot
e.
Communication
f.
Supports (e.g., consultants, in-house subject matter experts, etc.)
10.
DRAFT
Will KS require external expertise to facilitate the pilot? If yes, what kinds of expertise will
KS need and what will be their roles?
Version 12
150
DRAFT
Question #1: Why a Pilot?
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
It is important to pilot the education workforce framework elements to:
TEC







Test design theories, elements and features.
Gather authentic experience and reactions.
Inform and broaden knowledge and understanding of Ka Piÿina.
Identify unknown, unconsidered and/or unintended consequences.
Raise awareness of and determine acceptance for concerns of or hesitation toward various design elements and features.
Mitigate operational implementation risks.
Allow exploration of new ideas and risk taking.
Version 12
151
Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like
the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Area
TEC
Project Sponsor
Project Owners
Project Manager
Core Project Team
[1]
1. Value Case  Defines the
 Represents the  Leads and
 Leads the
organizational
project sponsor & supports the
delivery of a
value of the
can make
delivery of a high- specific function
project &
executive level
value project with or process on a
champions the
decisions to help a high degree of
project with a high
project to the
ensure project
success.
degree of success.
organization,
success.
 Maintains detail  Develops detail
including
work plan and
work plan and
developing the
 Develops and
activities achieve activities to
“long view” of the maintains the
the project’s value achieve the
project’s value and “long view” of the and objectives in project’s value and
[1] Refer to pages 9 and 10 for Core Project Team members
objectives
value
the Noguchi
contextandofLaurie
the Seto objectives in the
[2] Kamuela Binkie, Deidre
Harris, Sylvia Hussey, Darrellproject’s
Kim, Ronnie
Kopp, and
BJ Mau, Laura
objectives.
“long view”.
context of the
“long view”.
DRAFT
Pilot Support
Team [2]
 Leads the
delivery of a
specific function
or process in the
pilot with a high
degree of success.
 Develops detail
work plan and
activities and
manages key
processes to
achieve the
project’s value and
objectives in the
context of the
pilot.
Version 12
152
Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like
the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities.
Area
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
2. Description
TEC
Project Sponsor
 Executive or
management
level member
who requests &
initiates the
project.
DRAFT
Project Owners
Project Manager
Core Project
Team
Pilot Support
Team
 Represents the
project sponsor
on a day-to-day
basis.
 Assigned or
invited in
consultation with
the Sponsor and
Owners to
achieve the
project objectives
& manage the
day-to-day
activities of the
Core Project
Team.
 Assigned or
invited in
consultation with
the Sponsor and
Owners to
achieve the
project objectives
& execute the
day-to-day
activities of the
Core Project
Team.
 Assigned or
invited in
consultation with
the Sponsor,
Owners, Project
Manager and
Core Project
Team to achieve
the pilot
objectives &
execute the dayto-day activities
of the Pilot
Support Team.
Version 12
153
Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like?
Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the
various roles and responsibilities.
Area
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
3. Leadership and
Execution
TEC
Project Sponsor
Project Owners
Project Manager
Core Project Team
 Provides financial,
strategic &
organizational
direction throughout
the project.
 Ensures allocation of
all project resources,
both human &
financial, to ensure
project success.
 Represents the
project to the senior
management or
executive team.
 Accepts & ensure
adoption of the overall
project product or
services.
 Provides leadership,
direction & guidance
to the project team to
ensure successful
completion of project
objectives.
 Accepts & ensures
adoption of the overall
project product or
services.
 Leads the project
core team in the
successful completion
& delivery of the
project objectives.
 Leads development
& execution of the
project plan including
project objectives,
scope, schedule,
resource & costs.
 Performs change &
risk management for
project success.
 Motivates and
supports the project
core team.
 Follows standard KS
PM practices.
 Manages the
process of the project
product or services’
acceptance.
 Acquires resources
external to KS to
 Brings resources,
experiences and
perspectives to the
project.
 Identifies and
organizes subject
matter experts (SME).
 Coordinates &
assigns resources,
ensures quality &
timely completion of
assigned project
deliverables & tasks in
a proactive manner for
their function.
 Motivates team
members and others
involved.
 Contributes
knowledge &
experience in the best
interest of KS &
project success.
 Supports and assists
with the acceptance &
Version 12
DRAFT
Pilot Support Team
 Brings resources,
experiences and
perspectives to the
pilot
 Identifies and
organizes subject
matter experts (SME).
 Coordinates &
assigns resources,
ensures quality &
timely completion of
assigned project
deliverables & tasks in
a proactive manner for
their function.
 Motivates pilot team
members and others
involved.
 Contributes
knowledge &
experience in the best
interest of KS & pilot
success.
 Supports and assists
154
with the acceptance &
Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka
Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities.
DRAFT
Project Sponsor
Project Owners
Project Manager
Core Project Team
Pilot Support Team
4. Communications
 Communicates
with key project
& program
stakeholders.
 Communicates
with key
program
stakeholders &
supplements
project
communication
s, as needed.
 Communicates
regularly with
project
sponsor.
 Helps develop
& utilizes the
project
communication
matrix &
management
plan.
 Communicates
with KS & project
stakeholders.
 Develops &
utilizes the
communications
matrix.
 Leads regularlyscheduled project
status meetings.
 Manages &, as
appropriate,
escalates issues &
identifies
solutions.
 Communicates
project status to
their respective
organization,
division or
functional
management.
 Attends &
participates in
project team
meetings such as
status, steering
committee, etc.
 Escalates
decisions on
issues that need
to be addressed.
 Communicates
pilot status to the
Core Project
Team
 Attends &
participates in
project team
meetings such as
status, steering
committee, etc.
 Escalates
decisions on
issues that need
to be addressed.
 Drafts and
deploys various
communication
pieces, utilizing
pilot
communication
tools
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Area
TEC
Version 12
155
Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka
Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities.
Area
5. Decision Making
Project Sponsor

DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT

TEC
Ultimate authority
for the program &
project.
Resolves major
project issues &
removes obstacles to
ensure project
success.
Project Owners


Empowered to make
decisions in the best
interest of KS, the
project sponsor &
other groups,
divisions &
stakeholders.
Identifies & acquires
appropriate
resources for the
project.
Project Manager



Empowered to make
project related
decisions that are in
the best interest of
KS & the successful
completion of the
project.
Manages & resolves
project-related
issues.
Resolves deviations
from the project
plan.
Core Project Team


Identifies problems
& issues & helps to
resolve them.
Empowered to make
project-related
decisions that are in
the best interest of
KS & impacts the
successful
completion &
delivery of assigned
deliverables.
DRAFT
Pilot Support Team


Identifies problems
& issues & helps to
resolve them.
Empowered to make
pilot related
decisions that are in
the best interest of
KS & impacts the
successful
completion &
delivery of the pilot
outcomes.
Version 12
156
Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka
Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities.
Area
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
6. Accountability &
Authority
TEC
Project Sponsor


Determines &
acquires appropriate
allocation of
resources (financial
& people) at the
organizational level.
Supports &
represents the
project to the
organization.
Project Owners


Responsible for
successful
completion of the
project at the
organizational/proje
ct sponsor level.
Supports the project
to the organization.
Project Manager

Responsible for the
successful
completion of the
project objectives.
Core Project Team

Ensures high quality
deliverables that are
accurate & complete
for their division or
department.
DRAFT
Pilot Support Team

Ensures high quality
deliverables that are
accurate & complete
for the pilot.
Version 12
157
Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka Piÿina
Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities.
Area
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
7. Other
TEC
Project Sponsor

Provides
organization &
institutional
knowledge,
guidance and
support.
Project Owners

Provides
organization &
institutional
knowledge &
guidance.
Project Manager



Utilizes leadership &
general management
skills to successfully
complete the project in a
satisfactory manner.
Effectively practices
project management
tools & techniques to
lead project core team.
Provides training on
project management
concepts, terminology
and practices.
Core Project Team

Coordinates
participation of the
SME at appropriate
times in the project,
such as
development, pilots,
etc.
DRAFT
Pilot Support Team

Coordinates participation of
the SME at appropriate times
in the pilot, such as training,
communication, evaluation.
Version 12
158
Question #2: What will governance for the pilot look like? Will there be a Pilot Support Team like the Ka
Piÿina Core Project Team? If so, describe the various roles and responsibilities.
DRAFT
Pilot Participants
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
•
TEC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Engage in the various processes (e.g., goal setting, evaluation, professional development, process improvement, risk taking, etc.) with supervisor’s support
and participation.
Test design theories, elements and features of the framework.
Provide feedback on the framework’s efficiency and effectiveness.
Provide feedback on the framework’s meaningfulness and manageability.
Participate in established training.
Travel as needed for training, focus groups, etc.
Explore new ideas and take risks.
Provide alternate solutions, processes or “work arounds”.
Participate in established kick off, feedback, assessment and wrap up meetings.
Participate in formative and summative assessments.
Participate in pre and post evaluation activities (e.g., survey, questionnaire, focus group, etc.).
Share experiences with co-pilot participants, leadership, other faculty and staff.
Version 12
159
Question #3: What blueprints will we pilot (e.g., career opportunities, performance management/evaluation,
professional development or compensation/rewards)?
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Blueprint
DRAFT
Description
1. Career Opportunities
Explicitly articulated career paths that will enhance KS’s ability to recruit, retain, motivate and develop the
workforce necessary to execute KS’s mission and strategy.
2. Performance Management and Evaluation
Powerful tool for evaluating, developing and managing those competencies, skills, abilities and behaviors
most critical to both serving more Native Hawaiians (quantity) and increasing positive student outcomes
(quality).
3. Professional Growth and Renewal
Integrated professional growth and renewal planning identifies the supports needed to develop and
solidify the identified competencies, skills, knowledge, abilities and behaviors needed to be a successful
mission-driven organization.
4. Compensation and Rewards
Appropriately aligned and fiscally responsible rewards, including compensation, to better recruit, retain
and reward a mission driven workforce.
TEC
Version 12
160
Question #3: What blueprints will we pilot (e.g., performance management/evaluation, professional
development, career opportunities or compensation/rewards)?
System
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
1. Career Opportunities
TEC
2. Performance Management &
Evaluation
DRAFT
What do you see as the major challenges in piloting?

Limits on numbers of positions in different levels.

Assigning all positions into four buckets.

Backfilling for project work or temporary assignments.

Initial placement determination.

Sufficient time for evidence to “test” someone moving between career levels

Training sufficient staff to be evaluators

Evaluations (identify evaluators, shifting responsibilities, prioritizing time, etc.)

Acceptance of new system, new roles

Including all the design elements and keeping the process simple

Use of technology across the board

Initial costs to outsource or train internal staff to assess video/portfolio

Maintenance issue to “operationalize” the process

Resistance to doing more/a parallel process

Ability to get a valid sampling that will enable us to test the different systems for the various groups and levels (be strategic
on who/how we pilot)

Managing what people “make up” (controlling rumors/urban legends)

Critical member of a pilot team who does not want to participate vs. member who wants to participate
Version 12
161
Question #3: What blueprints will we pilot (e.g., career opportunities, performance management
and evaluation, professional growth and renewal or compensation and rewards)?
System
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
3. Professional Growth and Renewal
TEC
4. Compensation & Rewards
DRAFT
What do you see as the major challenges in piloting?

When is there going to be time to do this?

Changing rules of game – “I’m already at the end of salary schedule, why do I have to do this?”

Timing of the offerings, job imbedded time

Implementing MLP for non-users

Timing of professional development pilot to align w/ performance management or compensation pilot

Changing Master Schedule to accommodate the new staff professional growth and renewal requirements

Existing perceptions of “pay for performance”

Potential rub against collegial culture of education

No at-risk penalty

Difference in pay must be significant (greater than 2%); rewards of value

Trustees on board to pay?

One salary schedule
Version 12
162
Question #4: Which Education Units Will Participate in the Pilot?
Summary of As Is Position Classifications
(Including Vacancies & FY 08-09 New TAP)
Division
KS KAPALAMA
Classification
Administrator/Management
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Faculty
Education Support
Job Cluster
A - Campus
A - On Site
B - Centralized Support
B - Community
C - Miscellaneous
A - Instruction
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
B - Librarians
C - Counselors
D - Other
A - Instructional Support
B - Community
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
A
A
B
A
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
B - Librarians
C - Counselors
A - Instructional Support
B - Community
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
A
A
B
A
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
B - Librarians
C - Counselors
A - Instructional Support
B - Community
Unit
Campus
Community
KS KAPALAMA Total
KS MAUI
Administrator/Management
Faculty
Education Support
-
Campus
On Site
Community
Instruction
KS HAWAII
Administrator/Management
Faculty
Education Support
-
Version 12
Campus
On Site
Community
Instruction
Education
26
1
2
240
9
10
16
4
51
6
365
11
Campus
Community
KS MAUI Total
KS HAWAII Total
TEC
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
DRAFT
1
86
3
3
7
17
1
129
11
Campus
Community
1
102
5
3
6
20
1
149
163
Question #4: Which Education Units Will Participate in the Pilot?
Summary of As Is Position Classifications
(Including Vacancies & FY 08-09 New TAP)
Division
CEI
Classification
Administrator/Management
Faculty
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Education Support
TEC
Job Cluster
Cluster B - Centralized Support
Cluster B - Community
Cluster A - Instruction
Cluster C - Counselors
Cluster D - Other
Cluster A - Instructional Support
Cluster B - Community
CEI Total
Education Family Total
Unit
Community
DRAFT
Education
32
204
21
3
96
70
426
1,069
SUMMARY BY POSITION CLASSIFICATION:
Administrator/Management
Faculty
Education Support
Total Education Family Positions
TAP SUMMARY BY POSITION CLASSIFICATION
Administrator/Management
Faculty
Education Support
Total Education Family TAP FTEs
85
722
262
1,069
85.0
706.4
241.1
1,032.5
Version 12
164
Question #4: Which Education Units will Participate in the Pilot?
DRAFT
The following elements were considered by the team: leadership support, change readiness, size, complexity, other (e.g., strategic projects ‘in
flight’, etc.) before making the following recommendations:
Unit
NOTES
Considerations and Recommendations
Kapälama – Total Approximate Population Subject to Pilot
(365)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
•10% of the education population
considered a minimum amount
for a meaningful pilot.
TEC
• 20% considered a
recommended maximum for a
manageable pilot.
• Work group % (10/70/20)
based on estimated work force
distribution
• Participating units have the
option to have a number of pilot
participants that exceed the
recommended maximum.
Admin (10%)
Faculty (70%)
Ed Supp (20%)
Total (100%)
Min (10%)
4
26
7
37
Max (20%)
8
52
13
73
Maui – Total Approximate Population Subject to Pilot (129)
Min (10%) Max (20%)
Admin (10%)
1
2
Faculty (70%)
9
18
Ed Supp (20%)
3
6
Total (100%)
13
26
Hawaiÿi - Total Approximate Population Subject to Pilot
(149)
Min (10%) Max (20%)
Admin (10%)
1
2
Faculty (70%)
11
22
Ed Supp (20%)
3
6
Total (100%)
15
30
Community Education & Implementation – Total
Approximate Population Subject to Pilot (426)
Min (10%) Max (20%)
Admin (10%)
4
8
Faculty (70%)
31
62
Ed Supp (20%)
8
16
Total (100%)
43
86
Total Suggested Pilot Participant Size (Organization Wide)
With Total Approximate Population Subject to Pilot (1,069)
Min (10%) Max (20%)
Admin (10%)
10
20
Faculty (70%)
77
154
Ed Supp (20%)
21
41
Total (100%)
108
215
Version 12
165
Question #5: What positions in the education workforce matrix (e.g., Administrators/Management,
Faulty, Education Support and Operations/Other) will be included in the pilot?
DRAFT
The Core Project Team initially classified all Education Group positions into the following four categories based on common general competencies, external labor markets,
advancement methodologies, and career paths:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Administrator/Management
Faculty
Education Support
Other
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
A complete list of positions considered by the Core Project Team is found in Appendix J.
TEC
Un-highlighted positions (in Appendix J) were subsequently considered a part of the organization wide Total Rewards workforce capacity building efforts.
Version 12
166
Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established
timeline and any related dependencies?
DRAFT
Following is the high level timetable for the pilot…
Jan
2009
Feb
2009
Mar
2009
Apr
2009
May
2009
Jun
2009
Jul
2009
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Pilot Preparation (January to June 2009)
Core Project Team
TEC
Jan
2010
Feb
2010
Mar
2010
Apr
2010
Aug
2009
Sep
2009
Oct
2009
Nov
2009
Dec
2009
Pilot (July 2009 to June 2010)
Pilot Support Team and Core Project Team
May
2010
Jun
2010
Jul
2010
Pilot (July 2009 to June 2010)
Pilot Support Team and Core Project Team
Aug
2010
Sep
2010
Oct
2010
Nov
2010
Dec
2010
Next Steps* (July 2010
Formative Assessment, Evaluation and Prepare Next Steps
(January 2010 to June 2010)
Pilot Support Team and Core Project Team
* Next steps may include re-pilot, pilot expansion,
“operationalize”, hybrid and/or other approaches.
Version 12
167
Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established
timeline and any related dependencies?
Steps
DRAFT
The Intent of this Pilot Work Plan Step is to
I. PROJECT AND PILOT MANAGEMENT – No later than January 2009
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
A. Establish Project and Pilot Management Structure
B. Establish Roles and Responsibilities
TEC
Establish the project and pilot management structure and
related roles and responsibilities ensuring appropriate
understanding, supports and clarity for project team
members.
II. HUMAN RESOURCES – No later than February 2009
A. Identify Pilot Participants (e.g., Administration, Faculty, Education
Support)
B. Establish Pilot Participant Role and Responsibilities
C. Identify External Subject Matter Experts
Establish the participants, support team and external
subject matter experts ensuring appropriate
understanding supports and clarity for all involved in the
pilot.
III. BLUE PRINTS – GENERAL – No later than February 2009
A. Establish foundation of the pilot (e.g., blueprints, instructional
philosophy, etc.).
B. Document unit readiness assessment.
C. Determine pilot barriers and/or supports and document impact
on each pilot unit.
Translate the blue print designs into tangible, operating
processes, tools, forms, systems, etc. for use by pilot
participants.
Version 12
168
Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established
timeline and any related dependencies?
Steps
DRAFT
The Intent of this Pilot Work Plan Step is to:
III. BLUE PRINTS – CAREER OPPORTUNITIES – No later than February 2009
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
A. Draft and document career opportunities and related pay matrix.
TEC
‘Translate’ the career opportunities blue print design into a tangible and
transparent career ladder, with associated proposed pay matrices
III. BLUE PRINTS – PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT - No later than March 2009
A. Document performance management process, tools, forms, systems,
timeframe etc.
B. Review key organization wide documents (e.g., strategic plan, education
strategic plan, philosophy of education, annual report, CEO Team goals, etc.)
to ensure alignment of process.
C. Document competencies (organizational and functional)
D. Draft examples of performance goals and outcomes related to improved
student learning (e.g., goal bank, examples, professional learning
communities, action research, etc.)
E. Draft examples of professional development goals.
F. Enter competencies, goals and other management documents or information
into the pilot/test system of record.
Ensure the iterative performance management process is efficient,
effective, tangible, transparent, meaningful and manageable.
Refer to Appendix C for the draft Performance Evaluation process.
Version 12
169
Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any
related dependencies?
Steps
DRAFT
The Intent of this Pilot Work Plan Step is to:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
III. BLUE PRINTS – EVALUATION - No later than March 2009
TEC
A. Document performance evaluation process (including performance
improvement and appeal processes) and related tools, forms,
systems, time frame, etc.
B. Enter performance evaluation rubrics into the system.
C. Develop collection vessels for the bodies of evidence used in the
evaluation process.
Ensure the iterative evaluation process is efficient, effective,
tangible, transparent, meaningful and manageable and
meets the establish design criteria.
III. BLUE PRINTS – PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND RENEWAL- No later than March 2009
A. Document professional development process and related tools,
forms, systems, time frame, etc.
B. Consolidate and enter professional growth and renewal offerings
into the system (My Learning Plan).
C. Track, evaluate and link professional development engagement to
goals and performance.
Ensure the iterative professional development process efficient,
effective, tangible, transparent, meaningful and
manageable and meets the established design criteria.
Refer to Appendix D for the draft professional
development process and the Use of My Learning Plan
process.
III. BLUE PRINTS – COMPENSATION AND REWARDS - No later than March 2009
A. Draft and document career opportunities and related pay matrix.
B. Conduct virtual pilot for all positions (not just pilot participants).
Version 12
C. Draft ‘opt in’ considerations
A. Document the compensation and reward actions as a result
of satisfactorily evaluated performance and achievement;
B. Ascertain any potential issues when mapping existing
schedule placement to the new proposed career ladder and 170
Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any
related dependencies?
Steps
DRAFT
The Intent of this Pilot Work Plan Step is to:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
IV. COMMUNICATION – On going
TEC
A. Establish electronic communication tools and frequency (e.g., blogs, emails, web page)
B. Establish project and pilot communication tools and frequency (e.g.,
pilot participants, meeting notes, bi-weekly status reports)
C. Establish stakeholder communication tools and frequency (e.g.,
Education Group, KSFA, Leadership, etc.)
Ensure effective and efficient communication tools and
frequencies are utilized throughout the pilot.
V. TRAINING – June 2009 and July 2009 Initial
A. Identify all content or subject matter topics (e.g., overview of framework,
Charlotte Danielson, evaluation rubrics, etc.)
B. Identify frequency and location of content or subject matter training
sessions.
C. Identify training sessions related to tools (e.g., Success Factors, My
Learning Plan, etc.)
D. Develop all training materials, including evaluation of the training
materials and methods.
E. Establish training site and/or test instances (for systems) for pilot
participant use.
F. Identify external subject matter experts needed for training.
Ensure appropriate training supports are provided for the pilot
participants.
Version 12
171
Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any
related dependencies?
DRAFT
Steps
The Intent of this Pilot Work Plan Step is to:
A. Determine and estimate travel needs for pilot participants, pilot support team,
core project team and external subject matter experts.
Identify and provide resources to support pilot participant travel to
enhance communication among pilot participants and to ensure a
unified start and end to the pilot.
VI. TRAVEL – On going
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
VII. TOOLS – No later than January 2009
TEC
A. Identify all tools (e.g., paper, electronic) needed for the pilot.
B. Ensure adequate training is provided for pilot tools.
Identify tools needed to execute the education framework elements in
accordance with the established design principles, blue prints and
related processes, forms and tools.
VIII. CHANGE MANAGEMENT – On going
A. Identify and address change elements by unit (e.g., resistors, early adopters,
frustration, organization wide understanding and support, active
engagement, leadership engagement).
Ensure change management elements are identified and addressed by
the project leadership and team to increase pilot success and
preparation to “operationalize” the framework elements.
Version 12
172
Question #6: What are the detailed work plan steps for the pilot, including an established timeline and any
related dependencies?
Steps
DRAFT
The Intent of this Pilot Work Plan Step is to:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
IX. ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATION – No later than June 2009 (pre-pilot measures) and June 2010 (for formative assessments)
TEC
A. Clarify and document formative and summative assessments, ensuring
appropriate baseline or front end data is gathered before the pilot’s
inception.
B. Document evaluation of the pilot, including any ‘next step’ recommendations.
C. Determine ‘next steps’ recommendations after analysis of the assessment and
evaluation data.
Ensure formative assessments and evaluation of the pilot are
completed for determination of appropriate ‘next steps’.
Draft preliminary summative assessment and evaluation process.
X. FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS – Ongoing but no later than June 2010
A. Refine ‘AS IS’ projections.
B. Update, iteratively, ‘TO BE’ projections based on pilot ‘lessons learned’.
C. Draft ‘opt out’ considerations.
Clarify the fiscal impact of the “AS IS” projections and proposed “TO
BE” education framework elements and provide a range of options
for staff members to consider, respectively.
Refer to Appendix E for a draft of the mind map for Ka Piÿina pilot work plan.
Version 12
173
Question #7: Will there be a formative assessment of the pilot?
If yes, what will it cover and how will it be conducted?
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
A pilot formative assessment will consider the following essential question: “Is it [Education Workforce Framework] operating as intended?
TEC
Planned activities associated with the formative assessment include:
1.
Identification and establishment of baseline pre-pilot formative assessment activities (e.g., survey, focus group, etc.), including data collection.
2.
Completion of post-pilot formative assessment activities (e.g., survey, focus group, etc.), including data collection.
3.
Synthesize and analyze pre- and post-pilot formative assessment data, including consideration of design principles.
4.
Identify any unknown, unconsidered and/or unintended consequences of the pilot.
5.
Provide evaluation observations, insights and “next steps” recommendations.
Version 12
174
Question #8: Will there be a summative assessment of the pilot? If yes, what will it cover and how will it be
conducted?
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
A pilot summative assessment will consider the following essential question: “Are we seeing improvements in system goal achievement (including student learning) as a
result of the framework?”
TEC
Planned activities associated with the summative assessment include:
1.
Identification and establishment of baseline pre-pilot summative assessment activities (e.g., survey, focus group, etc.), including data collection.
2.
Completion of post-pilot summative assessment activities (e.g., survey, focus group, etc.), including data collection.
3.
Synthesize and analyze pre- and post-pilot summative assessment data, including consideration of design principles.
4.
Identify any unknown, unconsidered and/or unintended consequences of the pilot.
5.
Provide evaluation observations, insights and “next steps” recommendations.
Version 12
175
Question #9: What resources, both in terms of time, people and dollars,
will be required to complete the pilot?
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Refer to Appendix F for Details of the Projected Pilot Costs: $1.6 Million (Current Estimate)
TEC
Version 12
176
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Question #10: Will KS require external expertise to facilitate the pilot? If so what kinds of expertise will KS
need and what will be their roles?
DRAFT
During the “discovery” phase of Ka Piÿina (roughly November 2007 to April 2008), contacts were made with a number of reference organizations as related to the “pay for
performance” topic in Education. These included, but was not limited to:
 Denver Public Schools
 Milton Hershey School
 West Denver Preparatory School
 Benchmark Research
 Independent School Management
 National Center for Performance Incentives (Vanderbilt University, Peabody College of Education)
TEC
Version 12
177
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
DRAFT
TEC
11. Financial Analysis
Version 12
178
11. Financial Analysis
DRAFT
Financial Forecast
Marc Wallace, TEC Consultant, worked with the Ka Piÿina Core Project Team Analyst in adapting the financial model described in Chapter 7 of the
Operation Public Education (OPE) book by John Deasy and his work at Ohio State in adapting Charlotte Danielson’s work for Administrators. Following
is a summary of the core of that chapter describing the methodology at a high level:
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
In summary, “we recommend that you follow these steps in developing a cost forecast in your district”:
TEC
Step1: Develop a teacher and administrator population database that contains the following information for each faculty member:
Name
Age
Years service in current position
Years in teaching/administration
Current base salary
Step and lane placement in current salary schedule
Stipends paid this year
Educational Degree
Step 2: Develop the current percentage distribution of teachers and administrators in the current salary schedule.
to estimate the distribution of teachers/administrators in the schedule in each of the forecast years (as we did in our example). Alternatively,
you may want to estimate these distributions at a more micro level – using unique information that you have regarding retirements,
replacements, attainment of educational credentials, etc.
Version 12
179
11. Financial Analysis (continued)
DRAFT
Financial Forecast (Continued)
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Step 3: Develop the current schedule in each of the five forecast years using this year’s schedule as the base year (0). You may want to make annual
across-the-board cost of living adjustments to the schedule. Use the percentage distribution developed previously.
TEC
Step 4: Develop the new Career Ladder Schedule and adapt to your district. Estimate the percentage distribution across levels (Apprentice, Career,
Advanced and Distinguished) that you would expect in each year of the forecast. You have a choice here. We recommend that you use the
percentage estimates we have used in our example. They are based on the expert judgments of a number of people close to the evaluation of
teacher skill levels and performance. Alternatively you may choose to develop your own estimates based on factors unique to your district.
Step 5: Develop a forecast of incentive program costs and stipend costs in each year of the forecast under the new Model.
Step 6: Build the spreadsheet model that allows you to calculate the total compensation cost of the current salary schedule with the total cost of the OPE
Career Ladder Schedule in each year of the forecast and across all years of the forecast. Spreadsheet models in Excel will be available to you at
no cost on the teachercomp.com web site.
Step 6: Adjust parameters in the forecast (e.g., across-the-board annual adjustments, steps within Career Ladder Levels, Career Level adjustments,
stipends, bonus levels) until an affordable result is found.
Step 7: Test the model against actual experience and revise.
Version 12
180
11. Financial Analysis (continued)
DRAFT
Financial Forecast (Continued)
What benefits can we expect from the new framework?
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
So far we have examined models that forecast the expected cost of new compensation systems. Districts should pay attention to the economic
benefits to be derived from the OPE model (including new compensation methods). Odden and Wallace point out that the following benefits are
associated with new compensation programs (Odden and Wallace, 2008):
TEC
Higher levels of teacher productivity
Lower teacher vacancy rates, especially in hard to staff areas
Lower turnover rates, especially in hard to staff areas
Ability to attract and retain teachers of higher caliber, and, ultimately
Significant gains in student learning and achievement.
Admittedly, such benefits, although critical, are more difficult to quantify. Odden and Wallace cites the work of Bill Sanders that show that
effective and highly effective teachers create more student learning than ineffective teachers. The effect of teachers’ instructional practice, in addition, far
outweighs other factor such as years of experience, degree, credit attainment, student characteristics and classroom characteristics (see, for example,
Sanders, 1998;Sanders and Horn, 1994; Sanders and Rivers, 1996).
Version 12
181
DRAFT
11. Financial Analysis (Continued)
Understanding the current “AS IS” projected payroll commitment is important to establishing a baseline data point for comparison of the related projections that will be part
of the “TO BE” future payroll commitment.
As-Is Projections of Payroll Commitment
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
(Education Career Families Only)
Div Desc
Administrator/Management Salary Expense
Faculty Salary Expense
Education Support Salary Expense
Other Salary Expense
Overtime
Athletics (TEMP)
Summer & Comm Outreach (TEMP)
Extension Education Svcs (TEMP)
KS Campuses - Academic stipends (TEMP)
Sabbatical
Substitute
Temps - KS Payroll (TEMP)
Benefits
Grand Total
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp Comp Exp
($M)
($M)
($M)
($M)
($M)
($M)
($M)
($M)
($M)
($M)
($M)
$7.7
$8.0
$8.3
$8.6
$9.0
$9.3
$9.7
$10.1
$10.5
$10.9
$11.3
$44.2
$46.2
$48.2
$50.3
$52.4
$54.6
$56.8
$59.1
$61.3
$63.6
$66.0
$8.2
$8.5
$8.9
$9.2
$9.6
$10.0
$10.4
$10.8
$11.2
$11.6
$12.1
$.4
$.9
$1.7
$1.6
$.4
$.3
$.9
$1.1
$20.7
$88.1
$.4
$1.1
$1.8
$1.6
$.5
$.3
$.9
$1.1
$21.5
$91.9
$.4
$1.1
$1.8
$1.7
$.5
$.3
$.9
$1.1
$22.4
$95.6
$.4
$1.2
$1.8
$1.7
$.5
$.3
$.9
$1.2
$23.4
$99.6
$.5
$1.2
$1.9
$1.7
$.5
$.3
$1.0
$1.2
$24.3
$103.6
$.5
$1.2
$1.9
$1.8
$.5
$.4
$1.0
$1.2
$25.3
$107.6
$.5
$1.3
$2.0
$1.8
$.5
$.4
$1.0
$1.4
$26.4
$112.0
$.5
$1.3
$2.0
$1.9
$.5
$.4
$1.0
$1.4
$27.4
$116.4
$.5
$1.3
$2.1
$1.9
$.5
$.4
$1.1
$1.4
$28.5
$120.7
$.5
$1.4
$2.1
$2.0
$.6
$.5
$1.1
$1.5
$29.5
$125.3
$.6
$1.4
$2.2
$2.0
$.6
$.5
$1.1
$1.5
$30.7
$130.0
The assumptions used to construct the ‘AS IS’ Projections above are noted on the following slide.
TEC
Version 12
182
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
11. Financial Analysis (Continued)
TEC
DRAFT
Version 12
183
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
11. Financial Analysis (Continued)
TEC
DRAFT
Version 12
184
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
DRAFT
TEC
12. Summary and Next Steps
Version 12
185
Summary
DRAFT
A high level summary of key framework concepts are listed below and on the next page:
1 – ”Piÿina” refers to a climb, ascent or rise. The project was named Ka Piÿina to represent the gentle climb, ascent or rise to excellence—both in education and educators.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
2 - Ka Piÿina is
TEC







A way to recruit, retain and reward quality educators.
A way to elevate and support educators and quality education throughout KS.
In response to the KS climate survey feedback regarding accountability, constructive feedback and appreciation.
Working toward a framework where there are options and choices for career enhancement and advancement
Focusing on skills, attributes and attitudes that can be recruited, developed, supported and rewarded.
“Non-partisan”—both “management” and “rank and file”; “union” and “non-union”; “campus” and “community”; “Oÿahu” and “Neighbor Island”.
* Under the umbrella of Total Rewards – an HR led, organization wide initiative to also look at strengthening the people throughout KS.
3 – Related Career Families
 Administration & Management
 Faculty
 Education Support
4 – Framework Components or Blueprints With Design Principles
 Career Opportunities
 Performance Evaluation and Management
 Professional Growth and Renewal
 Compensation & Rewards
Version 12
186
Summary
DRAFT
5 - Career Opportunities - Develop breadth and depth of competencies and capabilities


Design Principles: Grow professionally, seek and qualify for leadership opportunities, encourage ‘risk taking’, consider multiple career opportunities and
paths.
Career Levels: Entry, Professional, Career Professional, Advanced Professional
6 - Performance Evaluation and Management
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT

TEC
Design Principles: Improve quality of instruction, achievement and services; documents performance; is meaningful and manageable; captures all
relevant dimensions of performance; provides multiple facets and methods to provide feedback, links to multiple career growth and opportunities; drives
the professional development process.
7 - Professional Growth and Renewal

Design Principles: Supports workforce capacity building; is meaningful and manageable; integrates with the performance evaluation process and proves
career opportunities; links to the further development and strengthening of the Native Hawaiian community through ÿIke and Nohona Hawaiÿi initiatives;
supports a variety of opportunities, ways, strategies, tools and mechanisms to enable effective experiences.
8 - Compensation & Rewards

Design Principles: Transparent and clear to understand; recognizes demonstrated cultural, indigeneous knowledge and skill; supports a competitive base
salary/benefits package; rewards improvements in staff performance, process efficiencies, process and program effectiveness, career growth and student
learning objectives and outcomes; provides a variety of options for compensation (both cash and non-cash).
9 – Pilot - SY 09-10; all four blueprints to be piloted; voluntary; 100 system wide participants recommended; actual details of the pilot customized for each pilot group;
supported by a Pilot Support Team; formative and summative assessments planned.
Version 12
187
Next Steps
DRAFT
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
From October 2008 to December 2008, meetings held beginning with the Education Group Executives (EGE) and CEO/Trustees, cascading down to the leadership of
individual education units to discuss the framework in detail. Subsequently, during the months of January and early February 2009, meetings were held with faculty
and staff at large and the following questions were also posed to them:
TEC
1.
What is your reaction to the design principles and guidelines (e.g., too many, too little, missing any, duplicative, transparent, simple)?
2.
What is your reaction to the four cornerstone elements of design: 1) performance evaluation; 2) professional development; 3) career
opportunities and 4) compensation (e.g., makes sense, see the integration, understand the basis and tools, etc.)?
3.
What is your reaction to the pilot implementation plan (e.g., identification and parameters of participation, measurement, timing,
evaluation, etc.) for SY 2009-10 (e.g., can it be supported, what does “support” look like, etc.)?
4.
What is your reaction to the transition to operational elements (e.g., Human Resources, education unit, roles and responsibilities) for the
purpose of affirming or altering the draft workforce framework toward a final deliverable plan for phased implementation beginning in SY
2010-11 (e.g., is it clear, are the units prepared, what transition steps are needed, etc.)?
Pilot participant application, determination, selection and preparation began in mid-February 2009 through the end of the fiscal year in June 2009 in preparation for
the August 2009 kickoff of the pilot year.
Version 12
188
Next Steps
DRAFT
The next high level steps are summarized below for the SY 09-10 pilot year:
Jul
2009
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
For pilot participants
TEC
Aug
2009
Sep
2009
Q1: Focus on Training & 0910 Goal Setting
 Tools Training (Success Factors,
My Learning Plan, Blackboard, SM-A-R-T goals)
 Danielson and CLASS
Instructional Framework Training
 Cascaded goal setting process
 Initial evaluator and participant
conversations regarding 09-10
 Provide feedback to Core Project
Team and Research & Evaluation
Division
For Core Project Team
Oct
2009
Nov
2009
Dec
2009
Q2: Focus on Collection of
Artifacts and Bodies of
Evidence
Jan
2010
Feb
2010
Mar
2010
Q3: Focus on Collection of
Artifacts and Bodies of
Evidence
 Review training
 Practice and reflect
 Gather artifacts and bodies of evidence
 Conduct classroom observations
 Attend, hold and/or participate in professional growth and
renewal activities (e.g., workshops, action research, book study,
projects)
 Hold mid year or period updates with evaluator for affirmation
and support of direction in 09-10
 Provide feedback to Core Project Team and Research &
Evaluation Division
Apr
2010
May
2010
Jun
2009
Q1: Focus on Evaluation
 Review artifacts and bodies of
evidence
 Prepare evaluation
 Provide feedback to Core
Project Team and Research &
Evaluation Division
Monitor and support pilot participant activities (e.g., training, update meetings, goal setting), prepare pilot evaluation plans (e.g.,
formative and summative) and formulate framework recommendations for consideration.
Version 12
189
Appendices
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT

TEC










DRAFT
Appendix A – Administrative and Management Career Family Evaluation Rubrics
National Staff Development Council (NSDC)
Appendix B – Danielson Framework Evaluation Rubrics
Appendix C – Performance Evaluation Process
Appendix D – Professional Development and Use of My Learning Plan Process
Appendix E – Ka Piÿina Work Plan – Mind Map
Appendix F – High Level Pilot Work Plan and Related Cost Estimates
Appendix G – KS Organizational Competencies
Appendix H – Modified Danielson Evaluation Rubrics for Educational Support Career Family
Appendix I - Draft Integrated Evaluation Rubrics with Nä Honua Mauli Ola and Christian Values
 I-1: Administration and Management Career Family (NSDC)
 I-2: Faculty Career Family (Danielson)
 I-3: Education Support Career Family (Danielson)
 I-4: Counselors (Danielson)
 I-5: Library Media Specialists (Danielson)
 I-6: Administration and Management Career Family (Interstate School Leadership Licensing Consortium-ISLLC)
Appendix J – Ka Pi`ina Pilot Position Classifications
Appendix K – Classroom Assessment and Scoring System (CLASS) Overview
Version 12
190
Appendix I – Integrated Rubrics
DRAFT
During the 2008-2009 school year, the Core Project Team worked on ensuring the alignment of the Ka Pi`ina framework with three foundational elements and documents:
Education (Philosophy of Education), Christian Values (Spiritual Guiding Principles) and Hawaiian Culture (Lähui Vision). As a result, the instructional evaluation
rubrics were integrated with these documents resulting in the integrated rubrics contained in Appendix I.
DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT - DRAFT – DRAFT
Pilot participants may consider utilizing the integrated evaluation rubrics during the SY 09-10 Ka Pi`ina pilot in consultation with their evaluator/supervisor.
Appendix I - Draft Integrated Evaluation Rubrics with Nä Honua Mauli Ola and Christian Values
 I-1: Administration and Management Career Family (NSDC)
 I-2: Faculty Career Family (Danielson)
 I-3: Education Support Career Family (Danielson)
 I-4: Counselors (Danielson)
 I-5: Library Media Specialists (Danielson)
 I-6: Administration and Management Career Family (Interstate School Leadership Licensing Consortium-ISLLC)
TEC
Version 12
191