Kihei Public Charter High School in Maui has embraced a 21st Century model of education that offers a mix of classroom time and 150 high-quality, online courses to its 140 students. Myron B. Thompson Academy in Honolulu is a virtual charter school that educates more than 800 students. These schools are in step with innovative schools and nations across the globe in their use of online instruction to help solve problems like inadequate school budgets, overcrowded classrooms, teacher shortages and access to high-quality curriculum.

Ten years ago, Hawaii led the country in online learning, using federal Technology Innovation Grants to provide Internet access to all of its schools and online classes through eschool. The online education movement has since spread like wildfire across the world. China’s government is striving to exceed last year’s goal of 5 million virtual students and India has launched the education satellite, EDUSAT, to ensure that even rural students receive a curriculum that will allow them to compete globally, especially in science, mathematics and engineering.

It's surprising, then, that Hawaii’s state Board of Education is now moving in the opposite direction by considering a policy that would limit the number of virtual students in charter schools.

The BOE’s Policy for Virtual Learning Students in Charter Schools defines a “virtual learning student” as “a student that receives 50 percent or more of his or her instruction using computers, the Internet or technology outside of a traditional classroom or face-to-face learning environment.” The policy also states that “a virtual learning student shall not be a home schooled student” and prohibits virtual learning for charter school students in grades K-5.

The BOE policy recognizes only the state-developed virtual curriculum offered by the Myron B. Thompson Academy charter school. Meanwhile, more than 360,000 elementary, secondary, university and adult students in Hawaii currently learn via a multitude of distance and virtual learning course offerings.

In an attempt to further restrict charter schools’ authority to manage curriculum, the Board specifies that schools must use Hawaii Content and Performance Standards III lesson plans. However, no lesson plans exist. Also, the Hawaii State Teachers’ Association collective bargaining agreement with the Board allows teachers academic freedom in the classroom. Current law allows charter schools to incorporate or exceed state educational content and performance standards.

The Board’s decision to limit virtual curriculum to only one model lies in direct opposition to the 2006 Legislature’s position against a bill that would have mandated a common, core curriculum in public schools. House Education Chair Roy Takumi, D-Pearl City, rejected the mandatory curriculum requirement in SB 3059, stating that students should not be subjected to “a one-size-fits-all” model.

An attempt by the Board to micro-manage charter school curriculum would violate charter school law that gives control over curriculum to local school boards. Ironically, this move would also violate the Board’s Policies and Policy Setting policy that guides the education system, not individual schools, and is subject to data gathering and meaningful public involvement.

Attorney General Enables BOE to Clamp Down on Charter School Enrollment

In November 2005, BOE Chair Breene Harimoto asked the Department of the Attorney General if the DOE is required to transfer additional funds to charter schools whose student enrollment is in grade levels beyond those identified in the charter school’s original detailed implementation plan (DIP).

Deputy Attorney General Gary K.H. Kam, in his December 2005 opinion, states that an approved DIP is a written performance contract between the Board and a charter school, but the statutes are silent on the DIP after the contract is approved.

The opinion cites Policy 8200 entitled, “Policy and Guidelines for Notification and Approval of Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) Amendments” as approved by the Board on 8/18/05, that charter schools must receive board approval for changes that have a significant impact on instruction and operations. However, the board did not follow its own guidelines that require data gathering and public input before adoption of this policy.

The attorney general opinion cites Hawaii law requiring the DOE to transfer additional funds into the charter school budget when actual student enrollments exceed projected enrollment.

Despite this law, the attorney general concludes that charter schools are not entitled to funding if they have educated students in grade levels that are not included in the charter schools’ DIP. The DOE reacted to the attorney general’s opinion by asking charter schools for a $1.9 million reimbursement for students, they say, were educated out of approved grade levels, including virtual schooled students.

Although $1.9 million does not seem significant when compared to the Department of Education's $2.2 billion budget, 27 charter schools must survive on a $28 million budget, or less than half of the per pupil amounts alloted to traditional public schools. Charter school administrators say that the money has already been spent to educate its students.

Article X, Section 3 of the Hawaii State Constitution states that the Board of Education “shall have the power, as provided by law, to formulate statewide educational policy... .”

It does not say, however, that the Board of Education shall set policy and, in doing so, disregard the law. No purpose is served and no policy is fulfilled by limiting access to quality education for charter school students and by punishing charter schools for providing needed education to students.

Laura Brown is the education reporter and researcher for HawaiiReporter.com and the education policy analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. She can be reached via email at

mailto:laurabrown@hawaii.rr.com