University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Ka mana o loko: examining the ways in which a culture-based education community makes meaning of accountability

(USC Thesis Other)

Ka mana o loko: examining the ways in which a culture-based education community makes meaning of accountability

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: KA MANA O LOKO 1
KA MANA O LOKO: EXAMINING THE WAYS IN WHICH A CULTURE-BASED
EDUCATION COMMUNITY MAKES MEANING OF ACCOUNTABILITY

by

Kay ʻAlohilani Hisako Okamura

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2015

Copyright 2015 Kay ʻAlohilani Hisako Okamura
KA MANA O LOKO 2
Dedication
This is dedicated to my godparents and my kūpuna who have waited a 120 years for me
to write this.

KA MANA O LOKO 3
Acknowledgements
Ke hoʻomaikaʻi aku nei au i ke Akua, ka Makua mau loa o ka lani. Me ka leo haʻahaʻa
nō au e hoʻonani aku iā ia i kona lokomaikaʻi a ʻoluʻolu nō me aʻu. Nāna nō ka nani a me ka
hanohano ma kēia papahana nei.
ʻO ka mea mua kuʻu mahalo aku i kuʻu alakaʻi ʻo Dr. Julie Slayton. Nāna nō i hōʻike mai
i ke kūlia ʻana i ka nuʻu. A akahi nō wau a ʻike maka i kēia me kona ʻōlelo paipai a koikoi i ka
holomua ʻana mai. Alakaʻi maila ʻo ia me ka maikaʻi loa i kēia huakaʻihele nui. A palena ʻole
kona ahonui me aʻu a hoʻomalu ʻia mai au i ka palekana aku i mea e noho ai i ke ala pono.
ʻAʻole ʻo ia i hāʻawi pio me aʻu a kū wau i ka haʻahaʻa i kona ʻae koke ʻana mai e kōkua ma ka
lā mua o ko māua launa pū ʻana mai. ʻO ia nō ke ola o kēia hana nui. Nāna nō i hiʻi mai i kēia
lei me ke aloha i ka ua kanilehua. He lei aloha nō ia.
Mahalo hou aku au iā Dr. Keiki Kawaiʻaeʻa, he lālā nō ma koʻu kōmike a he hoa nō ia i
ka hoʻomau ʻana i ka ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi. Ua kū nō au i ka haʻahaʻa ma muli o kou lokomaikaʻi i ka
ʻae koke ʻana e kōkua i nā ʻano like ʻole. A he lei poina ʻole ʻo ia. A mahalo nō hoʻi au iā Dr.
Jamy Stillman i ke kōkua nui ʻana mai e lilo i lālā ma ke kōmike. Keu nō kona akamai a like nō
kona ʻoluʻolu i ka ʻimi naʻauao ʻana mai. He lei makamae nō ia.
I nā alakaʻi nui o koʻu ola ma ka ʻimi naʻauao ʻana ʻo ʻAnakē Malia Craver, Catherine
Payne, Pilialoha Higa, Dr. Puakea Nogelmeier a me ʻAnakē Lolena Nicholas. ʻO ʻoukou nā
lamakū o ke ala kūpono aʻu e hele ai. I nā kumu a me nā hoa ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi nō hoʻi. He makana
aloha nō ia iā ʻoukou kekahi. E holomua pū kākou i nā mea maikaʻi no nā hanauna e hiki mai
ana. He lei aloha pau ʻole no lākou pākahi a pau.
I nā hoa kūkā nā mea i walaʻau nui ai me aʻu i kēia huakaʻi hele ʻana ma ka ʻimi naʻauao
ʻana. Mahalo iā lākou a pau loa. ʻO Kalei Napuelua ka hoa i kūkākūkā nui me aʻu. Mahalo iā
KA MANA O LOKO 4
ʻoe i ka walaʻau nui ʻana mai me ke ahonui a me ke aloha. I nā mea a pau āna i kakoʻo nui ai a
kūkākūkā pū me aʻu, ʻo ia nō ka mea i hoʻolohe mai iaʻu a ʻo ia ka mea nui i pule nui iaʻu. He
lei hiwahiwa nō ia.
I ka ʻohana ka mea i kakoʻo nui mai i ke ahonui a me ke aloha. I nā kūpuna i hōʻike mai i
ka mea nui o ka naʻauao ʻana. I nā mākua i hōʻike mai ma ka hana ka ʻike. I ka ʻohana a pau loa,
ʻo ka ʻohana Okamura, ka ʻohana Anderson, ka ʻohana McKay, ka ʻohana Owen, ka ʻohana
Nāpūʻelua, ka ʻohana Pacrem, ka ʻohana Congdon, ka ʻohana Ching, ka ʻohana Suganuma, ka
ʻohana Harman a me ka ʻohana Beaupre. I ka ʻohana a ke Akua, nā leo pule i hāpai ʻia mai. He
lei wehi nō lākou a pau.
I nā pua ʻilima, nā ʻōhiʻa lehua, nā mokihana a me ka maile lauliʻi i wili ʻia i ka lei aloha.
ʻAʻole wau i poina i ke kupu a mōhala maikaʻi ʻana mai ma lalo o ʻoukou.
I nā haumāna o ka wā i hala, nā haumāna o kēia au a me nā haumāna e hiki mai ana. Na
lākou nō kēia wahi lei i mea e hoʻomālamalama mai i ke ala pono no kākou a pau.
There are two certainties that have become apparent from this process. First, I am certain
that without my chairperson, Dr. Julie Slayton, who provided guidance, patience, insight,
encouragement and aloha, the adventure of the dissertation process would not have been as epic
as it was. Secondly, I am certain that without family, none of this would be possible. I am
grateful for these certainties in my life.

KA MANA O LOKO 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2

Acknowledgements 3

List of Figures 8

Abstract 9

Chapter One: Statement of the Problem 10

Background of the Problem 12

CBE Charter Movement 13

Federal and State Accountability Mandates 14

NCLB 14

RTTT 14

Strive HI 16

Common Core Standards 16

Other Accountability Mandates 16

Statement of the Problem 18

Purpose of the Study 19

Research Questions 19

Methods 20

A Hybrid 20

Significance of the Study 21

Limitations 22

Delimitations 22

Definitions 23

Organization of the Dissertation 26

Chapter Two: Literature Review 27

Hawaiian Epistemology and Knowledge 29

Hawaiian Epistemology 29

Spirituality and knowledge. 30
Land connection. 31

Cultural nature of the senses. 32

Relationship and knowledge. 32

Utility and knowledge. 33

Leo Kūpuna—Ancestral Voices 33

Pukui and ʻike Hawaiʻi 34

Craver and ʻike Hawaiʻi 34

Kumu Honua Mauli Ola and ‘Ike Hawaiʻi 36

Nā ʻaoʻao 37

Piko 37

Honua 38

Teacher Ideology 38

Extension of Self 39

Reconstruction 40

Culture Based-Education 42

CBE Definition 42

CBE Goals 43

CBE Pedagogy Framework 44

CBE Pedagogy Content 46

Accountability 49

Accountability Definition 50

KA MANA O LOKO 6
USDOE/HIDOE Accountability Goals 51

Race to the Top. 51

Strive HI. 52

OHA and KSBE 53

WASC 53

USDOE/HIDOE Assessment Measures 54

Strive HI. 54

Culture-based assessments. 54

Conclusion 58

Conceptual Framework 59

Hawaiian Epistemology 60

Teacher Ideology 60

Culture-based Education 60

Accountability Requirements 61

Conceptualizing Accountability 61

Summary 63

Chapter Three: Methods 64

Research Design 65

Site Selection 66

Sample and Population 66

Participant Selection 67

Criterion 1. 67

Criterion 2. 67

Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures 67

Interviews 68

Documents and Artifacts 70

Data Analysis Procedures 70

Credibility and Trustworthiness 71

Conclusion 72

Chapter Four: Findings 73

Finding 1. There was Surface Agreement Among all Members of the CBE Community that the
School’s Purpose was to Build Students’ Native Hawaiian Cultural Identity and Language
Proficiency. 74

Develop Cultural Identity 74

Developing Hawaiian Language 77

Finding 2. Tensions Existed Regarding the School’s Purpose. Wide Variation Existed Regarding
Building Students’ Native Hawaiian Cultural Identity and Language Proficiency. This Variation
also Reflected Differences in Beliefs about Accountability. 80

Theme 1: One Faction Believed that they were Responsible for Revitalizing and Reclaiming the
Native Hawaiian Cultural Identity and Culture and Cultivating Students’ Desires to do the Same.
This Same Faction Addressed Accountability and Assessment through Predominantly Native
Hawaiian Methods. 80

Reclamation 81

Revitalization 86

Accountability 90

Assessment 92

Theme 2: The Second Clearly Defined Faction Believed in Developing Students’ Native
Hawaiian Cultural Identity and Language and Leveraging that Identity and Language as a
Bridge to US/Western Knowledge and Skills. This Second Faction Addressed Accountability
and Assessment by Seeking Ways to Determine Students’ Proficiency in Native Hawaiian
Knowledge and Skills and Western Knowledge and Skills. 100

KA MANA O LOKO 7
Leveraging Identity as a Bridge 101

Accountability 105
Theme 3: The Third and Final Faction Believes that They are Primarily Responsible for
Developing Students’ Western Knowledge and Skills. This Faction Address Accountability and
Assessment Through Primarily US/Western Forms of Assessment Provided Through the Race to
the Top Agreement the State of Hawaiʻi Entered into with the Federal Government. 108

Responsibility for Developing Western Knowledge and Skills 109

Accountability and Assessment 110

Conclusion 113

Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications & Recommendations 114

This Dissertation’s Contribution 116

Practice 118

Implications for Policy 121

Implications for Further Research 122

Epilogue 124

References 125

Appendix Individual Interview Protocol 137

KA MANA O LOKO 8
List of Figures
Figure 1: Native Hawaiian spiritual values surround the Triad (p. 1). Adapted from
Craver (2000) 36

Figure 2: Mapping of assessment tools by contextualization and purpose. (Nā Lau Lama,
2006, pp. 43-44). 57

Figure 3: Conceptual Framework—Triangle of Accountability 62

KA MANA O LOKO 9
Abstract
Culture-based education communities are subjected to accountability measures designed
to increase standards of excellence for all students in public education schools. These
accountability measures, in Race to the Top terms, create sometimes competing accountability
demands for CBE schools are expected to show achievement in both cultural knowledge and
learning as well as federal and state expectations of knowledge and learning.
This study seeks to understand how stakeholders, or members of the Hawaiian culture
based education school community, understand or make meaning of accountability demands they
face for building content skills and knowledge using cultural identity demonstrating that they
have mastered these knowledges and skills, developing and implementing assessments intended
to measure student progress towards mastery. This dissertation emphasizes the need for
qualitative data and Indigenous educational research methods in making meaning of the
challenges associated with sometimes-competing accountability demands in an Indigenous
culture-based education community.

KA MANA O LOKO 10
CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Two goals that are predominant in Native American education are the preservation and
revitalization of traditional languages and cultures and the integration of Native education with
education that will prepare students for success in the larger society (Demmert, Grissmer, &
Towner, 2006). Culture-based education proponents argue that CBE accomplishes both of these
goals by intentionally supporting the preservation and revitalization of traditional languages and
cultures and employing culturally responsive practices (Kawaiʻaeʻa, 2012). They also assert that
efforts to promote high academic standards for all students include a process of mediating
academic content with students’ cultural experiences to make content accessible, meaningful,
and relevant for diverse students as a culturally responsive pedagogy (Lee & Fradd, 1998).
Consequently, CBE advocates claim that one of the greatest educational needs in Native
communities and schools is culturally-based education (CBE) classrooms (Aguilera, Lipka,
Demmert, & Tippeconnic, 2007).
CBE advocates argue that educational improvement efforts should focus on standards of
excellence that promote student achievement through cultural knowledge and standards. Federal
and state educational improvement efforts, on the other hand, have focused on establishing clear
and definitive standards of excellence for all students without any emphasis on cultural
knowledge and standards (i.e., US Department of Education, 2002; US Department of Education,
2010; and Hawaiʻi State Department of Education, 2013). The Federal Government uses
measures to promote education for Indigenous populations such as those outlined in Executive
Order 13096, which calls for:
1.) Improvement of educational achievement and academic progress with Native
American and Alaska Native students through improving reading and mathematics;
KA MANA O LOKO 11
2.) Increasing high school completion and post secondary attendance rates;
3.) Reducing the influence of longstanding factors that impede educational performance;
such as poverty and substance abuse;
4.) Creating strong, safe and drug free environments;
5.) Improving science education and;
6.) Expanding the use of educational technology.
Assessment measures remain within a Western construct aiming to promote student achievement
with an Indigenous population without recognizing cultural knowledge and standards, in an
Indigenous education context (Nelson-Barber and Trumbull, 2007).
Federal and state governments have encouraged public schools to demonstrate ways in
which they are ensuring that students meet accountability mandates (McGuinn, 2011). In the
context of culture-based education (CBE) focused public schools this federal and state press has
created an interesting and sometimes conflicting set of accountability expectations as CBE
schools are expected to show achievement in cultural knowledge and learning by the internal
measures of the CBE as well as external measures of federal and state expectations of knowledge
and learning.
The purpose of this study was to investigate how stakeholders (or members of the
Hawaiian culture-based education school community) in a Hawaiian culture-based education
school negotiated these two possibly divergent types of accountabilities.
In this chapter, I set the context of this study by discussing the background of culture-
based education and the background for accountability. I then present the purpose of the study
and the research question, the significance of the study, and the method for conducting the study.

KA MANA O LOKO 12
Background of the Problem
Hawaiʻi is the only state in the nation in which indigenous students represent the largest
ethnic group in the public schools (Hawaiʻi Race to the Top Application, 2010). Native
Hawaiians, the indigenous population of the state of Hawaiʻi, comprise a significant percentage
of the state’s public school system, constituting 28 percent of the student population (Hawaiʻi
Race to the Top Application, 2010). Historically, Native Hawaiian students have not faired well
in an educational system in which persistent learning gaps exist between Native Hawaiian
students and other racial and ethnic groups (Education Commission of the State, 2010). Thus, the
issue of student achievement for Native Hawaiian students has been an ongoing priority for the
HIDOE (US Department of Education, 2013).
More specifically, Native Hawaiian students disproportionately perform well below the
state level on academic outcomes. In fact, according to Kanaʻiaupuni, Malone, and Ishibashi
(2005), over the past 50 years of public education in Hawaiʻi there have consistently been
substantial gaps in Native Hawaiian students’ learning achievement as well as school
engagement, promotion and graduation, post high school enrollment, and completion when
compared to their non-Native Hawaiian peers. Low achievement for Native Hawaiians is
evident in the lowest test scores, the highest dropout rates, the lowest number of graduates
attending post-secondary institutions and the lowest average stanine and SAT scores of any of
the long standing ethnic groups in Hawaiʻi. In fact, in 2013, Native Hawaiians scored fifth to the
bottom of all ethnic groups on the Hawaiʻi State Assessment Program (HSA) achievement test in
math and reading and with respect to their absenteeism rate (2013 HIDOE). According to the
results of the 2013 mandated ACT testing, Native Hawaiians also scored the lowest of all groups
in reading, math, and English.
KA MANA O LOKO 13
CBE Charter Movement
In response to the persistently low academic performance of Native Hawaiian children, a
number of Hawaiian-focused charter schools (HFCS) have joined the public school landscape to
address the disparity in educational practices and opportunities afforded to Native Hawaiian
students (Kanaʻiaupuni, 2007). More than 8 out of every 10 students in these schools are of
Hawaiian ancestry and nearly 7 out of every 10 are socio-economically disadvantaged
(Kamehameha Schools, 2011). In the last 10 years, enrollment in HFCS has grown over 500%
to over 3,000 students, reflecting an average increase of 16% per year (Kamehameha Schools,
2011).
Hawaiian-focused charter school advocates argue that these schools create an
environment in which students are engaged and feel they belong (Kanaʻiaupuni, 2007). HFCSs
combat oppositonal behavior some minority students engage in that Ogbu (1991) says is the
result of the stress they experience of guarding against discrimination and negative stereotypes in
the classroom. The process of disengagament, labeled by Mayeda, Chesney-Lind and Koo
(2001) as “disidentification,” is prevalent in Native Hawaiian students. This disidentification
frequently results in a lack of trust in and respect for the learning process. The lack of trust and
respect, in turn, become key factors in Native Hawaiian students’ poor academic outcomes.
Moreover, culture-based education is increasingly seen as a promising means of addressing
educational disparities that exist between indigenous students and their non-Native Hawaiian
peers (Kanaʻiaupuni, 2007). For Native Hawaiian students, cultivating a sense of engagement
and belonging in school is often the single most important leading indicator of educational
success (Kanaʻiaupuni, 2011).

KA MANA O LOKO 14
Federal and State Accountability Mandates
As public schools, HFCSs are subject to accountability measures of the federal and state
governments as well as external agencies such as Kamehameha Schools (KS) and the Office of
Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). At the federal level, HFCSs are subject to mandates of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top (RTTT). At the state level, HFCSs are subject to the
agreements the state has made in its RTTT application, Strive HI, and expectations imposed by
the state’s adoption of the Common Core Standards. HFCSs are also subject to the accreditation
standards of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). This section will
discuss the accountability mandates for student achievement of the USDOE and HIDOE.
NCLB
Current accountability measures are rooted in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),
which changed the landscape of accountability in American education (US Department of
Education, 2001). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 sought to improve academic
outcomes for all students through accountability measures designed to assess student
achievement using data, including standardized testing. In Hawaiʻi, standardized testing under
NCLB was administered in grades 3-10 with the Hawaiʻi State Assessment (HSA). Reading and
math scores were used to measure adequate yearly progress (AYP). The NCLB design included
raising proficiency levels, raising or meeting standards, and meeting requirements for highly
qualified teachers (Porter & Polikoff, 2007).
RTTT
Another USDOE accountability measure of Hawaiʻi public schools is embedded in the
federal Race to the Top grant application (RTTT) submitted by the state of Hawaiʻi. RTTT
changed the mandates and sanctions of NCLB into an incentive system (McGuinn, 2011). To
KA MANA O LOKO 15
move out from under the mandates and sanctions of NCLB, states applied for a federal grant in a
competitive grant process. States awarded the grants are subject to compliance measures with
strict requirements related to student achievement (McGuinn, 2011).
Race to the Top rewards states that create conditions for education innovation and
reform; achieving significant improvement in student outcome and implementing ambitious
plans in four core areas. These four areas are: standards and assessments (Common Core),
building data systems that measure student growth and success, recruiting, developing,
rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals and turning around failing schools
(McGuinn, 2011).
As a Race to the Top grant recipient, HIDOE is held by the accountability measures cited
in the Hawaiʻi RTTT application ((U.S. Department of Education, 2010). These targets for
increasing academic rigor and achievement focus include: 1) Raising overall K-12 student
achievement, 2) Ensuring college- and career-readiness, 3) Increasing higher education
enrollment and completion rates, 4) Ensuring equity and effectiveness by closing achievement
gaps, and 5) Emphasizing science, technology, engineering and mathematics ((U.S. Department
of Education, 2010)).
The federal Race to the Top initiative supports the adoption and implementation of the
Common Core Standards as one of the criteria of the RTTT grant application. The Hawaiʻi State
Board of Education approved the draft of the Common Core State Standards and full
implementation of the CSSS was to begin in SY 2011-2012 (U.S. Department of Education,
2010).
KA MANA O LOKO 16
Strive HI
The Strive HI Performance System (Hawaiʻi State Department of Education, 2013) is
Hawaiʻi’s strategic plan under Race to the Top. Pursuant to Strive HI, all public schools in
Hawaiʻi, including HFCSs are held accountable to indicators included in the Strive HI Index.
The Index indicators measure school performance and progress using multiple measures of
student achievement, growth, and readiness for success after high school. These measures
include HSA reading and math scores, end-of-course science assessments, chronic absenteeism,
8
th
and 11
th
grade ACT scores in reading, English, math, and science, high school graduation
rates and college enrollment (Hawaiʻi State Department of Education, 2013). The Strive HI
Performance System places schools on a continuum of performance steps corresponding with
state interventions, involvement and support.
Common Core Standards
The Common Core Standards were created in an effort to improve academic outcomes
for all students across the United States (National Governors’ Association & Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2010). The aim of the Common Core is the alignment of content and
instruction to increase student achievement (National Governors’ Association & Council of
Chief State School Officers, 2010). Porter, McMaken, Hwang and Yang (2011) assert that the
Common Core State Standards initiative developed as a state-led effort to establish consensus on
expectations for student knowledge and skills that should be developed in grades K-12.
Other Accountability Mandates
Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate (KSBE) and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)
are external agencies that contribute significantly to Hawaiian-focused charter schools. KSBE
supports HFCSs primarily through the Hoʻolako Like program designed to help Kamehameha
KA MANA O LOKO 17
Schools (KS) extend its reach to more Native Hawaiian students through financial support of
start-up Hawaiian-focused charter schools. HFCSs in the Hoʻolako Like program are subject to
the strategic priorities of the vision and mission of the Kamehameha Schools and accountability
measures of the Hoʻolako Like program. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is a state agency
dedicated to enhancing the betterment of the Native Hawaiian people through funds generated by
the ceded land trust. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs supplement HFCSs in the coalition of
HFCSs, Nā Lei Naʻauao, with financial support averaging $1.5 million a year.
Hoʻolako Like offers Hawaiian-focused start-up charter schools an opportunity to
collaborate with KS to obtain financial, technical, and resource support. Charter schools that
commit to the provisions of a contractual agreement with KS may receive a minimum of $1 for
every $4 of per pupil allocation received from the State of Hawaiʻi. Other examples of support
that may be provided by KS include curriculum and professional development activities, baseline
accountability and program evaluation development, or other collaborations that facilitate
effective education reform.
HFCSs that are considered under this program must serve a student population that is
predominantly of Hawaiian ancestry. Other criteria to meet Hoʻolako Like requirements include:
1) Reflecting programs initiated by Hawaiian communities, 2) Working from a community-
defined educational plan, 3) Demonstrating support from the Hawaiian community in which the
school is located, 4) Committing to perpetuating Hawaiian culture, language, values, and
traditions, 5) Offering Hawaiian culture-based curriculum, instruction and assessment, 6)
Supporting charter schools ideals, including compliance with the Hawaiʻi Content and
Performance Standards; promoting a strengths-based focus and encouraging family and
community involvement, 7) Serving communities with high needs, 8) Sharing, participating and
KA MANA O LOKO 18
collaborating with other charter schools and 9) Having or being in the process of obtaining a 501
(c) (3) status from the IRS.
Participating HFCSs are required to set specific goals for reaching their success targets
(KSBE, 2013). Assessment measures in HIDOE standards as well as Hawaiian cultural
benchmarks identified by KS measure student achievement at these schools. Each school and its
board of directors sets benchmarks that measure a variety of outcomes including standardized
test scores, improving daily attendance, increasing the number of students pursuing higher
education and training, and incorporating the concept of “‘Ike Hawaiʻi” in their curriculum and
educational approaches (KSBE, 2013).
Thus, Hawaiian focused charter schools are subject to many masters. They must comply
with mandates put forward by the federal government through their state, state initiated
mandates, and other external mandates and they must figure out how to make all of these things
work together, not separately and not at cross-purposes.
Statement of the Problem
Schools employing culture-based educational models in the state of Hawaiʻi are in the
midst of an important transition. Historically, CBE models such as Hawaiian-focused charter
schools have only been accountable to the regulations and requirements of the HIDOE through
the State Public Charter School Commission (SPCSC). Yet in the advent of RTTT and Strive
HI, they are now under pressure to demonstrate that they contribute to student learning in ways
defined by the USDOE and the Department of Education for the State of Hawaiʻi. As well,
HFCSs are subject to other accountability measures of external agencies such as KSBE and
OHA. These new pressures have led to a need to articulate what it means for their students to
demonstrate proficiency in the content, knowledge, and skills associated with both CBE, and
KA MANA O LOKO 19
Hawaiʻi DOE standards. CBE communities succumb to external accountability measures of the
CBE both by Western government expectations, as well as Hawaiian based agencies in the
greater Native Hawaiian community. Thus, CBE schools find themselves having to identify and
define the content, knowledge, and skills they expect their students to master in the context of
CBE as well as adopt Strive HI measures of achievement and growth.
Purpose of the Study
This study explored the ways in which members of a Hawaiian-focused charter school
made meaning of accountability in their unique context. More specifically, this study examined
two things: How do members of a Hawaiian-focused charter school community deal with
externally and internally imposed accountability mandates? How do members of the Hawaiian-
focused charter school community struggle with accountability within the context of cultural
accountability? One way results will be communicated back to the community is through this
dissertation. This study also tells the story of a CBE that is wrestling with these questions in
order to identify and subsequently meet the demands of accountability of the CBE.
Research Questions
The research question for this study was: How do members of a culture-based education
community understand accountability in an era of Race to the Top?
This study was based on four bodies of literature: Hawaiian epistemology in education,
teacher ideology, culture-based education and accountability and assessment. Together, these
bodies of knowledge lay the foundation for my study.

KA MANA O LOKO 20
Methods
A Hybrid
This study used a combination, or hybrid of Indigenous and case study research methods
as I was interested in examining the contextual conditions surrounding the creation of an
accountability system in the context of a Hawaiian CBE focused charter school. Merriam (2009)
argues that case study is a method that is most appropriate when the unit of analysis is defined.
The “what” is a bounded system, a single entity or unit around which there are boundaries
(Smith, 1978). In this study, the one unit was a single Hawaiian CBE focused charter school.
Similarly, Rist (2000) argues that case study methods can focus on policy implementation within
and across sites. As I was interested in understanding policy formation, case study was an
appropriate approach. In addition, I conducted a qualitative case study using Indigenous research
methods as the research question I posed was focused on how people were making meaning of
their experience. Qualitative case study allowed for insight, discovery and interpretation rather
than hypothesis testing (Merriam, 2009). Cronbach (1975) argues that case study differentiates
from other research design by “interpretation in context” (p. 123). Merriam (2009) suggests that
the researcher’s aim in case study is to uncover the interaction of significant factors characteristic
of the phenomenon, focusing on holistic description and explanation. For this study, I conducted
interviews with stakeholders in a CBE focused charter school in order to understand how the
school understands accountability measures in the era of RTTT.
This study blended Indigenous and qualitative approaches in order to conduct research
with an Indigenous community. In addition, as an indigenous researcher, I came to this journey
with perspective of one who has worked in the Hawaiian culture-based education movement for
the past 20 years. Thus, I carried the responsibility of accurately portraying the cultural
KA MANA O LOKO 21
knowledges of those I asked to participate in the study. Culturally, I am a reflection of my kumu
(teachers), an extension of my ʻohana (family) an expansion of my kaiāulu (Hawaiian
community) shaped through the evolution of experiences of my one hānau (birthplace). As a
researcher this means that I do not maintain a position of neutrality, and that I have an explicit
obligation to honor the relationships within the community and of its individuals.
Significance of the Study
The study of accountability and culture-based education programs is especially timely in
that there is the critical need to improve culture-based education programs’ accountability
practices (Strive HI Performance System, 2013) and the growing awareness that improvement
will benefit the indigenous communities (BOE Policies 2100). This study will help indigenous
communities understand the challenges that these schools’ stakeholders face as they grapple with
this complex process.
This study also contributes to the literature in a variety of other ways. It provides insight
regarding the effect of multiple accountability mandates on culture-based education programs.
The outcomes provide clues from which further research can explore the strategies and
complexity of accountability in this era and their impact on student achievement. The resulting
knowledge should benefit CBE programs in negotiating the tension between the perceived
polarities of Western and Indigenous accountability demands. It can also inform state and
federal policy. Ultimately, however, the desire is to promote student success in school and, in
doing so, to minimize the performance gap between Native Hawaiian students and other ethnic
groups in Hawaiʻi.

KA MANA O LOKO 22
Limitations
A limitation of this study was its reliance on the interpretation of administrative,
teacher, and community perceptions of accountability demands. The validity of the data,
therefore, was dependent on the willingness of the participants to freely share. It was dependent
on the different role groups to be thoughtful and thorough in their responses. It was also
contingent on the cultural literacy level of participants. In fact, this study did not attempt to
verify the accuracy of the administrative, teacher, and community perspectives. Instead, the
purpose was to understand that ‘Aʻole pau ka ‘ike i ka hālau hoʻokahi (Pukui, 1983) (that all
knowledge is not learned in one place). Therefore this study relied upon the honesty and
accurate memories, perceptions and portrayal of programs and events in the various interviews.
It is also assumed that the information gathered was reflective of the current practices at the
school.
Participation in this study was voluntary. This self-selection had the potential to provide
a perspective that was incomplete as some voices were not represented reflecting the entire
spectrum of the community. On the other hand, 17 of the stakeholders were interviewed and this
number represented the majority of adult stakeholders at the school site.
Delimitations
This study focused specifically on the western and indigenous accountability systems,
and not on the many other forms of accountability that might affect the school. This study was
confined to one school and was limited to the school year 2013-2014. This did not allow for the
results to be generalized across other HFCSs or to the broader public schools. The researcher
could not control for any bias during interview or the willingness of participants to participate in
the interview. Additionally, the fact that interviews were conducted in both Hawaiian and
KA MANA O LOKO 23
English might have contributed to some loss of understanding as questions were translated with
the first couple of interviews and misinterpretations of words caused the interviewee to interpret
the Hawaiian on other levels than that which can be presented in English. Shortly afterwards, it
was decided that questions would only be posed in English, although follow up questioning
would be done in Hawaiian for those who chose to conduct the interview in Hawaiian. As a first
time interviewer I did not always ask the questions a more experienced interviewer/researcher
would have asked and this also lead to some data that might have helped answer the research
question not being collected.
Definitions
Accountability: Systems that hold students, schools or districts responsible for academic
performance.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A goal of the 2001 federal law No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
that requires schools and districts to measure and report students’ annual progress toward
proficiency in English/Language Arts and Mathematics by 2013-2014. Progress is based on
whether the school or district met its Annual Measurable Objectives and demonstrated 95%
participation on standardized tests, achieved its target on the Academic Performance Index and,
for high schools, met target graduation rates. (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2008)
Assessment: The process of documenting knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs.
Charter Schools: Primary and secondary schools that receive public funding but are granted, via
a charter, a level of autonomy that exempts them from certain rules, regulations and statutes that
apply to other public schools in exchange for an accountability system that produces results.
KA MANA O LOKO 24
Common Core Standards: A federal accountability reform effort of the National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) to
improve academic outcomes for all students.
Culture-based Education (CBE): CBE refers to the grounding of instruction and student
learning in the values, norms, knowledge, beliefs, practices, experiences, places, and language
that are the foundation of a cultural group, in this case, Native Hawaiians. CBE is identifiable by
five critical components including language, family and community, content, context, and
assessment (Kana‘iaupuni and Kawai‘ae‘a 2008).
Culture: The beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time.
Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and
scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
Hawaiʻi State Assessment (HSA): The purposes of the Hawaiʻi State Assessment are to (1) meet
or exceed the requirements of NCLB (US Department of Education, 2001), Chapter 302A of the
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, and Hawaiʻi Board of Education Policy 2520-Statewide Assessment
Program, (2) promote and measure the attainment of the Hawaiʻi Content and Performance
Standards (HCPS) in reading, mathematics, and science, (3) provide information to stakeholders
about the achievement of students, schools, complex areas and the state relative to the HCPS,
and (4) support instructional program improvement efforts (HIDOE, 2013).
Hawaiian Culture-based Education: The grounding of instruction and student learning in the
values, norms, knowledge, beliefs, practices, experiences, and language that are the foundation
of an indigenous culture (Ledward, Takayama, & Kahumoku, 2008).
KA MANA O LOKO 25
Hawaiian-Focused Charter School (HFCS): Schools that utilize Hawaiʻi’s native language,
culture and traditions to provide relevance and create relations in an effort to achieve academic
rigor.
ʻIke Hawaiʻi: Hawaiian way of knowing.
Indigenous: Originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
Kumu Honua Mauli Ola: Hawaiian educational philosophy statement that promote to maintain
the special features of Hawaiian to perpetuate the Hawaiian world view; or cultural lens that is
reflected in Hawaiian language structures of the three piko, or connecting points, that form the
basis for cultural transmission.
Lawena: Hawaiian behavioral expectations.
Loina: Hawaiian values.
Native Hawaiian student: Students who self-identify themselves as being of Hawaiian ancestry.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The 2001 reauthorization of the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that places comprehensive accountability requirements on all
states, with increasing sanctions for schools and districts that do not make adequate yearly
progress toward proficiency in English/Language Arts and Mathematics ot that fail to test 95%
of all students and all significant subgroups. (Ed-Data, 2008)
Race to the Top (RTTT): An accountability measure that seeks to revolutionize the federal role
in education and transform state school reform efforts (McGuinn, 2011) by moving towards an
incentive type system from mandates and sanctions of NCLB.
Strive HI: A response to the ESEA waivers of NCLB for schools that did not make Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP). The Strive HI Performance System (Hawaiʻi State Department of
KA MANA O LOKO 26
Education, 2013) offers to serve as a diagnostic tool to understand school performance and
progress, differentiating schools based on individual needs for reward, support and intervention.
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter provides an introduction and
background of the problem. It presents the context for Native Hawaiian education, implications
for culture-based education and Hawaiian-focused charter schools and contemporary
accountability measures in the United States affecting CBE.
Chapter Two provides a literature review of the problem. The chapter examines the
literature on culture-based education (CBE) assessment and accountability and the USDOE
driven context for education, assessment, and accountability.
Chapter Three presents the methodology employed for the study, including the research
design; population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their development, together
with the process used for establishing validity and reliability. Each of these sections conclude
with a rationale, including strengths and limitations of the design elements. The chapter goes on
to describe the procedures for data collection and data analysis.
Chapter Four presents findings that emerged from interviews and data of 17 CBE
members and analyzed patterns and themes across the cases as they relate to the conceptual
framework introduced in Chapter 2.
Lastly, Chapter Five concludes the dissertation with recommendations for implications
for practice, further research, and implications for policy.

KA MANA O LOKO 27
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The research question for this study asked, How do members of a culture-based education
community understand accountability in an era of Race to the Top? To answer this question, I
drew upon four bodies of literature: Hawaiian epistemology in education, teacher ideology,
culture-based education, and federal, state and CBE accountability and assessment.
First, I present literature on Hawaiian epistemology and knowledge. Hawaiian
epistemology is a theory derived from studies of Hawaiian culture (Meyer, 1998). Hawaiian
education is rooted in a Hawaiian epistemological framework, which stems from a larger body of
literature on Indigenous epistemology. The reason this literature was relevant to my topic is
because those working in a culture-based education community were more likely to be grounded
in Hawaiian epistemology and to have a deeper understanding of ‘ike Hawaiʻi, or Hawaiian
knowledge. How CBE community members “knew” and what they believed counted as
knowledge helped me to gain insight into the way these members made meaning of
accountability in an era of Race to the Top (RTTT).
Second, I present some of the relevant literature on teacher ideology. Bartolomé and
Trueba (2002) state that teachers’ ideological views are a major component of pedagogy, and
further argue that teachers’ ideology plays a significant role in the instruction of their students.
Teacher ideology was relevant to this dissertation because a teacher’s professional and personal
identity shaped what knowledge he/she valued and believed should be delivered. The beliefs
teachers brought with them also affected their thinking about assessment. The reason this was
important to my question was because the way teachers understood what counted as knowledge
determined their focus on content, pedagogy, and assessment. This is connected to Hawaiian
epistemology because teachers grounded in a Hawaiian epistemological framework were more
KA MANA O LOKO 28
likely to have a Hawaiian belief system and world-view and those less grounded in a Hawaiian
epistemological framework were more likely to have a non-Native Hawaiian belief system and
world-view. These concepts also extended to other stakeholders who might not have been
teachers any longer but held administrative positions or were members of the school leadership.
Next, I present the relevant literature regarding culture-based education. Hawaiian-
focused culture-based education is grounded in a Hawaiian epistemological framework. Culture-
based education seeks to increase cultural identity and competency, socio-cultural maturity,
language vitality, and positive academic outcomes for students (Kawaiʻaeʻa, 2012). Demmert
and Towner (2003) contend that culture based education is a comprehensive approach for
nurturing and educating the whole child. Therefore, culture-based education is far more than the
incorporation of cultural events and traditions into the curriculum as the goal of culture-based
education is to support all students through affirmation of their culture (NWT, 2013). This
connected to my research question given the philosophy of culture-based education and the
designation of a school as a CBE community, understanding the Hawaiian epistemological
framework of the school helped me to understand the connections between CBE community
members and what shaped their approach to pedagogy, content, and assessment.
Finally, I offer literature on federal, state, and CBE accountability requirements.
Understanding the external accountability requirements of the USDOE/HIDOE that were placed
upon a CBE community provided a context to examine the CBE community as it negotiated
internal accountability requirements of the CBE community. Internal accountability requirements
of a CBE community offered a different purpose than that of the USDOE/HIDOE.
Understanding the purpose of accountability requirements as assessment measures helped me to
gain insight into what was being assessed and how assessment was being undertaken.
KA MANA O LOKO 29
I conclude this chapter with a presentation of my conceptual framework that emerged
from the literature and the data.
Hawaiian Epistemology and Knowledge
Epistemology, as the philosophical science of the nature of knowledge and truth, seeks to
answer the questions, “What is knowledge?” and “How do we know?” (Runes, 1980). What
counts as knowledge and what serves as the ways in which knowledge is constructed for Native
Hawaiians is shaped by the values and beliefs that emerge from historical Native Hawaiian
stories, proverbs, and poetry (Meyer, 1998) and from other things. This section will provide
insight into Hawaiian perspectives that influence a culture-based education community and in
understanding how CBE communities understand ‘ike Hawaiʻi, or Hawaiian knowledge. This
also helped me to understand the ideology that shaped the CBE stakeholders’ approach to
assessment as those who espoused an ideology that was consistent with Hawaiian epistemology,
had a healthier response to accountability measures both internally and externally of the CBE.
This understanding helped me to gain insight into the way they made meaning of accountability
in an era of RTTT. This section will outline frameworks of Hawaiian epistemology presented by
Meyer (1998), Pukui (1979), Craver (2000) and Kumu Honua Mauli Ola (1998).
Hawaiian Epistemology
What counts as knowledge and what serves as the ways in which knowledge is
constructed for Native Hawaiians is shaped by the values and beliefs that emerge from historical
Native Hawaiian stories, proverbs, and poetry (Meyer, 1998). This section will provide insight
into Hawaiian perspectives that influence a culture-based education community and in
understanding how CBE communities understand ‘ike Hawaiʻi, or Hawaiian knowledge. This
may also help me to understand the ideology that shapes the CBE stakeholders’ approach to
KA MANA O LOKO 30
assessment as they may espouse an ideology that is consistent with Hawaiian epistemology. This
understanding will help me to gain insight into the way they make meaning of accountability in
an era of RTTT. This section will outline frameworks of Hawaiian epistemology presented by
Meyer (1998), Pukui (1979), Craver (2000) and Kumu Honua Mauli Ola (1998).
Meyer (1998) contends that Hawaiian epistemology as a form of cultural epistemology
challenges mainstream philosophical assumptions and universal principles. Hawaiian
epistemology is a theory of cultural values and knowledge systems. Meyer (1998) coined the
phrase “Hawaiian epistemology” offering a framework to view a theoretical understanding of
Hawaiian knowledge. Meyer (1998) asserts that Hawaiian knowledge is grounded in the voices
of cultural elders and practitioners.
This framework follows five main themes: spirituality and knowledge—cultural contexts
of knowledge, land connection—physical place and knowing, cultural nature of the senses—
expanding empiricism, relationship and knowledge—notion of self through others, and utility
and knowledge—ideas of wealth and usefulness. The following section will expand on these
five themes to provide perspective on Hawaiian epistemology.
Spirituality and knowledge.
For Native Hawaiians, spirituality sets the cultural context to knowledge. Spirituality
strengthens a cultural understanding of how Native Hawaiians know and experience the world
(Meyer, 1998). Spirituality is separate and distinct from religious practice and key in
understanding how knowledge is negotiated and passed on. Knowledge is generated by the
connection to the ancestors. This ancestral knowledge is passed on through ‘aumakua (family
guardians) who are physical representations of ancestors who have passed. Kekuni Blaisdell (as
cited in Meyer, 2003) speaks to this spirituality:
KA MANA O LOKO 31
It extends all the way back to the beginning, so we remain connected. Those spiritual
forces are still with us! They are not just back there, they are with us as long as we
respect them, call upon them, remember them, talk to them, honor them, and incorporate
them in our thoughts, our beliefs, and in our feelings and actions; they’re there! They
aren’t gone; they’re always there! How can we ever feel insecure with that basic belief?
(p. 155)
Land connection. The second theme is the relationship between connectedness to the
land, connection to physical place, and knowing. The ‘āina (land) is viewed as a living being,
Papahānaumoku. ʻĀina is derived from the Hawaiian concept, “that which feeds” as a spiritual
descriptor of sustenance, knowledge, and inspiration. The land, sky, and ocean are considered
the classroom in which cultural practices are practiced, experienced, and lived and are similar to
that of other indigenous cultures (Meyer, 1998). Land and spirituality are connected with the
mana (supernatural or divine power) of the kūpuna, (ancestors) ʻaumākua (family or personal
gods who might assume physical shape as in a plant, animal or other element of nature) and akua
(gods and other deities). The connection of land and spirituality was set in the religious context
of the society in ancient times.
Experience is the most important aspect of Hawaiian knowledge here. Lynette
Paglinawan (as cited in Meyer, 2003) asserts the following on ʻāina and experience:
A person who has knowledge and information about Hawaiian practices, arts, skills and
language, in my opinion, has something missing. They need the heart and the spirit of
the Hawaiian in order to be Hawaiian. And the way that I view one developing the heart
and the spirit of being Hawaiian is that one has to experience it. One has to take off all of
that outer trappings and one has to be open to be bombarded by the environment, by the
KA MANA O LOKO 32
ʻāina, by nature, and one has to be willing to delve into living an aspect of the way our
forefathers lived in order to be able to get a glimpse of what is to be Hawaiian. (p.158)
Cultural nature of the senses. The next strand of Hawaiian epistemology is the cultural
nature of the senses. The building block of current Western epistemology is empiricism, shaped
by culture and embedded in a political time (Sahlins, 1995). Empirical beliefs outlined by
Johnson (1981) speak to the senses as developed by culture. Meyer (1998) asserts that for
Native Hawaiians, the five senses are combined with the sixth sense of awareness or knowing
called ʻike. ʻIke meaning “to see” and “to know,” shapes the vision of education by emphasizing
that the act of looking teaches and the act of watching informs (Meyer, 1998). This view of
seeing the world is mediated through place, experiences, and expectations of culture (Meyer,
1998). Florence Like Kumukahi (as cited in Meyer, 2003) expounds on the idea of knowing:
They tell you one time, you know Hawaiian style before…Hawaiians don’t like to repeat,
when they tell you something. First, they’re going to show you what to do. It’s up to you
to do what they did. They are not going to repeat it back too you. So, I guess we learned
more by observation. We hardly asked questions because we should be smart enough,
one time they tell us, so it’s just like, intuition, you know? Because Hawaiians don’t like
to repeat, then they call you hūpō, where you should be intelligent enough to know. (p.
164)
Relationship and knowledge. The connection between relationship and knowledge is
the next component of Hawaiian epistemology. Meyer (1998) asserts that relationship is the
cornerstone of the Hawaiian experience shaping knowledge. Relationship/interdependence
offers Hawaiians the opportunity to practice reciprocity, exhibit balance, and develop harmony
with the land and generosity with others. Kekipi (as cited in Meyer, 2003) argues that:
KA MANA O LOKO 33
Knowledge is a gift and responsibility. The key in developing this area is to maintain
constant rapport with kūpuna (elders), both living and dead. Kūpuna that have passed on
remain as ʻaumākua, family or personal gods who might assume physical shape as in a
plant, animal or other element of nature. (p. 167)
Irmgard Aluli (as cited in Meyer, 2003) speaks to relationship and knowing:
You don’t overstep someone you think is older than you in authority. You don’t try to
connect. You pay homage to the old all the time, bow to them. They are smarter than
you; they’ve lived longer, take their word rather than mine. I may disagree, but you
listen to that. (p. 168)
Utility and knowledge. The last theme in the Hawaiian epistemological framework is
the relationship between utility and knowledge. Meyer (1998) asserts that purpose and function
connect to knowledge—that utility, spirituality, and context are at the core of what it meant to be
aware, to engage in things and purpose, and to be shaped by what was meaningful. Pua
Kanahele (as cited in Meyer, 2003) says on utility and knowledge,
If I teach a chant just to be teaching a chant, then that’s kinda abstract to me. If I’m
going to teach a chant because we’re going to do ceremony with this chant, then that’s
functional, that’s more lifestyle, but this other way where I have a class of chanting, to
me that’s like the education system, that’s not functional. (p. 173)
Leo Kūpuna—Ancestral Voices
ʻIke Hawaiʻi/ʻIke Kupuna is knowledge coming from traditional with roots "mai o kīkilo
mai, from a distance time." In Hawaiian knowledge, insight is obtained from stories, kūpuna,
talking story and language resources (Meyer, 1998). Pukui did much collection of information
and knowledge from other kūpuna directly (Pukui, 1979).
KA MANA O LOKO 34
Pukui and ʻike Hawaiʻi
Mary Kawena Pukui, prolific Hawaiian scholar and quintessential historian of the 20
st

century, speaks of components of Hawaiian knowledge and knowing in her writings, (Pukui,
1995). Pukui (1979) cites Native Hawaiian constructions of knowledge as ‘ike Hawaiʻi and
constructions of knowledge and cultural knowledge are a bridge between ancestors’ views and
the present. Pukui (1979) makes the case that cultural backgrounds often affect the choices we
make as life flows from one experience to the next and, in a historical context. She states, “Being
part of two worlds, the Hawaiian has had to adjust to Western ways. In the process the formal
ways of understanding one’s cultural roots were set aside” (p. v). Pukui (1974) cites the
following ‘ōlelo noʻeau, “Ua hala nā kūpuna a he ʻike kōliʻuliʻu wale nō kō kēia lā, i nā mea i ke
au i hope lilo, iō kikilo. The ancestors have passed on; today’s people only see dimly the times
long gone and far behind” (p. 4). Pukui (1974) says that understanding ancestral knowledge is
integral to ʻike Hawaiʻi.
Pukui, Haertig, Lee and McDermott (1979) offer that Hawaiian knowledge includes: ʻike
Hawaiʻi, as ʻohana—importance of family, kupuna—respect for elders, hoʻoponopono—
harmonious interdendence within the ʻohana through regular family therapy, mahiki—dealing
with successive layers of trouble, mihi—forgiving completely and fully and kala—freeing each
other completely. Pukui et al. (1979) say that cultural information is of great value to
understanding a Hawaiian viewpoint and is key to appreciating the Hawaiian heritage.
Craver and ʻike Hawaiʻi
Craver (2000) framed Hawaiian knowledge, ʻike Hawaiʻi, in the Lōkahi Triad. Native
Hawaiian perspective is achieved when the balance in relationship between ke Akua (God), ka
ʻāina (land), and ke kānaka (man) takes place (Craver, 2000). Craver (2000) cites the Lōkahi
KA MANA O LOKO 35
Triad in the framework of four themes: Ke kukui o ke ola, lōkahi ka manaʻo, ka mana o loko
and aloha i kekahi i kekahi.
Craver (2000) says spiritual balance between a ke Akua (higher power), ka ʻāina (the
land) and ke kanaka (man) is the Hawaiian proverb, ke kukui o ke ola. Spirituality is a universal
connection seen in the physical manifestation of the higher power. Craver (2000) compares the
light of spiritual enlightenment to the kukui (candlenut) lamp of life burning.
Spiritual balance is also in the proverb, lōkahi ka manaʻo, balance between God, nature,
and man. The principle of lōkahi is the unity and harmony of all being (Craver, 2000). Craver
(2000) says that ke kanaka (man) strives to maintain balance between the ka ʻāina (land) and ke
Akua (higher power) as his existence is dependent on the harmony and reverence of these
relationships.
Balance between man and Akua is evidenced in the proverb, ka mana o loko- the power
within us. Craver (2000) cites this proverb as the ability of ke kanaka (man) to maintain control
of life to choose positive decisions. The mana (power) received comes from a higher power
(Craver, 2000).
Craver (2000) grounds the framework of the Lōkahi Triad in the concept of aloha, love,
affection, compassion, mercy, sympathy, and kindness. Aloha is the foundation of the Hawaiian
culture (Craver, 2000). Thus, the Hawaiian epistemological framework described by Craver
(2000) is contextualized as the Lōkahi Triad, balance between ke Akua, ka ʻāina and ke kānaka
(Figure 1).
KA MANA O LOKO 36

Figure 1. Native Hawaiian spiritual values surround the Triad (p. 1). Adapted from Craver
(2000)
Kumu Honua Mauli Ola and ‘Ike Hawaiʻi
Kumu Honua Mauli Ola (1998) describes the philosophy of Hawaiian knowledge, ʻike
Hawaiʻi, as the elements of the mauli ola, life force. The framework of the Kumu Honua Mauli
Ola (1998) is comprised of four individual elements: ka ʻaoʻao pili ʻuhane—the spiritual
element, ka ʻaoʻao ʻōlelo—the language element, ka ʻaoʻao lawena—the physical behavior, and
ka ʻaoʻao ʻike kuʻuna—the traditional knowledge element. In addition to the four elements of
the mauli ola, there are three piko that connect the centers of the mauli, Piko ʻĪ—to the divine,
Piko ʻŌ—to preceding generations, and Piko ʻĀ—to future generations (Kumu Honua Mauli
Ola, 1998). Mauli ola is expressed in places, or honua. The three honua are Honua ʻIewe,
Honua Kīpuka and Honua Ao Holoʻokoʻa (Kumu Honua Mauli Ola, 1998).
KA MANA O LOKO 37
Nā ʻaoʻao
The four elements of the mauli ola are expressed as parts of the human body (Kumu
Honua Mauli Ola, 1998). Ka ʻaoʻao pili ʻuhane is the spiritual element, with which all people
are born and is seated in the head, the most sacred part of the body. The spirit recognizes right
from wrong, good from bad and creates a relationship with everything in the universe, both seen
and unseen (Kumu Honua Mauli Ola, 1998). Ka ʻaoʻao ʻōlelo is the language element found in
the ears, mouth, and tongue. Language can be used in various ways, yet its strength lies in its
ability to transmit mauli to future generations (Kumu Honua Mauli Ola, 1998). Ka ʻaoʻao
lawena is the physical behavior element found in the limbs of the body, gestures, and expression.
This element of one’s mauli is usually learned through unconscious imitation at a young age and
is easily recognized by those who share the same mauli (Kumu Honua Mauli Ola, 1998). Ka
ʻaoʻao ʻike kuʻuna is the traditional knowledge element located in the intestines, where
knowledge and emotions lie. Knowledge is expressed in the traditional values and practices such
as the hula, poetry, and prayer (Kumu Honua Mauli Ola, 1998). Kumu Honua Mauli Ola (1998)
says that the true power in traditional knowledge lies in authentic practices carried out by mature
people who recognize their cultural responsibility to others who share their mauli.
Piko
The three piko connecting the centers of the mauli ola are the Piko ‘Ī, Piko ‘Ō and Piko
ʻĀ. The Piko ʻĪ is located at the fontanel at the top of the head and is where physical connection
to the spiritual beliefs of the people take place (Kumu Honua Mauli Ola, 1998). The Piko ʻŌ is
located at the navel, closest to the naʻau, the seat of knowledge and emotion, where spiritual
connection of the people to the ancestors take place (Kumu Honua Mauli Ola, 1998). The Piko
ʻĀ are the reproductive organs that represent creation and is where spiritual connection of the
KA MANA O LOKO 38
people to future generations take place (Kumu Honua Mauli Ola, 1998). The three centers exist
in relationship to one another as members with shared elements of spirit, language, physical
behavior and traditional knowledge (Kumu Honua Mauli Ola, 1998).
Honua
Mauli ola is expressed in places or honua, Honua ʻIewe, Honua Kīpuka and Honua Ao
Holoʻokoʻa (Kumu Honua Mauli Ola, 1998). The Honua ʻIewe is the placenta and represents the
close ties of family and kinship that are the foundation of mauli ola (Kumu Honua Mauli Ola,
1998). The Honua Kīpuka is the garden-like area where a lava flow has left a patch of
uncovered forest representing the ties of community, an extended protected environment in
which one develops the mauli ola brought from surrounding families in the community. The
Honua Ao Holoʻokoʻa is the entire world where an adult who has been raised with a strong mauli
ola expresses and shares the distinctiveness of that mauli ola with others from diverse
backgrounds (Kumu Honua Mauli Ola, 1998).
The literature on Hawaiian epistemology gave us a lens to allow me to understand what a
Hawaiian way of knowing and knowledge base of what counted as important might look like.
However, this was not enough to help me to gain insight into the way these members made
meaning of accountability in an era of Race to the Top (RTTT). Therefore, I turned to the next
body of literature, teacher ideology.
Teacher Ideology
Meighan (1981) offers the definition of ideology as a broad but interlinked set of ideas
and beliefs about the world that is held by a group of people and those people demonstrate both
in behavior and conversation to various audiences. Based on this definition, the idea of teacher
ideology was examined in three areas: how teachers bring their own views to teaching, how the
KA MANA O LOKO 39
views teachers bring is a reflection of the system in which they were educated, and how teachers
have the ability to acknowledge and make changes in content and instruction. The broader ideas
of teacher ideology were not exclusive to teachers interviewed but to all CBE members as the
ideas applied to the larger context of the CBE. So, although the term teacher ideology is used
here, it is relevant to all CBE members within the school context as all of these people were
grounded in education and may have been teachers at some point so it is not unreasonable to
apply these concepts to them.
Teacher ideology was relevant to this dissertation because a teacher’s professional and
personal identity shaped what knowledge was valued and how they believed it should be
delivered. The beliefs teachers brought with them also affected their thinking about assessment.
In this section I present literature about the ideas of teacher ideology. It is not an exhaustive
review, yet focusing on these topics was useful in enabling me to answer my research question as
the focus was on the way teachers and other stakeholders interpreted accountability demands set
forth in the CBE and federal/state policy context. Teacher ideology, then, was the perspective of
the individual teachers and other CBE members.
Extension of Self
A teacher’s ideology can be seen as part of his or her “orientation to self” (Connelly &
Elbaz, 1980), which rests “not only on intellectual beliefs but also on perceptions, feelings,
values, purposes, and commitment” (p. 116). Bartolomé and Trueba (2002) say that a teacher’s
ideology reflects the system in which he/she was raised or instructed. Implicit in teaching
ideology is the reflection of the existing social, political, and economic hierarchy of the dominant
culture (Bartolomé & Trueba, 2002). Bartolomé and Trueba (2002) argue that teachers can push
back at this thinking by questioning and/or resisting this dominant ideology, offering new
KA MANA O LOKO 40
meaning and ideas to their pedagogical framework. Educators must understand their personal
beliefs, where these beliefs originate and the effect they have on the children they teach
(Bartolomé & Trueba, 2002). Valdez (1996) suggests that educators who successfully teach
recognize that the world is made up of multiple realities.
Reconstruction
A teacher’s ideology can provide a framework for reconstruction of a language and
culture (Bartolomé & Trueba, 2000). Reconstruction provides the foundation in reclaiming the
knowledge and skills to create social, cultural, and economic equity for non-dominant groups
(Bartolomé & Trueba, 2000). Bartolomé and Trueba (2000) offer the idea of political clarity for
teachers to deepen their awareness of sociopolitical and economic realities that shape themselves
and their students and the capacity to transform them. Teacher ideology then influences
pedagogy and the link between macro-political, economics and social variables and the micro-
classroom instruction (Bartolomé & Trueba, 2000). Teacher beliefs and attitudes influence the
educational climate and suggest knowledge and learning that influences their students’ learning
experience.
Olsen and Kirtman (2002) say that a teacher’s influence can shape the learning of
students who are caught between two cultures and languages. Teacher ideology influences
practices that strengthen and honor cultural and linguistic heritage by creating conditions that
supports students to claim their cultural world (Olsen & Kirtman, 2002).
The literature on teacher ideology provided me with the understanding of teachers’
ideological views as a major component of pedagogy. Bartolomé and Trueba (2002) further
argue that teachers’ ideology plays a significant role in the instruction of their students. Thus, it
was important to consider the way that a teacher’s professional and personal identity shaped
KA MANA O LOKO 41
what knowledge was valued and the teachers’ beliefs about what should be taught. Ideology also
informed what teachers and other members of the CBE community might have thought about
what should be assessed and how assessment was to be undertaken at the school. In addition, the
wayteachers and other members of the CBE community understood what counted as knowledge
and therefore determined the focus of content, pedagogy, and assessment, connected to their
Hawaiian epistemological framework because teachers and other community members who were
grounded in a Hawaiian epistemological framework were more likely to have a Hawaiian belief
system and world-view and those less grounded in a Hawaiian epistemological framework were
more likely to have a non-Native Hawaiian belief system and world-view.
Finally, a teacher’s ideology could have also brought forward a framework that included
the reconstruction of a language and culture (Bartolomé & Trueba, 2000) that might have
provided a foundation for reclaiming the knowledge and skills necessary to create social,
cultural, and economic equity for non-dominant groups (Bartolomé & Trueba, 2000). Teacher
(and other CBE members’) beliefs and attitudes influenced the educational climate and suggest
knowledge and learning that influences their students’ learning experience.
The literature on teacher ideology gave us a lens to allow me to understand what was
relevant to this dissertation because a teacher’s professional and personal identity shaped what
knowledge was valued and how they believed it should be delivered. The beliefs teachers
brought with them also affected their thinking about assessment. However, this was not enough
to help me to gain insight into the way these members made meaning of accountability in an era
of Race to the Top (RTTT). Therefore, I turned to the next body of literature, culture-based
education.

KA MANA O LOKO 42
Culture Based-Education
In this section I present the theoretical assumptions for a CBE framework. This
framework addresses the CBE elements of goals and pedagogy and content.
CBE is a framework. It is not a specific set of pedagogies, content, and contexts. Those
who define CBE do so in broad strokes. They offer elements, principles, and ideologies rather
than specific guidelines for CBE. Thus, the literature presented below represents the different
ways those closely associated with CBE have defined or articulated the CBE framework. This is
connected to my research question because how a CBE interpreted a Hawaiian epistemology,
helped me to understand what members of the school community focused on as the knowledge to
be taught.
CBE Definition
According to Kawaiʻaeʻa and Kanaʻiaupuni (2008) the term culture-based
education refers to the grounding of instruction and student learning in the values, norms,
knowledge, beliefs, practices, experiences, places, and language that are the foundation of a
culture, here, Hawaiian indigenous culture. Culture-based education includes teaching the
traditions and practices of a particular culture and refers to teaching and learning that are
grounded in a cultural worldview, from whose lens are taught the skills, knowledge, content, and
values that students need in our modern, global society (Kawaiʻaeʻa & Kanaʻiaupuni, 2008).
Demmert, Hilberg and Rawlins (2008) offers a useful broad definition of culture-based
education, based on a national study of native language schools, including Native Hawaiian,
Navaho, Blackfeet, Y’upik, and Ojibwe. This work yielded the following definitional elements,
Language: Recognition and use of Native American (American Indian, Alaska Native,
Native Hawaiian) languages (this may include use bilingually or as a first or second
KA MANA O LOKO 43
language); Pedagogy: Pedagogy that stresses traditional cultural characteristics and
adult–child interactions as the starting place for education (mores that are currently
practiced in the community and that may differ from community to community).
Pedagogy in which teaching strategies are congruent with the traditional culture as well
as contemporary ways of knowing and learning (opportunities to observe, opportunities
to practice, and opportunities to demonstrate skills); Curriculum: Based on traditional
culture that recognizes the importance of native spirituality and places the education of
young children in a contemporary context (e.g., use and understanding of the visual arts,
legends, oral histories, and fundamental beliefs of the community); Leadership: Strong
native community participation (including parents, elders, other community resources) in
educating children and in the planning and operation of school activities; Assessment:
Knowledge and use of the social and political mores of the community.
CBE Goals
Culture-based education relies on the belief that indigenous students respond better and
learn more in schools that reflect their Native heritages in curriculum, pedagogy, and
assessments (Aguilera, Lipka, Demmert, &Tippeconnic, 2007). The goals of CBE vary by
author. Demmert and Towner (2003) state the goals of CBE as the creation of a comprehensive
approach for nurturing and educating the whole child including achievement in academics and
motivation based in the spiritual wellbeing, sense of identity, and social/cultural maturity of
Native students. The Education Laboratory (NWREL) say the goal of CBE is to serve as a
“Broad-based school-wide approach” that seeks to create “linguistic and social-cultural
congruence of the Native student population in all aspects of the school program but particularly
in classroom instruction” (NWREL, 2003, p. 2). Kawaiʻaeʻa (2012) contends the goals of
KA MANA O LOKO 44
culture-based education are to increase cultural identity and competency, socio-cultural maturity,
Hawaiian language vitality, and positive academic outcomes for native education and learning.
So while there is overlap in these goals, they also differ in important ways.
CBE Pedagogy Framework
Most recently, several authors have extended Indigenous epistemology, to include
pedagogical acts within the frameworks of CBEs. McCarty and Lee (2014), Paris and Alim
(2014), and Sleeter and Stillman (2005) all suggest that the epistemological framework for
Indigenous and historically marginalized children should carry over into pedagogical acts within
CBEs. Below I offer their thinking regarding the translation of epistemology into pedagogy or
pedagogical acts.
McCarty and Lee (2014) offer the concept of reclamation and educational sovereignty
through a culturally sustaining and revitalizing pedagogy (CSRP) as a pedagogical approach to
an epistemological framework in which recognition is given to the need to reclaim and revitalize
what has been disrupted and displaced by colonization. CSRP is as an approach designed to
address the socio-historical and contemporary contexts of Native American schooling (McCarty
& Lee, 2014). CSRP is defined as having three components:
1. As an expression of Indigenous education sovereignty, CSRP attends directly to
asymmetrical power relations and the goal of transforming legacies of colonization.
Tuhiwai-Smith (2013) points out that this involves a “knowingness of the colonizer”
as well as “a struggle for self-determination” (p. 8).
2. CSRP recognizes the need to reclaim and revitalize what has been disrupted and
displaced by colonization. Since for many Indigenous communities this increasingly
centers on the revitalization of vulnerable mother tongues, we focus on language
KA MANA O LOKO 45
education policy and practice. As Moll and Ruiz (2005) observe, a core element of
educational sovereignty is “the extent to which communities feel themselves to be in
control of their language” (p. 299). While language education in Indigenous settings
is informed by international research and practice in bilingual education (e.g. Garcia,
2009), by virtue of its revitalizing goals it requires novel approaches to second
language learning.
3. Indigenous CSRP recognizes the need for community-based accountability. Respect,
reciprocity, responsibility, and the importance of caring relationships—what Brayboy
and colleagues (2012, p. 436) call “the four Rs”—are fundamental to community-
based accountability. To borrow from Brayboy et al’s (2012, p. 435) discussion of
critical Indigenous research methodologies, CSRP serves the needs of Indigenous
communities as defined by those communities.
McCarty and Lee (2014) offered that revitalization efforts must each be understood
according to locally-defined needs, goals, and available material and human resources.
Sims (2005) argued that Indigenous languages constitute invaluable repositories of
distinctive knowledges that children have a right to and need for full participation in their
communities that “are central to self-determination and sovereignty” (p. 105).
Sleeter and Stillman (2005) offered this reclamation as framing, the degree to which
teachers and students have authority to bring their own questions, points of view, organization,
and pacing to the curriculum. Sleeter and Stillman (2005) argued this is not only about
improving student learning, “but reasserting who has a right to define what schools are for,
whose knowledge has most legitimacy, and how the next generation should think about the
social order and their place within” (p. 1). Utilizing this perspective of what knowledge is to be
KA MANA O LOKO 46
legitimized, defines the internal mechanism of what the CBE will hold themselves accountable
to.
Hawaiian education has its roots in a Hawaiian epistemological framework. The
literature on Hawaiian epistemology and knowledge allowed me to gain insight into how CBE
community members “know” and what they believe counts as knowledge. Hawaiian
epistemology stems from a larger body of literature on Indigenous epistemology. Indigenous
epistemology emerges from Indigenous philosophy of the world. Indigenous philosophy shares
commonalities with Indigenous worldviews (Rice, 2005). McKenzie and Morisette (2003) offer
that Indigenous worldviews emerged as a result of the relationship of people to the environment.
Simpson (2000) also offers principles of Indigenous worldviews including: knowledge is
holistic, cyclic, and dependent upon relationships and connections to living and non-living
beings and entities; everything is alive; the land is sacred, and; the relationship between people
and the spiritual world is important.
Hawaiian epistemology emerged as a result of the relationship between ke Akua (God),
ka ʻĀina (the land) and ka poʻe (people) (Craver, 2000). Native Hawaiian constructions of what
counts as knowledge and how one obtains knowledge are at the core of culture-based education
(Kawaiʻaeʻa, 2012). Hawaiian epistemology or ʻike Hawaiʻi, speaks to what strengthens,
develops the language, family, culture and community orientation, and aloha (Meyer, 1998).
CBE Pedagogy Content
Tharp (2006) defines pedagogy as, “The organization of instructional activity and the
patterns of teacher and student relationship” (p. 6). Tharp (2006) offers the following principles,
developed by The Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence (CREDE), for
teaching Native American (American Indians, Native Alaskan and Native Hawaiian) students in
KA MANA O LOKO 47
a culture-based framework: (a) Joint Productive Activity, where teachers and students work
together to facilitate learning through collaboration and dialogue on relevant educational
products; (b) Developing Language and Literacy across the Curriculum, where competence in
the language and literacy within the subject area is developed; (c) Teaching in Context, where
the student’s prior knowledge and life experiences are connected to meaningful school lessons;
(d) Teaching Complex Thinking, where the process of complex thinking is emphasized, modeled
and taught; (e) Instructional Conversation, where teachers and students use a purposeful
sustained dialogue to build shared understanding; (f) Modeling and Demonstration, where
students are given the opportunity to learn through observation; and (g) Student Directed
Activity, where student autonomy is encouraged throughout the learning process.
Demmert (2001) contends that the pedagogy associated with teaching in a culturally-
based education (CBE) setting for Native American students, including American Indians,
Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians, demands a basic understanding that CBE programs will
not be all the same and may vary for different indigenous student groups schools serve. Issues of
culture, language, cognition, community, and socialization are central to learning.
Demmert and Towner (2003) identify the following six critical elements connected to
pedagogy and content in CBE models for Indigenous learning environments: recognition and use
of Native American, including American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian languages;
pedagogy that stresses cultural characteristics and adult-child interactions as the starting place for
one’s education; pedagogy in which teaching strategies are congruent with the traditional culture
as well as contemporary ways of knowing and learning; curriculum that is based on traditional
culture, which recognizes the importance of native spirituality, and places the education of young
children in a contemporary context; strong native community participation (including parents,
KA MANA O LOKO 48
elders, other community resources) in educating children and evident in the curriculum,
planning, and operation of school/community activities; and knowledge and use of the social and
political mores of the community.
CBE pedagogy is grounded in ideas such as culturally responsive pedagogy as a response
to traditional hegemonic approach to education (Kawaiʻaeʻa, 2012). Wages (2012) states that
culturally responsive pedagogy is a student-centered approach to teaching in which the students’
unique cultural strengths are identified and nurtured to promote student achievement and a sense
of well-being about the students’ cultural place in the world. This pedagogy is divided into three
functional dimensions: the institutional dimension, personal dimension and the instructional
dimension. The institutional dimension emphasizes the need for reform of the cultural factors
affecting the organization of schools, school policies, and procedures (including allocation of
funds and resources), and community involvement. The personal dimension refers to the process
by which teachers learn to become culturally responsive. The instructional dimension refers to
practices and challenges associated with implementing cultural responsiveness in the classroom
(Wages, 2012).
The Education Alliance at Brown University (2013) identifies that culturally relevant
pedagogy is pedagogy that has positive perspectives on parents and families, communicates high
expectations, requires that learning takes place within the context of culture, provides culturally
mediated instruction, reshapes the curriculum and positions the teacher as a facilitator of
learning.
Kawaiʻaeʻa (2006) offers the Moenahā conceptual framework as a model for culturally
relevant pedagogy. The framework includes ideologies of hoʻolohe, hoʻopili, hoʻohana and
hoʻopuka. Hoʻolohe (to listen, feel, be attentive to) is fostering connection and development of
KA MANA O LOKO 49
relationships with the concept to be learned while listening, observing, feeling, reflecting,
discussing, being in the context of the big idea, building self-discipline, spiritual-emotional and
sensory direction. Hoʻopili (to bring/put together, imitate) provides direct instruction, transfer of
knowledge, content, and skills from teacher to student. Hoʻohana (to practice, work, use, apply),
is the practicing of new knowledge by developing proficiency through practice, experimenting,
repetition and hands on experience. Lastly, hoʻopuka (to emerge, graduate) is the demonstrating
of proficiency of new knowledge through application in projects, products, demonstrations,
service or performance.
Hawaiian-focused culture-based education is grounded in a Hawaiian epistemological
framework. Therefore, the relevant literature regarding culture-based education helped me
increase my understanding of the relationship between Hawaiian epistemology and culture-based
education. In turn, understanding culture-based education helped me to think about the
connections members of the CBE community members might make between Hawaiian
epistemology and their approach to pedagogy, content, and assessment. While this body of
literature completed my exploration of the essential concepts underlying the CBE, it did not
address the role that external and internal forms of accountability might play in shaping
community members’ approach to determining whether they had a responsibility to clearly
articulate criteria for what should be known and what skills should be acquired and whether
assessments should exist to enable that process. For this set of ideas I turn to literature on
accountability.
Accountability
In this section I present the literature on accountability and assessments in the context of
assessment as it relates to federal, state, public, private and CBE accountability. This framework
KA MANA O LOKO 50
provided the context for me to understand the accountability complexities of the CBE and
USDOE/HIDOE, KSBE, OHA and WASC frameworks in answering the research question, How
do members of a culture-based education community understand accountability in an era of Race
to the Top? Understanding the external accountability requirements of the USDOE/HIDOE,
KSBE, OHA and WASC that were placed upon a CBE community provided a context to
examine how it was that a CBE community negotiated its own accountability expectations in
both external and internal expectations.
Internal accountability measures of a CBE community may offer a different purpose than
external accountability measures of the USDOE/HIDOE. Understanding the purpose of
accountability measures will help me to gain insight into what is being assessed and how
assessment is being done. This is connected to my research question because understanding
what the CBE community counts as knowledge will lend to understanding how the CBE
community contends with both sets of expectations.
Accountability Definition
According to Abelmann and Elmore (1999), accountability mechanisms are the variety of
formal and informal ways by which people in schools give an account of their actions to
someone in a position of formal authority, inside or outside the school. Some accountability
mechanisms are internal to schools and some accountability mechanisms are external to schools,
yet whether internal or external, accountability mechanisms take a wide variety of forms
(Abelmann & Elmore, 1999). Accountability mechanisms vary considerably in their
consequences for success or failure—the consequences might be communicated, with relatively
low stakes or relatively high stakes.
KA MANA O LOKO 51
Elmore (2000) suggests that reciprocal accountability is the idea that one can only expect
another person to improve if he/she provides that person with the supports to do so and that for
every increment of performance demanded, there is an equal responsibility to provide the
capacity to meet that expectation. The principle of “reciprocity of accountability for capacity”
(Elmore, 2000) states that for every investment you made in my skill and knowledge, there is a
reciprocal responsibility to demonstrate some new increment in performance. Elmore (2002)
contends that high internal accountability, or coherence and agreement around expectations for
teaching practice and student learning, lead directly to observable gains in student learning.
Similarly, failing schools fundamentally lack agreement and coherence around expectations for
student learning and the means to influence instructional practice in classrooms in ways that
result in student learning (Elmore, 2000).
USDOE/HIDOE Accountability Goals
The primary goal of education as articulated by the USDOE was to increase student
achievement in the public primary and secondary school systems, through the implementation of
the Race to the Top educational initiative (Race to the Top Grant Application, 2010).
Accountability measures offered here are in the context of federal requirements of NCLB and the
state’s response in the Race to the Top grant application and Strive HI performance system,
including the Common Core Standards.
Race to the Top. The primary goal for education in Race to the Top is to increase student
achievement that builds toward college and career readiness, and improves critical knowledge
and higher-order thinking skills. (US Department of Education, 2010). Goals of RTTT include
increasing college and career readiness, increasing higher education enrollment and completion
rates, providing equity and effectiveness by closing achievement gaps and increasing emphasis
KA MANA O LOKO 52
in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) competencies (Race to
the Top Grant Application, 2010). The Hawaiʻi RTTT application states the commitment of the
state of Hawaiʻi to reducing the achievement gap affecting Native Hawaiian students in post-
secondary education pursuits.
Hawaiʻi adopted a mandatory statewide curriculum, Common Core State Standards,
through the RTTT initiative to raise student achievement and includes college-and career-
readiness in reading, math and science. The Common Core Curriculum was designed to improve
the HIDOE’s ability to: (1) make statewide improvements in K-12 academic planning,
especially the horizontal and vertical articulation of academic expectations, (2) provide
consistent, targeted teacher training, support, evaluation and professional development, (3)
achieve efficiencies in the procurement of instructional materials, (4) improve support to
transient students, and (5) provide needed continuity for vulnerable students in schools that
currently have a high level of teacher turnover (US Department of Education, 2010).
Strive HI. The HIDOE implemented the Strive HI performance system, as the waiver
response to No Child Left Behind accountability measures. The goal of Strive HI is to prepare
students for college and career readiness (Hawaiʻi State Department of Education, 2013). The
RTTT educational initiative and Strive HI performance system requires participating schools to
meet explicit, ambitious, and varying accountability measures. Each school must attain
customized goals, as determined by the school’s complex. These goals are based on the current
performance of all of Hawaiʻi’s students and student subgroups that reflect the state’s student
population (Hawaiʻi State Department of Education, 2013). The three key components of Strive
HI are: 1) new goals and annual targets, 2) Strive HI Index—multiple measures of achievement,
growth, readiness and achievement gaps, and 3) Strive HI Steps. The highest performing schools
KA MANA O LOKO 53
receive recognition, financial awards, and administrative flexibility, while low-performing
schools receive customized supports based on the lessons learned from Hawaiʻi’s successful
school turnarounds.
OHA and KSBE
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate (KSBE)
are two supporting agencies to CBE communities. The criteria used by these organizations for
CBE communities are: 1) Initiated, supported, and controlled by a Hawaiian community, 2)
Offers a Hawaiian culture-based curriculum, instruction and assessments, 3) Committed to
perpetuating Hawaiian culture, language, values and traditions and 4) Actively contributes to the
growth of Hawaiian-focused education through participation in ongoing research and
dissemination of best practices (Kamehameha Schools, 1996). OHA, an entity of the state,
provides $1.5 million annually to HFCSs in the Nā Lei Naʻauao Coalition (OHA, 2013) and
KSBE, as a private institution, provides $1,500 per student annually (Kamehameha Schools
Hoʻolako Like, 2013).
WASC
Dugan and Hernon (2002) say that as part of the effort to improve accountability
measures, regional bodies (such as WASC) are increasingly focusing on determining learning
results. Through its accreditation process, WASC asks each of its member institutions to explain
how the learning process contributes to student achievement (Dugan & Hernon, 2002). Dugan
and Hernon (2002) cite accountability measures of WASC in the past consisting of inputs and
outputs with outputs being a measurement of the application of inputs. As such, outputs do not
measure individual student learning outcomes as results because inputs and outputs are
KA MANA O LOKO 54
institutionally based, not individually based. The assessment process measures learner
performance and is student-oriented rather than institution centered (Dugan & Hernon, 2002).
USDOE/HIDOE Assessment Measures
Federal and state accountability measures to increase student achievement reflect how
achievement is to be measured and the content to be measured. These accountability measures
are identified in the Strive HI Index assessment.
Strive HI. The Strive HI Index assessment utilizes multiple measurements compared to
NCLB assessments. The Strive HI Index is the state’s response to federal mandates. Assessment
measures include schools’ performance and progress, utilizing multiple measures of student
achievement, growth, and readiness for success after high school. These measurements include:
HSA reading and math scores, end-of-course science assessment, chronic absenteeism, 8
th
and
11
th
grade ACT scores in reading, English, math and science, high school graduation rates, and
college enrollment (Strive HI, 2013).
Culture-based assessments. CBE communities as HFCS are being offered the
opportunity through the bi-lateral contract with the state to offer culture-based assessments as
40% of the measurements for student achievement of the Strive HI performance index (Hawaiʻi
Charter School Board, 2013, Dec 15). While a significant amount of theory exists with respect
to assessment in the context of CBE, there exists very little literature on delineating existing CBE
assessments or demonstrating how those assessments have been used to assess student learning
in CBE content or non-CBE content. With very limited availability of literature on the
development and implementation of actual CBE assessments, this section will present the
theoretical frameworks that have been offered detailing what CBE assessments should look like.
KA MANA O LOKO 55
The purpose of assessment in CBE is to measure student progress in meeting rigorous
academic standards in a culturally valid context (Nelson-Barber & Trumbull, 2007). Nelson-
Barber and Trumbull (2007) argue CBE assessments are necessary because the typical U.S.
educational assessment is culturally biased in both content and context towards students from the
dominant culture. They further assert that typical U.S. assessments do not successfully capture or
build on potentially important content knowledge and understanding of Indigenous students.
Thus, CBE assessments seek to address the cultural biases that exist in large-scale assessment
(Hood, 1998).
In general, CBE assessments can and should be authentic assessment of experiential,
hands-on education in a real-world context common to Native communities (Resnick, 1991).
Deyhle and Swisher (1997) suggest culture specific behaviors that should be included in
assessments that influence the learning process for Indigenous students.
The working group, Nā Lau Lama (2006) proposes that the purpose of assessment in the
context of CBE is to create shared meanings between the teacher and the student. Clear
expectations increase student understanding and build relationships between teachers and
learners. Identifying learners’ strengths, supporting teachers’ efforts to build on those strengths,
and creating authentic opportunities to explore learners’ roles and function within a community
(as in stewardship, citizenship, service learning) is the goal. Table 1 provides a theoretical
framework for culture-based assessments. Figure 2 depicts the use of student assessment
juxtaposed within learning context constructs.

KA MANA O LOKO 56
Table 1
Design Framework for CBE Assessments.
Purpose for Assessments 1. Creation of shared meanings and clear
expectations that increase understanding and
build relationships between teachers and
learners.
2. Identification of learners’ strengths and support
of teachers’ efforts to build on those strengths.
3. Authentic opportunities to explore learners’ roles
and function within a community (as in
stewardship, citizenship, service learning).
Design and content of
assessments
1. Methods that are aligned with the curriculum,
language of instruction, and pedagogy.
2. Diverse range of approaches, tools, methods and
venues that allow learners to demonstrate their
knowledge in multiple contexts.
3. Culturally-grounded practices such as hōʻike and
inter-generational participation.
4. Indigenous knowledge systems that span
families, generations and communities.
5. Consideration of all dimensions of the learners’
development—the physical, emotional,
intellectual
Context of administering
assessments
6. Relationships are sustained over time and
include high levels of mutual respect and trust.
7. Connections are explicitly made between the
knowledge assessed, the learners’ past
experiences and the future path of the
learner/community.
8. The learners’ roles in and relationships to the
knowledge studied (kuleana) are recognized in
addition to the content itself.
9. Assessors accept responsibility for using
culturally-appropriate methods, and data in a
community-sensitive manner

KA MANA O LOKO 57
Table 1, continued
Use of assessment data
results
10. Informs the structure and content of next steps
and future learning experiences (i.e. formative
assessment, differentiation, recursive data).
11. Empowers learners and increases their
opportunities for success.
12. Improves the situation and conditions for
learners as well as community.
13. Gives indigenous community control over
interpretation of results and findings that are
reported within the community and beyond.

This framework highlights the purpose for, design and content of context of administering and
use of data results in assessments in a culture-based education community (Nā Lau Lama, 2006,
pp. 43-44).

Figure 2. Mapping of assessment tools by contextualization and purpose. (Nā Lau Lama, 2006,
pp. 43-44).
When a particular assessment is considered, its position along the vertical axis is determined by
the relationship assessment tool has to the context in which it is used. Highly contextualized
assessments promote understanding in relation to cultural knowledge and where personal
connection and application take place. Decontextualized assessments include standardized test of
KA MANA O LOKO 58
student achievement including Hawaiʻi State Assessment (HSA) and the Stanford Achievement
Test (SAT). The horizontal axis shows assessments of and for learning both in the formative and
summative contexts.
The literature on federal, state, and CBE accountability requirements helped me to
understand the external accountability requirements of the USDOE/HIDOE that were placed
upon the CBE community. This provided the context to examine the CBE community as it
negotiated internal accountability requirements of the CBE community. Internal accountability
requirements of the CBE community offered a different purpose than that of the
USDOE/HIDOE. Understanding the purpose of accountability requirements as assessment
measures helped me to gain insight into what was being assessed and how assessment was being
undertaken. What was counted as knowledge helped me in understanding the assessment tools
for measurement and helped me gain insight into how the CBE community contended with both.
Conclusion
The literature review presented an overview of the bodies of literature on Hawaiian and
Indigenous epistemology, teacher ideology, culture-based education, accountability and
assessments. Presented separately in this literature review, each body of literature was discussed
separately. The literature on Hawaiian and Indigenous epistemology provided a framework to
understanding what CBE members believe counts as knowing and knowledge in making
meaning of accountability. The literature on teacher ideology explained how teachers understand
what counts as knowledge determines the focus of content, pedagogy and assessment. The
literature on culture-based education provided an understanding of CBE as a comprehensive
approach for nurturing and educating the whole child. Finally, the literature on accountability
and assessment provided an understanding of the purpose of accountability requirements and
KA MANA O LOKO 59
understanding assessment measures helped me to gain insight into what was being assessed and
how assessment was being undertaken. In the next section, I bring these bodies of literature
together as I present my Conceptual Framework. Next, I discuss how I conceptualize the
different bodies of literature on culturally responsive pedagogy, teacher care, constructivist, and
sociocultural theories of learning. In my Conceptual Framework, I also present the ways
Hawaiian and Indigenous epistemology, teacher ideology, culture-based education intersects
with the tenets of accountability and assessments. It is these intersections that I present in the
Conceptual Framework that will provide a lens to understand how members of a CBE make
meaning of accountability in an era of RTTT.
Conceptual Framework
In this section, I present my conceptual framework, which formed the basis of this study.
The conceptual framework informed my research and was the “system of concepts, expectations,
beliefs, and theories that support and inform my research and is a key part of my design”
(Maxwell, 2013, p. 39).
Below I first define the concepts of Hawaiian epistemology, teacher ideology, and
culture-based education to be used in the study. Then, I categorize the internal and external
accountability requirements of the CBE environment in the study. Finally, I end this section with
the conceptualization of how understanding members of the CBE determine what counts as
knowledge, their ideology about what is important to be taught and learned, and the way they
think those things should happen in epistemology, ideology, and the CBE environment helped
me to understand the way they make meaning of accountability.
KA MANA O LOKO 60
Hawaiian Epistemology
Hawaiian epistemology or ʻike Hawaiʻi, speaks to what strengthens, develops the
language, family, culture, and community orientation and aloha (Meyer, 1998). Pukui (1979)
says that cultural information is of great value to understanding a Hawaiian viewpoint and is key
to appreciating the Hawaiian heritage. I define Hawaiian epistemology as the four elements of
mauli ola: ka ʻaoʻao pili ʻuhane—the spiritual element, ka ʻaoʻao ʻōlelo—the language element,
ka ʻaoʻao lawena—the physical behavior, and ka ʻaoʻao ʻike kuʻuna—the traditional knowledge
element as it is connected by the three piko that connect the centers of the mauli, Piko ʻĪ—to the
divine, Piko ʻŌ—to preceding generations and Piko ʻĀ—to future generations.
Teacher Ideology
Teacher ideology that is aligned with Hawaiian epistemology and CBE refers to beliefs
that strengthen and honor cultural and linguistic heritage by creating conditions that support
students to claim their cultural world (Olsen & Kirtman, 2002). These ideologies of
reconstruction provide the foundation in reclaiming the knowledge and skills to create social,
cultural, and economic equity for non-dominant groups (Bartolomé & Trueba, 2000). Teacher
ideology is a member’s beliefs of what the CBE does and should do. Moreover, these
individually held beliefs come together at the collective level to shape what the organization as a
whole does with respect to content, pedagogy, and assessment.
Culture-based Education
Culture-based education is grounded in ideology that Indigenous students respond better
and learn more in schools that reflect their native heritages in curriculum, pedagogy, and
assessments (Aguilera, Lipka, Demmert, &Tippeconnic, 2007). I define, culture-based education,
drawing from Kawaiea (2012), as an approach to schooling and student learning that increases
KA MANA O LOKO 61
cultural identity and competency, socio-cultural maturity, language vitality, and positive
academic outcomes for students.
Accountability Requirements
Next, I categorize the internal and external accountability requirements of the CBE
environment. I argue that internal accountability requirements are foundational elements of the
CBE community. These elements include the community’s vision, mission, cultural values, and
belief statements, shared objectives and articulated goals, grounded in pedagogy and ideology.
External accountability requirements are compulsory elements imposed upon the CBE
community that are likely to change over a fixed period of time. These elements include
USDOE and HIDOE mandates, WASC accreditation measures and public organization and
private institution expectations such as Na Lei Naʻauao, the Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate
(KSBE) and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA.)
Conceptualizing Accountability
As illustrated in Figure 3 below, my conceptual framework is a model that describes the
way the concepts interact with each other. The way that a member of the CBE community makes
meaning of the relationship between internal and external accountability requirements and
student achievement is the result of the interaction of his/her level of understanding of Hawaiian
epistemology, his/her ideology about what students attending the school need in terms of
pedagogy, content knowledge, and skills, and his/her level of understanding of culture-based
education.
KA MANA O LOKO 62

Figure 3. Conceptual Framework—Triangle of Accountability
I assert that there is a strong relationship between one’s levels of understanding of
Hawaiian epistemology, one’s ideology about what students need, and the way those needs
should be played out in the context of a culture-based education school. Moreover, the more
deeply grounded an individual is in Hawaiian epistemology, the more the ideas expressed in
Hawaiian epistemology are reflected in the individual’s ideology and his/her beliefs about what a
culture-based education school must do to foster student learning and achievement. Finally, the
interaction of these three elements influence the way that this individual determines what he/she,
KA MANA O LOKO 63
the student, and the school should be accountable for and how all members of the community
should be held accountable are visible in their attempt to foster student achievement. Thus,
someone who is deeply grounded in Hawaiian epistemology demonstrate the belief that it is
critical to strengthen and honor students’ cultural and linguistic heritage by creating conditions
that support students to claim their cultural world (Olsen & Kirtman, 2002). I offer that this
person characterizes the approach to teaching and learning at the school to be one that increases
cultural identity and competency, socio-cultural maturity, language vitality, and positive
academic outcomes for students. Moreover, this person will speak about accountability as
separate for internal and external expectations. This person will also accept and embrace internal
accountability expectations and respect and fulfill external expectations.
In this framework, while it is essential to understand each individual CBE community
member’s perspective regarding the role of accountability in the context of the school, it is
equally essential to understand how collective perspectives shape the school’s overall reaction to
these accountability mandates.
Summary
The literature reviewed in this section suggested a need for further investigation
surrounding how a CBE school community makes meaning of accountability. Little research has
examined the affects of how CBE communities understand internal and external accountability
measures. I drew upon four bodies of literature: Hawaiian epistemology, teacher ideology,
culture-based education and accountability. In my review, I examined literature that explored
fundamental principles of culture-based education and accountability. However, upon review of
the literature I suggest that the way culture-based education community members make meaning
of internal and external accountability is in the interaction and overlap of ideologies.
KA MANA O LOKO 64
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter describes the qualitative approach, instrumentation, and data collection
methods that I used to conduct this study. The purpose of this study was to explore the ways in
which members of a Hawaiian-focused charter school made meaning of accountability in their
unique context. More specifically, this study examined two things: How did members of a
Hawaiian-focused charter school community deal with externally and internally imposed
accountability mandates? Specifically, I investigated how stakeholders as members of Hawaiian
culture-based education schools made meaning of the relationship between internal and external
accountability requirements and student achievement as a result of the interaction of their level
of understanding of Hawaiian epistemology, their ideology about what students attending the
school needed in terms of pedagogy, content knowledge, and skills, and their level of
understanding of culture-based education.
This qualitative case study was informed by the following research question: How do
members of a CBE community make meaning of accountability in an era of Race to the Top?
As a member of the Hawaiian language and Hawaiian culture-based education
community for over 20 years, there was a responsibility to tell the story of the CBE as it related
to the larger community. Maxwell (2013) argues that experiential knowledge contributes to
sources of major insights, hypotheses and validity checks to qualitative researchers. Thus, my
experience in CBE allowed me the ability to see as Kovach (2009) argued that revealing one’s
epistemological positioning shows the interpretative lens through which researchers conduct and
make meaning of their research and the importance of understanding and recognizing the
epistemological framework the researcher brings, “for what cannot be seen is often not
acknowledged, and what is not acknowledged is dismissed” (p. 32).
KA MANA O LOKO 65
Research Design
A case study approach to qualitative study was designed to uncover the
interaction of significant components that are characteristic of a phenomenon (Merriam, 2009).
In addition, as suggested by Merriam (2009), a case study allowed for an in-depth analysis of a
bounded system that was intrinsically bounded or confined. A case study approach was
conducted using a hybrid of Indigenous methods and qualitative research. For example, I used a
relational approach (Kovach, 2009) making explicit reference to personal preparations involving
motivations, purpose, inward knowing, observation, and the variety of ways I, as the researcher,
related to the process I undertook. Similarly, I used both story and narrative as another way to
assess the research process in an Indigenous context, as story is congruent with Indigenous
knowledge (Kovach, 2009).
Furthermore, I drew from the influence of knowledge in the areas of Hawaiian
epistemology, teacher ideology, and culture-based education on individual community members,
in making meaning of accountability for the CBE community. The units of analysis were the
individual members of the CBE community representing the following role groups:
administrators, board members, community partners and teachers and the CBE community as a
collective entity of individual members. The framework helped me to understand why they
made sense of accountability the way that they did.
For this study, Indigenous research (Kovach, 2009) and qualitative case study approach
came together because this research design… rather than testing a hypothesis, was most
appropriate to provide meaning and understanding of the complexities found in this research
topic. The intersection of qualitative research with Indigenous research illustrated the
appropriateness of this approach in that a case study is particularistic—in that the focus of the
KA MANA O LOKO 66
study was based on a specific phenomenon or problem and was descriptive resulting in rich
descriptions of the phenomenon under study (Merriam, 2009).
Site Selection
Sample and Population
Merriam (2009) states that a set of criteria must be established in order to use purposeful
sampling. Also, the criteria must be directly connected to the purpose of the study (Merriam,
2009). Given that my research question focused explicitly on Hawaiian epistemology and
culture-based education in the context of a charter school, it was essential that I select a site that
was a HFCS school in the Nā Lei Naʻauao consortium.
The site chosen, Kahuewai NCPCS was centrally located near the community college
campus of the county with the population of the county at approximately 69,000 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2013) with the population of the town in which the schools belongs at nearly 6,500. The
median per capita income of the county was at $26,464, with predominantly White and Asian
population. Native Hawaiians comprising 9.1% of the population.
Kahuewai NCPCS was established in 2007, and was located on 10 acres adjacent
to the community college campus, leased from the University of Hawaiʻi. The school is
comprised of portable modular buildings and two FROG Zero green buildings.
At the time of the study, the school had an administrative staff of five, one executive
director, two academic directors (one primary and one secondary), SASA and Fiscal manager.
There were nine full time instructors, eight educational assistants or associate instructors. The
student population was 115 students grades K-12. The student population was 92% Native
Hawaiian and 8% other. The governing board consisted of eight members.
KA MANA O LOKO 67
Participant Selection
Purposeful selection was also used to determine the participant, a CBE community
member in this study. Since this study was focused on how members of a CBE community
individually and collectively made meaning of accountability requirements, it was necessary to
select members who met a specific set of criteria. The criteria used to guide purposeful selection
provided an information-rich case for study in depth (Merriam, 2009). The following criteria
were used to select CBE community members:
Criterion 1. The first criterion was that participants be CBE community members.
Given the focus of this study on CBE community members and their understanding of
accountability, I selected individuals who were members of the CBE community.
Criterion 2. The second criterion was that the CBE member must have had the ability to
make decisions in identifying, constructing, and implementing accountability measures. I did
not look to assess whether these members actually exercised these abilities. For the purpose of
this dissertation, I asked the school administrators to indicate which individuals met the criterion
for the study. I then called the school administrators in which I had three confirmed interviews
upon arrival at the site. Consistent with Indigenous research was openness and willingness to
talk story came through the facilitation of one of the CBE members with the majority of the rest
of participants.
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures
As a qualitative case study, my role as the researcher included that I was the primary
instrument for data collection and analysis (Merriam, 2009). Given the criteria for the sampling,
it was imperative for me to be mindful of one of the most critical aspects of Indigenous
research—community accountability to the process and the content of the research (Battiste,
KA MANA O LOKO 68
2007). As an Indigenous researcher, it was critical for me to be able to tell the story of the CBE
community—to tell their story. Once I was given access to the community, I had a responsibility
to make sure that I did not exploit the Indigenous knowledge and people who allowed me into
their community (Battiste, 2007).
After I received IRB approval from the university, I collected data from CBE community
members’ interviews, including administrators, board members, community partners, and
teachers, and relevant documents. I chose to collect data through interviews conducted in both
English and Hawaiian because as Kovach (2009) states, the interrelationship between Indigenous
language and structure and worldview in an Indigenous research framework as language shapes
thought and culture, and knowledge construction. Interview questions, however, were asked in
English for consistency.
Interviews
For this study, I interviewed 17 of the 22 available members of the CBE community each
once, from various stakeholder groups (administration, board, community partners and teachers).
Interviews ranged in time from 30 minutes to 3.5 hours. In a generally closed community, I was
given access through two key individuals, the school board president and the school principal,
who facilitated the process through snowball sampling. I shared a meal with six of the CBE
members and went walking with one other.
Before interviews took place, there was a period during which I “talked story” anywhere
between 5 and 20 minutes to discuss the topic of research, for hoʻolauna, introductions where
connections, intent, and relationship building was established. The concept of “talking story”
was also used as Struthers (2001) suggested that within the structure of story, there was a place
KA MANA O LOKO 69
for the fluidity of metaphor, symbolism, and interpretative communications, both verbal and
non-verbal, for a philosophy and language that is less definitive and categorical.
The interviews followed a semi-structured interview format, where a set of issues guided
the types of questions that I asked during the interviews (Merriam, 2009). The interviews took
more of a “talk story” format as I conducted interviews in office space areas, empty classrooms,
homes, cars, coffee shops and restaurants. All CBE members were on a different island so I flew
to meet them. My approach was consistent with Indigenous research methods which tailors to
the person and situation, as respondents had expectations of informality (Meyer, 2003).
I used my conceptual framework as a guide to the areas I covered in the interviews. I
conducted interviews using four interview protocols (Appendix A, B, C & D), which guided the
types of questions I asked for the interviews. The four interview protocols (Appendix A, B, C &
D) were developed, the first for administrators, the second, board members, third, community
partners and fourth for teachers. The open-ended questions were developed to specifically find
out from each of the CBE community role group member how they made meaning of
accountability. I collected data that provided me with insight to understand how members’
constructed what students should be expected to learn and how that should be measured.
Specifically, I asked questions that allowed me to find out how members understood being
grounded in Hawaiian epistemology or ʻIke Hawaiʻi. I collected data on members’ ideology
related to what students should be taught, how they should be taught and how learning should be
measured. I asked questions that allowed me to understand their knowledge of and connection to
the components of culture-based education. Questions were asked to gain an understanding of
how they make meaning of the world and how their understanding of Hawaiian epistemology,
ideology and culture-based education shaped this understanding. I also asked questions that
KA MANA O LOKO 70
enabled me to determine how the interaction of their understandings and ideology influenced,
shaped, and/or connected to the way they make meaning of internal and external accountability
requirements.
Interviews were conducted in both Hawaiian and English. Four of the 17 interviews were
conducted in Hawaiian, two were in half in English and half in Hawaiian and 11 were conducted
in English.
Documents and Artifacts
I also collected documents and artifacts from the school to gain another view into CBE
role group member beliefs and ideas used in making meaning of internal and external
accountability measures. Documents were essential to this study because, as Merriam (2009)
states, they are a ready-made source of data easily accessible to the investigator. These
documents included the charter of the school, school handbook, vision and mission statement,
State of the School report, school website (to measure internal accountability measures) and
RTTT application, Strive HI application, KSBE reports, OHA reports, WASC report (to measure
external accountability measures). In many Indigenous cultures, language constructs suggest a
non-binary, complementary philosophy of the world (Kovach, 2009, p. 59) thus, documents
written in Hawaiian allowed for another lens into the CBE world.
Data Analysis Procedures
The data for this qualitative case study included transcripts from CBE community
member interviews. Corbin and Strauss (2008) describe analysis as the process of giving
meaning to data by taking apart to identify its various components, taking a closer look at those
various components to understand how those components function and their relationship to each
other. I used open coding to look deeply at each source of data in order to categorize into major
KA MANA O LOKO 71
concepts reflected in my conceptual framework. I began my analysis during my data collection,
as I began to look into the data after each source of data was collected. For example, following
the interviews, I transcribed the recorded interview and began to look at the interview transcript,
coding the data with the concepts illustrated in my conceptual framework. Once all the data was
coded, I brought all of the data together in order to create what Merriam (2009) calls a “case
study database or method” (p. 292). I first looked for key words in English and Hawaiian that I
thought might have helped me with the coding process. I then realized that in a Hawaiian
context, I needed to code using concepts and ideas instead, especially because some of the
interviews were conducted in Hawaiian. The conceptual framework guided my analysis as I
looked across the data to compare answers to each other. Themes emerged of: Hawaiian
learner, ‘ike Hawaiʻi, ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi, cultural goals, dual world, internal accountability,
achievement, being Hawaiian, commitment, community, kumu, cultural assessment, cultural
values and self-esteem. After identifying the themes, I looked at how internal and external
accountability measures were addressed and how CBE membersʻ individually came to make
meaning of these things. Then, I looked at what the data said as a whole and identified the
findings for the research.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
I addressed validity threats through triangulation. I used triangulation with multiple
sources of data (Merriam, 2009)—interviewing participants from different role groups—as well
as data types, collecting documents and journaling. Unlike field notes, which are recordings of
observations made during field study, I wrote down reflections on thoughts, relationships,
dreams, anxieties, and aspirations in a holistic manner that related to the research and offered me
KA MANA O LOKO 72
a means for tracing personal analysis and discoveries of the research that were emerging in
narrative.
Conclusion
This study sought to examine the ways in which a CBE community understood
accountability requirements. Individual CBE community members who have decision-making
ability to implement accountability measures and the collective understanding of CBE members,
served as the unit of study. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with these
CBE members. My conceptual framework guided the data analysis process.

KA MANA O LOKO 73
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this dissertation was to examine the ways in which a culture-based
education community made meaning of accountability, more specifically, to examine the ways
members of a CBE community made meaning of the relationship between internal and external
accountability requirements and what the school believed it should be doing in relation to those
requirements.
Overall the data revealed that there was a general agreement among the vast majority of
members of the CBE community that the school’s purpose (what the school was accountable for
and to whom) was to build students’ Native Hawaiian cultural identity and language proficiency.
This agreement belied underlying tensions that existed among the community regarding the
school’s purpose. Within this broad agreement there was wide variation in what members
believed it meant to build students’ Native Hawaiian cultural identity and language proficiency.
This variation also reflected differences in beliefs about accountability.
On one end of the continuum there was a faction who believed that they were responsible
for revitalizing and reclaiming the Native Hawaiian cultural identity and culture and cultivating
students’ desires to do the same. This same faction addressed accountability and assessment
through predominantly Native Hawaiian methods. The second clearly defined faction believed in
developing students’ Native Hawaiian cultural identity and language and leveraging that identity
and language as a bridge to US/Western knowledge and skills. This second faction addressed
accountability and assessment by seeking ways to determine students’ proficiency in Native
Hawaiian knowledge and skills and Western knowledge and skills. The third and final faction
believed that they were primarily responsible for developing students’ Western knowledge and
skills. This faction addressed accountability and assessment through primarily US/Western forms
KA MANA O LOKO 74
of assessment provided through the Race to the Top agreement the state of Hawaiʻi entered into
with the Federal government. I will present the evidence and analysis in support of each of these
findings in turn.
Finding 1. There was Surface Agreement Among all Members of the CBE Community that
the School’s Purpose was to Build Students’ Native Hawaiian Cultural Identity and
Language Proficiency.
The first theme that emerged from the data was that there was a general consensus across
CBE members that they were responsible for building students’ Native Hawaiian cultural
identity and language proficiency. All 17 or 100% of CBE members expressed the same belief
that it was important to foster students’ knowledge and skills in Native Hawaiian culture and
language. This theme is broken down into two sections, the belief that the purpose of the school
was to develop students’ cultural identities and focus on the cultivation of the Hawaiian language
specifically as a way to develop cultural identity.
Develop Cultural Identity
As described above, Elmore (1999) asserts that internal accountability exists when there
is coherence and agreement around expectations for teaching practice and student learning.
Consistent with Elmore’s (1999) concept of internal accountability, there was a general
agreement across CBE members regarding goals and expectations of the CBE. CBE members
exhibited agreement that they were responsible for cultivating and developing students’ cultural
identity by developing their ʻike Hawaiʻi (Hawaiian epistemological framework) by grounding
them in ‘ike kuʻuna (traditional knowledge) and ʻōlelo makuahine (the mother tongue of
Hawaiʻi), loina (values) and lawena (behavioral expectations). Kumu Kamokulehua offered one
example of this perspective:
KA MANA O LOKO 75
The foundation of the CBE should be whatever is best for the keiki [child], but also what
is best for the lāhui [nation], and for the culture. So, if you only look at what is best for
the culture then of course what we want is to educate our children, to be the best cultural
people possible. Language, hula, everything, all those cultural pieces you want to
continue those to our keiki—what is best for our keiki and the survival of our culture and
our language, and to promote and really strengthen our lāhui as a whole.
Here Kumu Kamokulehua suggested that students’ cultural identity was built when they were
educated in “language, hula, everything, all those cultural pieces you want to continue those to
our keiki [children].” Kumu Kamokulehua expresses her belief in developing students’ to be the
“best cultural people possible,” that they would be aware of “language, hula, everything, all
those cultural pieces.” Thus, equipping the kids so that they would be culturally knowledgeable.
Kumu Kahāhoʻomalu, in a way similar to that represented by Kumu Kamokulehua,
suggested that building cultural identity consisted of developing ‘ike Hawaiʻi by grounding
students in ʻike kuʻuna, ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi, loina and lawena through language, hula, chant, or aloha.
Kumu Kahāhoʻomalu said,
The further you look at it… it’s like looking at a fractal. You get closer and closer and it
just stays far away because the questions just multiply, because it is unbelievably
complex. It seems so simple, pass on the language. How hard is that? Teach hula.
Teach chant. What’s the problem? It’s just aloha.
These two quotations revealed the belief that CBE members needed to equip students with
language, hula, chant, and aloha. Kumu Kahāhoʻomalu reiterated what Kumu Kamokulehua said
about building cultural identity. The fractals that Kumu Kahāhoʻomalu spoke about were the
intricacies of loina and lawena attributed to traditional knowledge acquisition. Kumu
KA MANA O LOKO 76
Kahāhoʻomalu said that it was the school’s responsibility to “pass on language, teach hula and
chant” assuring that the kids were culturally knowledgeable.
Kumu Kanoe provided another example that was consistent with the previous two
examples of CBE members’ beliefs that building cultural identity would be achieved through the
development of ʻike Hawaiʻi. Kumu Kanoe said,
Well, the language for one, using the practices so that it eventually becomes instinctive. I
do believe that the children who are there, who’ve been there and have processed through
all the different stages, they instinctively ARE knowing how and when to implement
language, proper traditions, oli, pule, you know that they should know and they know
when to do it and they have a very strong sense by that time, I’m not talking about
kindergarten and first grade, but as the, after they’ve been thru, they’re gaining a huge
knowledge of this island. More than we can ever imagine.
The general agreement exhibited between this quotation and the first and second quotation is that
CBE members believed they needed to develop ʻike Hawaiʻi through ʻike kuʻuna ʻōlelo
makuahine, loina and lawena. In this statement, Kumu Kanoe offered that the school’s purpose
was to make culture “instinctive” in the keiki. Kumu Kanoe defined culture through the
examples she offered: “implement language, proper traditions, oli, pule…” Thus, Kumu Kanoe
saw it as the school’s responsibility to build cultural practices in the students so that they “they
know when to do it and they have a very strong sense by that time… after they’ve been through,
they’re gaining a huge knowledge of this island.” She identified the example of culture acquired
through the development of protocols attributed to asking permission for entrance in which ʻike
kuʻuna, ʻōlelo makuahine, loina and lawena are obtained.
KA MANA O LOKO 77
Kumu Kaʻiminaʻauao provided another example that was consistent with the previous
three examples of CBE members’ beliefs that building cultural identity would be achieved
through the development of ʻike Hawaiʻi. Kumu Kaʻiminaʻauao said,
We want them to be grounded in their culture, in the language, in the place that they are
from so they understand who they are, and in the understanding of who they are you
appreciate more about everyone that is around you. You don’t take them for granted.
Kumu Kaʻiminaʻauao asserted her belief that ʻike Hawaiʻi was developed through ʻike kuʻuna,
ʻōlelo makuahine, loina and lawena. Kumu Kaʻiminaʻauao offered that the school’s purpose was
to make culture “instinctive” in the keiki. Kumu Kanoe defined culture through the examples
she offered: “to be grounded in their culture, in the language, in the place that they are from so
they understand who they are….” Thus, Kumu Kaʻiminaʻauao saw it as the school’s
responsibility to build cultural practices in the students so that in “an understanding of who they
are, you appreciate more about everyone that is around you. You don’t take them for granted.”
In an appreciation for others around you, the loina of hoʻomaikaʻi, gratitude is exhibited.
These four examples show that while members of the community shared the belief that
the purpose of the school was to build students’ cultural identities, there was not complete
agreement about what it meant to build cultural identity.
Developing Hawaiian Language
CBE members also exhibited agreement that they were responsible for the cultivation and
development of the Hawaiian language. There was general agreement across members of the
community regarding goals and expectations of the community that were also consistent with
Elmore’s (1999) concept of internal accountability. CBE members exhibited agreement that they
were responsible for cultivating and developing students’ understanding of the “Hawaiian Way”
KA MANA O LOKO 78
expressed through promoting and speaking the language. CBE members also believed they were
responsible for fostering the desire in their students to perpetuate the Hawaiian language. Kumu
Kaʻala offered one example of this perspective:
Through the language—wanting our children to grow and become successful while
learning the language. Just everything—getting our children to grow in the Hawaiian
way and perpetuating the Hawaiian way through language and culture, so that they can
continue to teach, and cultivate their generation, the next generation to perpetuate the
language and culture.
Kumu Kaʻala suggested that CBE members believed it was their responsibility to develop
students’ ability to speak the Hawaiian language, “Through the language—wanting our children
to grow and become successful while learning the language.” Kumu Kaʻala also asserted her
belief that through the language, the ʻHawaiian Way’ would continue, “Just everything—getting
our children to grow in the Hawaiian way and perpetuating the Hawaiian way through language
and culture.” Kumu Ka’ala expressed her belief that cultivating and developing students’
understanding of the “Hawaiian Way” was expressed through promoting and speaking the
language.
Kumu Kalena, in a way similar to that represented by Kumu Kaʻala, suggested that the
CBE had a responsibility for cultivating and developing students’ understanding of the
“Hawaiian Way” was expressed through promoting and speaking the language. In addition,
CBE members believed they were responsible for fostering their students’ desire to perpetuate
the Hawaiian language. Kumu Kalena said,
To learn the language and all aspects of it and how it affects all parts of their lives and
have through them the language perpetuated into the future. It’s not all culture but they’ll
KA MANA O LOKO 79
have to go out and somehow still earn a living and provide for their families in a world
that pretty much doesn’t have culture. And so it’s a balance of how they can do that in
their own families so that the language and the culture can be perpetuated. Otherwise it
is just forgotten.
These kumu believed they were responsible to develop a “Hawaiian Way” through the Hawaiian
language. Kumu Kalena offered that the school’s purpose was, “To learn the language and all
aspects of it and how it affects all parts of their lives.” Kumu Kalena also demonstrated CBE
members’ beliefs that they were responsible for fostering their students’ desires to perpetuate the
Hawaiian language, “and have through them the language perpetuated into the future… in a
world that pretty much doesn’t have culture.”
Kumu Keliʻi provided another example that was consistent with the previous two
examples of CBE members’ beliefs of the development of ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi. Kumu Keliʻi said,
Language and culture goals that I think should be happening at the school? I think they
want the students to... know the language—to be used at all times at school. And I know
that the students learn...their curriculum is based on (this island), yeah you learn about
your place first. And so I’d like to think that, that’s the foundation that drives the
curriculum so students are learning the culture, as well as the language.
The general agreement exhibited between this quotation and the previous two quotations
is that CBE members believed the CBE was responsible for cultivating and developing students’
understanding of the “Hawaiian Way” expressed through promoting, speaking, and perpetutation
of the language. In this statement, Kumu Keliʻi offered that the school’s purpose was to
promote, “students to...know the language—to be used at all times at school.” Kumu Keliʻi also
saw it as the school’s responsibility to build an understanding of the ‘Hawaiian Way,” through
KA MANA O LOKO 80
island specific curriculum, “And I know that the students learn...their curriculum is based on
(this island), yeah you learn about your place first. And so I’d like to think that, that’s the
foundation that drives the curriculum so students are learning the culture, as well as the
language.”
These three examples show that members of the CBE members shared the belief that it
was their responsibility to cultivate and develop students’ understanding of the “Hawaiian Way”
expressed through promoting and speaking the language. CBE members also believed they were
responsible for fostering their students’ desire to perpetuate the Hawaiian language.
Finding 2. Tensions Existed Regarding the School’s Purpose. Wide Variation Existed
Regarding Building Students’ Native Hawaiian Cultural Identity and Language
Proficiency. This Variation also Reflected Differences in Beliefs about Accountability.
Theme 1: One Faction Believed that they were Responsible for Revitalizing and Reclaiming
the Native Hawaiian Cultural Identity and Culture and Cultivating Students’ Desires to do
the Same. This Same Faction Addressed Accountability and Assessment through
Predominantly Native Hawaiian Methods.
The second finding that emerged from the data was that below the surface agreement of
CBE members there were tensions regarding the school’s purpose. Within this agreement there
existed wide variation in what members believed it meant to build students’ Native Hawaiian
cultural identity and language proficiency. This variation also reflected differences in beliefs
about accountability. Three of 17 members, 18% of respondents fell into this first category on
the continuum where CBE members believed that they were responsible for revitalizing and
reclaiming the Native Hawaiian cultural identity and culture and cultivating students’ desires to
do the same. CBE members deeply grounded in Hawaiian epistemology demonstrated the belief
KA MANA O LOKO 81
in creating conditions that supported students to claim their cultural world. This is in alignment
with Olsen and Kirtman’s (2002) idea of strengthening and honoring students’ cultural and
linguistic heritage. Furthermore, CBE members made a clear distinction between internal and
external expectations and that addressing any accountability requirements could be best achieved
utilizing cultural assessments through predominantly traditional Native Hawaiian methods.
Reclamation
The CBE members of this faction were deeply committed to reclaiming and revitalizing
Hawaiian medium based instruction, as a means to foster student achievement at the school. This
is consistent with McCarty and Lee’s (2014) concept of reclamation and educational sovereignty
through a culturally revitalizing and sustaining pedagogy, to reclaim and revitalize what had
been disrupted and displaced by colonization. These members were deeply grounded in
Hawaiian epistemology and demonstrated the belief in creating conditions that supported
students to claim their cultural world. They focused on the revitalization of the mother tongue
and on language practices. These members of the community believed they were responsible for
building students’ Native Hawaiian cultural identity and language proficiency by promoting
practices consistent with Olsen and Kirtman’s (2002) idea of strengthening and honoring
students’ cultural and linguistic heritage. This first faction was also consistent with their beliefs
in what Moll and Ruiz (2005) identified as a core element of educational sovereignty to the
extent to which communities feel themselves to be in control of their language.
These CBE members expressed their beliefs of the reclamation of the Hawaiian language
and culture in teaching ‘ike Hawaiʻi and ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi. Kumu Kanani offered one example of
this perspective:
KA MANA O LOKO 82
Eia ka nīnau. Meikeʻi nā pahuhopu me ka nuʻukia o ka hana nō naʻe o mākou. ʻAʻole nō
hāhai nui loa ʻia mau mea ma muli o ke kauoha, ke koi ʻia mai o mākou i ke aupuni e
noho nei i luna o kākou e hana i ka mea ʻokoʻa o ko kākou pahuhopu me nā koena o ke
aupuni. Hele mau i ʻelua ʻaoʻao ʻokoʻa a ʻo ia ka hukihuki aʻu e ʻike nei.
(Here is the question. The goals and the vision of our work is good. These things are not
followed well due to the directives of the demands of the government that reigns above us
to [follow] goals that are contrary to ours with the rest of the government. [We]
continually pursue two opposing sides and that is the tension that I see.)
Kumu Kanani referred to the school’s goals of building language and culture as the reclamation
of culture and language teachings articulated in the vision of the school, “Meikeʻi nā pahuhopu
me ka nuʻukia o ka hana nō naʻe o mākou, (The goals and the vision of our work is good)”. The
vision of the school stated, “We envision a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and healthy community
where the language, beliefs, and practices of the Indigenous people of Hawaiʻi have become
instinctive” (Kahuewai NCPCS Vision Statement, 2014). Consistent with privileging Hawaiian
when discussing his approach to teaching content, Kumu Kanani highlighted the act of
reclamation as the opportunity to provide the educational environment in which the vision of the
school could be actualized. Reclamation was also expressed in choosing to do that which
opposed the dominant culture,
ʻAʻole nō hāhai nui loa ʻia mau mea ma muli o ke kauoha, ke koi ʻia mai o mākou i ke
aupuni e noho nei i luna o kākou e hana i ka mea ʻokoʻa o ko kākou pahuhopu me nā
koena o ke aupuni. (These things are not followed well due to the directives of the
demands of the government that reigns above us to [follow] goals that are contrary to
ours with the rest of the government.)
KA MANA O LOKO 83
Kumu Kanani highlighted the conflict of what the school was asked to do by the government and
what he believed was contrary to what he believed was important—the difficulty in
accomplishing what he perceived to be their purpose. He spoke to his beliefs of reclamation that
was challenging to overcome, “Hele mau i ʻelua ʻaoʻao ʻokoʻa a ʻo ia ka hukihuki aʻu e ʻike nei”
([We] continually pursue two opposing sides and that is the tension that I see.)” Kumu Kanani
expressed his perspective that education sovereignty of being able to teach what they thought
was important was in conflict with the imposed pressure of what the government said they had to
teach and the government’s mandates stood in contrast to what he believed to be the goals of the
school. The act of reclamation spoke here to what they, as a school, were entitled to teach, that
which was most important—teaching Hawaiian language and cultivating ‘ike Hawaiʻi.
Reclamation here highlighted what was valued, not what government said was important.
Kumu Kaleikoa, in a way similar to that represented by Kumu Kanani, suggested that
building cultural identity consisted of reclamation through the development of ‘ike Hawaiʻi.
Kumu Kaleikoa offered another example of this reclamation perspective.
Hoʻāʻo wau e hoʻomākaukau iā lākou no ke kula nui me ka hoʻomanaʻo mau ʻana e
kūkulu i ke kahua ma mua i ka ʻike Hawaiʻi a me ke ʻano o ka hoihoi. No leila, nui koʻu
hōʻike ʻana iā lākou i nā ʻano iʻa like ʻole, nā ʻano lāʻau like ʻole a me nā mea hoihoi, ʻo
ia mau mea ola, i mea e ulu ai i ka hoihoi o lākou. ʻAʻole nō ka DNA nā hūnā o kēlā mau
mea. A kekahi o nā ʻike Hawaiʻi kekahi no nā mahina hōkū a nā ʻepekema Hawaiʻi ke
ʻano o kekahi ʻano holoholo, kekahi ʻano lawaiʻa. He aha hou aku… ka makaʻala o ka
loli ʻana o ka mālama a me nā kau.
(I try to prepare them for post secondary schooling while continuously remembering to
build a foundation first in Hawaiian content skills and knowledge and [their] area of
KA MANA O LOKO 84
interest. Therefore, great is my showing them the variety of different kinds of fish, the
various trees and things of interest, things that living organisms that grow their interest.
That excludes DNA, those things that are hidden. And one of the Hawaiian ways of
knowing, content skills and knowledge, one for the moon and stars of a Hawaiian
science, the variety of animals, the techniques of fishing. What else…the awareness of
the changing of the moon and the seasons.)
The general agreement exhibited between the first and second quotation is that CBE members
believed that traditional knowledge was of primary importance for the CBE. Here, in an effort to
describe the science curriculum, Kumu Kaleikoa provided a more specific example of what this
traditional knowledge looked like—in fishing methods, ethnobotany and moon phases,
A kekahi o nā ʻike Hawaiʻi kekahi no nā mahina hōkū a nā ʻepekema Hawaiʻi ke ʻano o
kekahi ʻano holoholo, kekahi ʻano lawaiʻa.
(And one of the Hawaiian ways of knowing, content skills and knowledge, one for the
moon and stars of a Hawaiian science, the variety of animals, the techniques of fishing.)
Also, exhibiting the reclamation process was the characterization of the knowledge base of ʻike
Hawaiʻi as the primary knowledge base,
Hoʻāʻo wau e hoʻomākaukau iā lākou no ke kula nui me ka hoʻomanaʻo mau ʻana e
kūkulu i ke kahua ma mua i ka ʻike Hawaiʻi a me ke ʻano o ka hoihoi,
(I try to prepare them for post secondary schooling while continuously remembering to
build a foundation first in Hawaiian content skills and knowledge and (their) area of
interest.)
KA MANA O LOKO 85
Kumu Kapono provided another example that was consistent with the previous two
examples of these three CBE members’ beliefs that building cultural identity would be achieved
through the development of ʻike Hawaiʻi. Kumu Kapono said,
ʻO nā hana e noho paha kekahi mau ala i ka hiki ʻana o culture-based education o kekahi
o ka hana Hawaiʻi, nā loina Hawaiʻi, ʻo ia ke kahua ma ke aʻo kūkulu hale ma ke aʻo
lawaiʻa, holoholo, kōnane, he aha la. ʻO ia ke kahua o ka haʻawina. A leila, hilo ʻia ka
hana like ʻole i loko o kekahi manaʻo aku paha ke ʻano o kou aʻo ʻana, he ʻano Hawaiʻi,
he ʻano kānaka paha.
(The works that encourage the staying on the path of accomplishing culture-based
education in a Hawaiian perspective, in Hawaiian values, this is the foundation of the
building of a house, teachings of fishing, Hawaiian games such as checkers, or what have
you. This is the foundation of the lessons. Therefore, the various teachings are
intertwined in one thought in the delivery of my teaching, in the ways of being Hawaiian,
or a person.)
The general agreement exhibited between this quotation and the first and second
quotation is that this faction of CBE members believed they needed to reclaim the Hawaiian
language and culture by the development of ʻike Hawaiʻi as the primary knowledge base of the
CBE. In this statement, Kumu Kapono offered that the school’s purpose was to
noho paha kekahi mau ala i ka hiki ʻana…o kekahi o ka hana Hawaiʻi, nā loina Hawaiʻi,
ʻo ia ke kahua ma ke aʻo kūkulu hale ma ke aʻo lawaiʻa, holoholo, kōnane, he aha la,
(the staying on the path of accomplishing culture-based education in a Hawaiian
perspective, in Hawaiian values, this is the foundation of the building of a house,
teachings of fishing, Hawaiian games such as checkers, or what have you).
KA MANA O LOKO 86
She identified that a Hawaiian perspective was developed by nurturing values, traditional
practices, such as house building or fishing. Kumu Kapono further stated that the development
of ʻike Hawaiʻi extends to the development of “he ʻano Hawaiʻi, he ʻano kānaka paha, (in the
ways of being Hawaiian, or a person).”
CBE members in the first faction diverged from McCarty and Lee’s (2014) concept of
reclamation and educational sovereignty through a culturally revitalizing and sustaining
pedagogy in that it is not simply about trying to improve student learning. This first faction
supported what Sleeter and Stillman (2005) cite as Bernstein’s theory of codes of power in
curriculum—the reassertion of the right to define what schools are for, whose knowledge has
most legitimacy, and how the next generation should think about the social order and their place
within it. This first faction also supported what Sims (2005) suggests, that Indigenous languages
constitute invaluable repositories of distinctive knowledges that children have a right to and need
for full participation in their communities, and that “are central to self-determination and
sovereignty” (p. 105).
Revitalization
The three CBE members in this first faction spoke to their beliefs that the purpose of
CBE was revitalize cultural practices and language usage in the face of the dominant education
paradigm. These CBE members emphasized cultural learning and language usage in building
cultural identity first and foremost for the purposes of perpetuation. Kumu Kanani offered one
example of this perspective:
Aʻo i ka mea paʻa ʻia au, ka mea paʻa i koʻu naʻau… nā loina Hawaiʻi me ke kuʻana ʻike
Hawaiʻi, ka manaʻo Hawaiʻi e aʻo ʻia nei ma nā kula…mamake au aʻo i ka ʻaoʻao
KA MANA O LOKO 87
Hawaiʻi i ʻole nalo e. A inā nō nalo, nalo nō kākou, nalo ka ʻōlelo. ʻAʻole loʻa ka ʻōlelo
inā ʻaʻole loʻa nā loina, he mea nui nā loina, ʻo ia ke kua o ka ʻōlelo.
(I teach the things that are steadfast in me, that are steadfast in my being…the Hawaiian
values with traditional knowledge, Hawaiian thinking embedded in the teaching in the
schools. I desire to teach the Hawaiian way or it will be lost. And if it is lost, we will be
lost, the language will be lost. There will be no language, no values, values are of utmost
importance, that is the backbone of the language.)
Here Kumu Kanani suggested that revitalization was the practice of teaching Hawaiian
values and traditional knowledge. He indicated that to him, building cultural identity was
accomplished through language usage, “Aʻole loʻa ka ʻōlelo inā ʻaʻole loʻa nā loina, he mea nui
nā loina, ʻo ia ke kua o ka ʻōlelo,” if there will be no language, no values, values are of utmost
importance, that is the backbone of the language.
Kumu Kaleikoa, in a way similar to that represented by Kumu Kanani suggested that
revitalization of the language and culture consisted of the teaching and learning of the language
and culture. Kumu Kaleikoa said,
ʻO ia ke aʻo ana i nā mea Hawaiʻi. ʻIke ʻia ka pono o kēia mau mea ʻē aʻe, makemakika,
ʻepekema ʻo ia ʻano, akā loʻa nō kēlā. ʻAʻale like ka ʻepekema o Hawaiʻi, ʻaʻole like ka
makemakika Hawaiʻi. Akā he makemakika nō. ʻAʻole loa like, ʻaʻole loa like. Ah, no
leila, aʻo ʻia nō, aʻo aku kākou i nā mea Hawaiʻi…
Eh, noʻu ʻaʻole wau e aʻo ana inā ʻaʻole paʻa loa kēlā mea i koʻu naʻau. A no leila kaʻu
mea, kaʻu mau mea ʻoi o ia, kūkulu hale, he mea Hawaiʻi kēlā, ka mahiʻai, ka hana mala
ʻoe, ka hana ʻupena ʻoe. Ah, ʻo ia kaʻu ʻike ʻo ia mea o ka papahana he aha la Hawaiʻi
ea.
KA MANA O LOKO 88
(That is the teachings of Hawaiian things. The properness of these other things are seen,
mathematics, science, of these kinds, but it is present. There is nothing that resembles
Hawaiian science or Hawaiian math. But, it truly is math. There is nothing similar to it,
nothing that resembles it at all. Ah, therefore, we were taught, we teach things that are
Hawaiian. And, therefore, my things that I excel in are of building traditional Hawaiian
homes, that is a Hawaiian thing, farming, gardening, making fishnets. I donʻt profess to
know everything, of these things, of the things that I am accustomed to, that I excel in.
Ah, this is the way I see these things in the ways of curriculum programming, of
Hawaiian things.)
Another example of this exhibited between the first and second quotation is that CBE members
believed that revitalization efforts included teaching of math and science from a Hawaiian
perspective encompassing traditional knowledge and practices. Here Kumu Kaleikoa
emphasized, “kūkulu hale, he mea Hawaiʻi kēlā, ka mahiʻai, ka hana mala ʻoe, ka hana ʻupena
ʻoe, (traditional Hawaiian homes, that is a Hawaiian thing, farming, gardening, making
fishnets.)”
Kumu Kapono provided another example that was consistent with the previous two
examples of CBE members’ beliefs of revitalization of culture and language. In this statement,
however, Kumu Kapono offered revitalization efforts that included a spiritual dimension, in
addition to culture and language emphasis. Kumu Kapono said,
ʻO he mea nui kēlā ʻoiai o nā ʻano moʻomeheu like ʻole, ʻaʻole nō pokepoke ʻia ke ʻano,
eia ka ʻōlelo, eia ka ʻaoʻao he pule, eia ka ʻaoʻao he aha la, hana mea ʻai, nā ʻano o ka hui
pū ʻia nā mea a pau no pōʻai no leila he mea nui no kēlā ke kai komo ʻana no leila pehea
e kaʻawale ai i ka ʻaoʻao haipule me ka moʻomeheu… ʻaʻole au ʻike. ʻO ia ka manaʻo
KA MANA O LOKO 89
haole, ea hoʻokaʻawale mai ke aupuni me ka haipule, he aha la. ʻO ia ka pilikia o kēia
manawa ka hoʻokaʻawale ʻia eia ka hopena. ʻAno like paha me kekahi kumu lāʻau, me
ʻoe ʻoki i kekahi māhele i kona ʻaʻa paha, kona lālā paha ʻaʻole nō ia ka mea piha pehea
lā i wehewehe kēlā he ʻapana nui kēlā o ke kiʻi holoʻokoʻa. He mea nui kēlā. Kēia mau
lā ke kā kaʻikaʻi mai nei nā kānaka ke maopopo mai nei nā ʻano Hawaiʻi like ʻole.
(That is an important thing while the various elements of the culture, are disjointed, here
is the language, here is the side of prayer, here is the element of what have you, making
food, the disposition of gathering things into one entity, therefore, that is a critical
element that is included, therefore, how is it possible to separate the element of
spirituality with culture… I donʻt know. That is a foreign thought, to separate
government matters from spiritual ones. That is the challenge of these times when things
are separated, here are the consequences. Similar to that of a tree, when it is cut into
divisions, at the root, the limbs, it is not the thing that fills, how is that explained, that is a
huge entity of the entire picture. That is an important thing. These days there is a
scattering of people that have an understanding of various Hawaiian ways.)
Kumu Kapono provided an example that called for the need of cultural practices to be joined
together with spirituality in an Indigenous manner. Revitalization efforts included teachings and
practices that were not part of dominant culture practices, “O ia ka manaʻo haole, ea
hoʻokaʻawale mai ke aupuni me ka haipule, he aha la, (That is a foreign thought, to separate
government matters from spiritual ones).” In this statement, Kumu Kapono offered that
spirituality was an important element in the whole development of learning, pointing here that
when one entity was severed or disjointed, that growth could not occur,
KA MANA O LOKO 90
‘O ia ka pilikia o kēia manawa ka hoʻokaʻawale ʻia eia ka hopena. ʻAno like paha me
kekahi kumu lāʻau, me ʻoe ʻoki i kekahi māhele i kona ʻaʻa paha, kona lālā paha ʻaʻole nō
ia ka mea piha pehea lā i wehewehe kēlā he ʻapana nui kēlā o ke kiʻi holoʻokoʻa,
(That is the challenge of these times when things are separated, here are the
consequences. Similar to that of a tree, when it is cut into divisions, at the root, the
limbs, it is not the thing that fills, how it that explained, that is a huge entity of the entire
picture).
Language and culture revitalization requires adapting to nontraditional teaching methods
and practices (McCarty & Lee, 2014) that were not a part of the dominant culture. The reason
for utilizing traditional forms of assessment for learning in the CBE predominantly through the
concept of hōʻike, was that CBE members believed that the acquisition of knowledge would be
properly demonstrated in the end product, to build their students’ Native Hawaiian culture
identity and language proficiency. These forms of revitalization and reclamation were consistent
with McCarty and Lee’s (2014) concept of educational sovereignty.
Accountability
CBE members in this faction spoke about addressing accountability as separate for
internal and external expectations. While CBE members embraced internal accountability
expectations, they did not agree with the relevance or importance of the external mandates to
their work in a CBE, yet, sought to comply with them.
Accountability here is consistent with what Brayboy (2012) defines as community-based
accountability—respect, reciprocity, responsibility and the importance of caring relationships.
Accountability measures extend to past the generations in which respect and responsibility were
KA MANA O LOKO 91
given. Kumu Kanani gave an example that identified the knowledge base CBE members in this
faction were striving to revitalize and reclaim come from the ancestors,
Mai nā kūpuna mai kekahi o ia mau ʻike. I mea e hoʻomau ʻia mai kahiko mai paha. He
aha hou aku? I kekahi manawa, palapala ʻia mai nā nupepa kahiko, nā puke paha. Mai
nā kūpuna paha he mea e hoʻomau ʻia mai lākou mai.
(From our ancestors come our wisdom. To be able to perpetuate the things of the past.
What else? One time, it was documented in the old newspapers, books. From our
ancestors are the things that are to be perpetuated.)
In this example, Kumu Kanani expressed accountability to past generations, “Mai nā
kūpuna mai kekahi o ia mau ʻike. I mea e hoʻomau ʻia mai kahiko mai paha, (From our
ancestors come our wisdom. To be able to perpetuate the things of the past, perhaps).” He
identified the example of accountability to past generations to include the knowledge to be
perpetuated that came from the ancestors.
Kumu Kaleikoa, in a way similar to that represented by Kumu Kanani, suggested that
accountability for building cultural identity through culture and language focused on internal
accountability—the foundational elements of a CBE of loina Hawaiʻi and ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi.
External measures, however, were respected and fulfilled, yet, did not acknowledge the
knowledge base for Hawaiian reclamation and revitalization. Kumu Kaleikoa said,
Aʻole loa nō kēlā mau helu ʻai HSA a he aha la, kapai i ka lākou kālā, kapai i ka lākou
mau koena. ʻO ka loina Hawaiʻi a me ka ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi ka pono ʻo ia ke kahua o ke kula
inā e hoʻonauao maoli kākou.
KA MANA O LOKO 92
(Not even those HSA scores or what have-you, disregard their monies, disregard their
surplus. Hawaiian and language are what is right and proper to lay the foundation of
the school if we are truly to be educated.)
The first quotation showed how CBE members addressed internal accountability measures and
the second quotation highlighted how CBE members addressed external measures of dominant
education. Curriculum compliance, seen here as standardized testing of HSA, did not capture the
knowledge base promoted for Hawaiian reclamation and revitalization:
Aʻole loa nō kēlā mau helu ʻai HSA…ʻo ka loina Hawaiʻi a me ka ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi ka
pono ʻo ia ke kahua o ke kula inā e hoʻonauao maoli kākou. Not even those HSA scores
or what have-you, disregard their monies, disregard their surplus.
This example by Kumu Kaleikoa, “O ka ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi ka pono ʻo ia ke kahua o ke kula inā e
hoʻonauao maoli kākou. Hawaiian and language are what is right and proper to lay the
foundation of the school if we are truly to be educated” highlighted CBE members’ beliefs in
accepting internal accountability expectations and fulfilling external expectations and was
consistent with McCarty and Lee’s (2014) concept of reclamation and educational sovereignty
and Moll and Ruiz’s (2005) identification as a core element of educational sovereignty to the
extent to which communities feel themselves to be in control of their language.
Assessment
CBE members in this faction agreed that cultural assessments were the only appropriate
methods for measuring student learning. Furthermore, these CBE members rejected the validity
of the non-traditional, primarily Western assessments. Cultural assessments were measurements
for cultural content skills and knowledge—seen here as assessments for measuring task
completion and cultural proficiency was highlighted as the ability to execute cultural knowledge
KA MANA O LOKO 93
in a tangible form—here it was seen in the form of kūkulu hale, build a house, mahiʻai, farm,
lawaiʻa, fish. Assessment was given in the form of hōʻike where learners perform the learned
task (Kawaiʻaeʻa, 2012). An example of this perspective that demonstrated a cultural lens in
assessing proficiency cultural content was offered by Kumu Kanani,
Inā hiki iā lākou ke kūkulu i kekahi hale i loko nō o ʻehā lā, proficient kēlā. ʻAʻole
maopopo a inā kanaka nānā. Noʻu,ʻae. ʻO ia nō. Paʻa ka ʻike iā lākou. Inā aʻo au i ka
mahiʻai, eia mahi ʻoe, hoʻi mai wau i loko nō paha ʻewalu mahina, ma hea ka ʻai? Pōloli
wau. Inā loʻa ka ʻai noʻu, paʻa nō. Ke aʻo nei au i ka wahi upena, ʻelua mahina e hoʻopau
ai i kahi ʻupena, ʻupena pāpaʻi. Inā pau, paʻa nō. ʻO ia koʻu manaʻo me kēlā. E like me
koʻu ʻōlelo. Ka lawaiʻa. Pōloli mākou. Hele ʻoe a lawaiʻa. Me kēlā, hia ʻai ka ʻupena. No
ka mea ʻae hiki ke loiloi ma ka pepa. He pono paha ma kekahi wā. Pehea lā e loiloi ai?
ʻAʻole au ʻike. Akā ma loko nō o ka mea hape, ʻike ʻia ka paʻa ʻole o ka ʻike o ka
haumāna. Me ka mea loʻa ka hua, ea? Ka hua. ʻO ia nō. ʻO ia nā mea i aʻo ʻia. A ʻo ia nā
mea komo mai ai ke aʻo ʻana, ma nā haʻawina ʻoe, ma nā hōʻike ʻoe. ‘O ka pilikia aia ma
kahi pepa. ʻAʻale pēlā ko kākou noʻonoʻo poʻe Hawaiʻi. ‘O penei kaʻu mea e hana ai,
pēlā loʻa ai kēia, he aha lā. Akā, aʻo ʻia pēlā e? Aʻo ʻia pēlā, noʻu ʻaʻale pono.
(If they can build a house in four days, that is proficient. I don’t know if others see it that
way. For me, I do. That is so. Knowledge is mastered (by them). If I teach farming, you
are a farmer, I can return in eight months perhaps, where is the food? I am hungry. If
there is food for me, knowledge is mastered. I teach the ways of fishnets, in two months a
fishnet can be completed, a crab net. If it is completed, it is mastered. That is my
thought with that. Similar to what I said previously. With fishing. We are hungry. Go
and fish. With that, making fishnets. Because that cannot be assessed by paper. But
KA MANA O LOKO 94
maybe that is a necessary requirement in these times. But how what would that
assessment look like? I don’t know. But in the majority of their efforts, it is evident of
what is not mastered by the student. With that are the fruits of our labor. The fruits.
That is so. That is the thing that is taught. And those are the things that enter the
teaching, lessons and exams. The problem is that there is the paper. That is not the
thinking of Hawaiian people. This is my thing that is done, like that, or what have you?
But, taught like that? Taught like that, for me, that isn’t pono. Because like that, this is
the things that were achieved by the lessons. Resembling my speech, not me, that is not
the main thing. Multitude pages, perhaps, multiple questions. For some there are the
values and students filled knowledge. And that is an excessive assessment perhaps and
for the language, but what is that their knowledge regarding the language? The
questions aren’t necessary, a Hawaiian language paper, what are the values that are
mastered?)
CBE members in this faction maintained a focus on a cultural lens to assess cultural
content. Here Kumu Kanani suggested that building cultural identity and language proficiency
occurred when students were able to demonstrate proficiency through the ‘ōlelo noʻeau, “Ma ka
hana, ka ʻike,” or by your work it will be known. This example speaks to this CBE member’s
beliefs in cultural assessment that demonstrates cultural content proficiency through house
building, “Inā hiki iā lākou ke kūkulu i kekahi hale i loko nō o ʻehā lā, proficient kēlā. ʻAʻole
maopopo a inā kanaka nānā. Noʻu,ʻae. ʻO ia nō. Paʻa ka ʻike iā lākou, If they can build a house
in four days, that is proficient. I don’t know if others see it that way. For me, I do. That is so.
Knowledge is mastered [by them].” This is consistent with Resnickʻs (1991) understanding that
KA MANA O LOKO 95
assessments can and should be authentic assessment of experiential, hands-on education in a
real-world context common to Native communities.
Another example of cultural assessment that demonstrated cultural content proficiency
was through farming, “Inā aʻo au i ka mahiʻai, eia mahi ʻoe, hoʻi mai wau i loko nō paha ʻewalu
mahina, ma hea ka ʻai? Pōloli wau. Inā loʻa ka ʻai noʻu, paʻa nō. If I teach farming, you are a
farmer, I can return in eight months perhaps, where is the food? I am hungry. If there is food
for me, knowledge is mastered.” Kumu Kanani highlighted that proficiency in farming was the
ability to grow food. Another example showed proficiency of fishing, “Ke aʻo nei au i ka wahi
upena, ʻelua mahina e hoʻopau ai i kahi ʻupena, ʻupena pāpaʻi. Inā pau, paʻa nō. ʻO ia koʻu
manaʻo me kēlā. E like me koʻu ʻōlelo. Ka lawaiʻa. Pōloli mākou. Hele ʻoe a lawaiʻa. Me kēlā,
hia ʻai ka ʻupena, I teach the ways of fishnets, in two months a fishnet can be completed, a crab
net. If it is completed, it is mastered. That is my thought with that. Similar to what I said
previously. With fishing. We are hungry. Go and fish. With that, making fishnets.”
CBE members in this faction did not believe that dominant culture standardized tests
reflected a cultural perspective of assessment. This belief aligned with Nelson-Barber and
Trumbull’s (2007) idea that the purpose of assessment in CBE is to measure student progress in
meeting rigorous academic standards in a culturally valid context. Kumu Kanani also expressed
the belief towards cultural assessments for cultural knowledge proficiency—that assessment was
in the product. This example included Deyhle and Swisher’s (1997) concept of culture specific
behaviors that should be included in assessments that influence the learning process for
Indigenous students.
KA MANA O LOKO 96
Pehea lā e loiloi ai? ʻAʻole au ʻike. Akā ma loko nō o ka mea hape, ʻike ʻia ka paʻa ʻole o
ka ʻike o ka haumāna… ‘O ka pilikia aia ma kahi pepa. ʻAʻale pēlā ko kākou noʻonoʻo
poʻe Hawaiʻi,
(But how what would that assessment look like? I don’t know. But in the majority of their
efforts, it is evident of what is not mastered by the student… that is the thing that is
taught... The problem is that there is the paper. That is not the thinking of Hawaiian
people).
Kumu Kaleikoa, in a way similar to that represented by Kumu Kanani suggested that
cultural content skills and knowledge are based on ancestral and traditional knowledge and
values. This perspective demonstrated a cultural lens in assessing proficiency cultural content
offered by Kumu Kaleikoa,
… ʻo nā ʻano loina like ʻole a kēlā papahana ke ʻano o ka hana ʻia ʻana mai ʻo ka maiau
inā mōkākī, ua paʻa nā pule paha, nā oli, nā mele a aia nō i ka hana, ka loiloi o kēlā me
kēia.. ua nani wale ke nānā aku. ʻO ia ka hopena. He koena paha me ka ʻike kūpuna, ka
ʻike kuʻuna, ea. Pehea la e wehewehe i kēia a me nā values o kā ka Hawaiʻi, ʻaʻole nō
me ka palapala mai waho mai. Mai ʻano ʻōlelo noʻeau a pehea e palapala i ka
moʻomeheu, ea. Me ka moʻomeheu nō e loiloi, ea. A ua maikaʻi ko mākou loiloi hou
ʻana iā mākou iho. Ma kekahi ʻano, ma ka paipai ʻana o lākou iā mākou. (…the various
values and that curriculum planning exhibits the variation of work whether it is skillful
and ingenious or if it is disorderly or chaotic, the pule are mastered, the chants, the
songs and there lays the efforts, the assessment of these things…it is beautiful to look at.
That is the result. That is the remainder with the ancestors’ wisdom, traditional
knowledge. How do I explain this with the values of Hawaiʻi, without the documentation
KA MANA O LOKO 97
from outside. From the ancestral proverbs and figuring out how to document the culture.
With the culture doing the assessing. And that it is good for (them) to assess us. In one
way, this shows their support of us.)
Assessment was primarily seen in the context of cultural assessment as knowledge and what
served as the ways in which knowledge was constructed for Native Hawaiians. The assessment
was shaped by the values and beliefs that emerge from historical Native Hawaiian stories,
proverbs, and poetry. Both Meyer (1998) and Pukui et al. (1979) validate this claim.
Consistent with Hood’s (1998) belief that CBE assessments address the cultural biases
that exist in large-scale assessment, and that cultural information is of great value to
understanding a Hawaiian viewpoint and is key to appreciating the Hawaiian heritage (Pukui et
al., 1979) here, Kumu Kaleikoa described cultural assessment as proficiency in mastery of
cultural content that was demonstrated in the appropriate cultural context, that when
accomplished, looked beautiful,
… ʻo nā ʻano loina like ʻole a kēlā papahana ke ʻano o ka hana ʻia ʻana mai ʻo ka maiau
inā mōkākī, ua paʻa nā pule paha, nā oli, nā mele a aia nō i ka hana, ka loiloi o kēlā me
kēia.. ua nani wale ke nānā aku. ʻO ia ka hopena. (…the various values and that
curriculum planning exhibits the variation of work whether it is skillful and ingenious or
if it is disorderly or chaotic, the pule are mastered, the chants, the songs and there lays
the efforts, the assessment of these things…it is beautiful to look at. That is the result.)
Kumu Kaleikoa further described the connection of assessment to ancestral knowledge. This
was consistent with Meyer’s (1998) argument in which knowledge was constructed for Native
Hawaiians was shaped by the values and beliefs that emerge from historical Native Hawaiian
stories, proverbs, and poetry, embedded in Hawaiian culture and proverbs.
KA MANA O LOKO 98
Pehea la e wehewehe i kēia a me nā values o kā ka Hawaiʻi, ʻaʻole nō me ka palapala mai
waho mai. Mai ʻano ʻōlelo noʻeau a pehea e palapala i ka moʻomeheu, ea. Me ka
moʻomeheu nō e loiloi, ea. A ua maikaʻi ko mākou loiloi hou ʻana iā mākou iho. Ma
kekahi ʻano, ma ka paipai ʻana o lākou iā mākou. (How do I explain this with the values
of Hawaiʻi, without the documentation from outside. From the ancestral proverbs and
figuring out how to document the culture. With the culture doing the assessing. And that
it is good for (them) to assess us. In one way, this shows their support of us.)
Kumu Kapono provided another example that was consistent with the previous two
examples of CBE members’ beliefs in this faction on assessment that is consistent with the
conceptual framework—that assessment was primarily seen in the context of cultural assessment,
ʻO ka maiau a me ke kūlia ʻana i ka nuʻu me ka hoʻāʻo. ʻO ia kekahi mau mea nui noʻu
ma kaʻu papa. ʻAʻole nō ka hemolele ʻana i ka manawa mua. Akā ʻo ka hoʻāʻo, ka hana
holomua a hana, hana, hana a paʻa kēlā hana iā lākou inā mōkākī, hana hou a maiao, inā
ʻaʻole lawa, hana hou a lawa. Mai ʻae i ka moloā, mai hauʻoli me ka ʻoʻopu, ea. Kūlia
mau i ka nuʻu. I ka hāhai ʻana i nā loina Hawaiʻi a i ka nānā nui ʻana i ke ʻano o ke aʻo
ʻana o ka poʻe Hawaiʻi ma ka wā kahiko a kēia ao hoʻi. A me ka nānā nui ʻole ʻana i kēlā
mau koena e kaomi ma luna o kākou.
(Clarity and preciseness in striving for excellence with much effort. These are the main
things for me in my classes. It is not perfect on the first attempt. But, in the effort, in the
work, keep moving forward and do it over and over until it is mastered. Do not be
complacent in laziness, do not rejoice with the ʻoʻopu. Strive for the highest. In the
following of Hawaiian values and in the examining of the ways of the teachings of the
KA MANA O LOKO 99
Hawaiian people from ancient times until now. And with the oversight of the suppression
that is placed down upon us.)
Kumu Kapono described cultural assessment proficiency as mastery of cultural content, aligns
with Demmert and Towner’s (2003) suggestion of assessment tools must be developed that are
linguistically as well as culturally appropriate that meet the academic priorities and needs of the
the school. This mastery is explained in the appropriate cultural context of striving for
excellence, “O ka maiau a me ke kūlia ʻana i ka nuʻu me ka hoʻāʻo. ʻO ia kekahi mau mea nui
noʻu ma kaʻu papa. ʻAʻole nō ka hemolele ʻana i ka manawa mua. (Clarity and preciseness in
striving for excellence with much effort. These are the main things for me in my classes.”)
Excellence is achieved through continuous effort and attempt for mastery. Kumu Kapono said,
“O ka hoʻāʻo, ka hana holomua a hana, hana, hana a paʻa kēlā hana iā lākou inā mōkākī, hana
hou a maiao, inā ʻaʻole lawa, hana hou a lawa. Mai ʻae i ka moloā, mai hauʻoli me ka ʻoʻopu, ea.
Kūlia mau i ka nuʻu. (In the effort, in the work, keep moving forward and do it over and over
until it is mastered. Do not be complacent in laziness, do not rejoice with the ʻoʻopu. Strive for
the highest.”) Kumu Kapono, in a way similar to Kumu Kaleikoa, suggested that cultural
assessment for the cultural proficiency was seen in the context of ancestral knowledge embedded
in Hawaiian values and that assessment comes from the culture, “I ka hāhai ʻana i nā loina
Hawaiʻi a i ka nānā nui ʻana i ke ʻano o ke aʻo ʻana o ka poʻe Hawaiʻi ma ka wā kahiko a kēia ao
hoʻi. A me ka nānā nui ʻole ʻana i kēlā mau koena e kaomi ma luna o kākou. ( In the following
of Hawaiian values and in the examining of the ways of the teachings of the Hawaiian people
from ancient times until now. And with the oversight of the suppression that is placed down
upon us.”)
KA MANA O LOKO 100
The CBE members in this faction were deeply grounded in Hawaiian epistemology.
Their ideology and beliefs supported a culture-based education school that fostered student
learning and achievement through authentic cultural assessments. Their approach was consistent
with Demmert and Towner’s (2003) belief that assessment tools must be developed that are
linguistically as well as culturally appropriate that meet the academic priorities and needs of the
community. Members rejected the validity of dominant culture assessment methods. Thus this
group displayed a high level of internal accountability, with an expectation that they also comply
with external accountability measures to achieve what McCarty and Lee (2014) describe as
educational sovereignty through cultural reclamation and revitalization.
Theme 2: The Second Clearly Defined Faction Believed in Developing Students’ Native
Hawaiian Cultural Identity and Language and Leveraging that Identity and Language as a
Bridge to US/Western Knowledge and Skills. This Second Faction Addressed
Accountability and Assessment by Seeking Ways to Determine Students’ Proficiency in
Native Hawaiian Knowledge and Skills and Western Knowledge and Skills.
Ten of 17 members (59% of respondents) fell into this second faction where the focus
was given to developing students’ Native Hawaiian cultural identity and language and leveraging
that identity and language as a bridge to US/Western knowledge and skills. This second faction
addressed accountability and assessment by seeking ways to determine students’ proficiency in
Native Hawaiian knowledge and skills and Western knowledge and skills for students to “walk
in two worlds.”
CBE members in the second faction characterized their approach to teaching and learning
at the school to be one that increased cultural identity and competency, socio-cultural maturity,
language vitality, and positive academic outcomes for students in the context of accountability
KA MANA O LOKO 101
measures. Internal and external accountability measures were viewed as separate expectations
yet, both were emphasized as important to foster student learning and achievement.
Leveraging Identity as a Bridge
CBE members’ beliefs in developing cultural identity and language in this second faction
were similar to those in the first faction yet, the second faction believed in leveraging cultural
identity and language as a bridge to US/Western knowledge and skills. Indigenous knowledge
that developed one’s ʻike Hawaiʻi, Hawaiian epistemological framework or cultural identity was
critical to what Sims (2005) says “are central to self-determination and sovereignty—that
Indigenous languages constitute invaluable repositories of distinctive knowledges that
Indigenous children have a right to and need for full participation in their communities” (p. 105).
Kumu Kaʻiminaʻauao offered one example of this perspective,
So, once I started that, then I started incorporating other things. You know, and
integrated my pili kanaka (social studies) unit into that and science, so those were really
to put together—the science and the math and the language arts but it took me a little
while because I was so used to compartmentalizing and so to me the framework through
teaching we can incorporate, because I was also teaching lawena (behavioral
expectations), teaching values and talking about culture, you know the different aspects
of culture and that was already included but I had to be aware of what are the things I
wanted to incorporate into my teaching and into those projects.
Here Kumu Kaʻiminaʻauao suggested that developing cultural identity and language was
leveraged as a bridge to Western subject areas, “the science and the math and the language arts.”
In this statement, Kumu Kaʻiminaʻauao offered that cultivating learning from a cultural context
to address Western content and standards was challenging, but could be achieved through the
KA MANA O LOKO 102
assimilation of subject areas, “integrated my pili kanaka (social studies) unit into that and
science, so those were really to put together—the science and the math and the language arts but
it took me a little while because I was so used to compartmentalizing.” She identified the
example of starting from a cultural perspective in teaching Western subject areas, “I was also
teaching lawena (behavioral expectations), teaching values and talking about culture, you know
the different aspects of culture and that was already included, but I had to be aware of what are
the things I wanted to incorporate into my teaching and into those projects.”
Kumu Kanaʻi, in a way similar to that represented by Kumu Kaʻiminaʻauao suggested
that cultural identity and language were used as leverage to bridge US/Western knowledge and
skills. Kumu Kanaʻi said,
So like my one senior, she wants to become a kumu ‘ōlelo and that’s what her senior
project is on. I go no, you write what you want to write about, this is your project. What
is the perspective that you want to bring? Oh, I wanna bring in the culture, the language
and all of that. And I go, do it, but do it well. I go, and why aren’t you writing it in
Hawaiian? She goes, can? I go absolutely, but I’m gonna challenge you to do both. One
in English, one in Hawaiian. And that’s going to be your task, as you become that kumu
‘ōlelo. Go. We need you to be able to do both. We see if she’ll take me up on the
challenge, but I told her, do it in both. Ah, because so here they present their senior
project so their presentation is done all in ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi wale nō. The paper we ask for it
in English because of the panel, majority of them are English speakers but for her, I told
her, oh no, you write your paper in Hawaiian and English as well.
Another example of leveraging expressed by Kumu Kanaʻi was both in the content and context
of projects. Here Kumu Kanaʻi pointed to the example of the senior project where a cultural
KA MANA O LOKO 103
perspective was present and driving the content presented, “Oh, I wanna bring in the culture, the
language and all of that.” The context of presentation in writing is done in both languages, “I go,
and why aren’t you writing it in Hawaiian? She goes, can? I go absolutely, but I’m gonna
challenge you to do both. One in English, one in Hawaiian.”
Kumu Kanaʻi here asked for students to show proficiency in both languages by writing
the paper in both languages.
Kumu ʻŌlaʻa provided another example that suggested cultural identity and language was
used as leverage to bridge US/Western knowledge and skills. Kumu ʻŌlaʻa said,
These two keiki, they taking us and they leading protocol and they know exactly their
sense of place, they can show all of these places and what they mean, and the moʻolelo
behind those places and they can identify winds, and rains. Achievements in a kanaka
sense? Helu ‘ekahi, you know, maikaʻi—we on the right path as a kula. Achievements
in a Western sense? Meeting all of those accreditations, and all of those standardized
tests that I think you have to go through, well we need kōkua, you know, our keiki need
kōkua, and I just going back to the fact that we gotta walk two worlds. We gotta straddle
both worlds, that’s the struggle of our generation.
Here, Kumu ʻŌlaʻa suggested that there is the cultivation of students’ cultural identity as
expressed through the understanding of who they are as a kanaka, “leading protocol and they
know exactly their sense of place, they can show all of these places and what they mean, and the
moʻolelo behind those places and they can identify winds, and rains.” The bridge to Western
knowledge and skills, however needed more cultivation, “Meeting all of those accreditations,
and all of those standardized tests that you have to go through, well we need kōkua, you know,
our keiki need kōkua.” Kumu ʻŌlaʻa pointed to the rationale for the leveraging, “and I just going
KA MANA O LOKO 104
back to the fact that we gotta walk two worlds. We gotta straddle both worlds, that’s the struggle
of our generation.” The two worlds expressed here encompassed both Hawaiian and Western
knowledge and skills. As Kawaiʻaeʻa (2012) states, the goals of culture-based education is to
increase cultural identity and competency, socio-cultural maturity, Hawaiian language vitality,
and positive academic outcomes for native education and learning.
Kumu Kahāhoʻomalu offered another example of the leveraging of cultural identity and
language as a bridge US/Western knowledge and skills. She said,
I also feel that I have a strong responsibility to say they have an ownership of all the
things of the English language as well. That is their birthright as well. And that it
doesn’t belong to someone else. Right, it’s not just like English is the haole language, so
we’ll just let them worry about Shakespeare and Milton and all that smarty pants—
college stuff. You’ve got to be able to move up and down the scale. They gotta know
great Pidgin, perfect English, they’ve gotta know perfect Hawaiian, they gotta know
ancient Hawaiian, they gotta know Niʻihauian. They’ve gotta be multi-fluent in all of
these things. They gotta know how to make their nets, they gotta know how to build their
hale, but they also need to know how to make their resumes.
Kumu Kahāhoʻomalu described leveraging cultural identity and language to bridge US/Western
knowledge and skills, “to say they have an ownership of all the things of the English language as
well. That is their birthright as well. And that it doesn’t belong to someone else.” She iterated
that preparing students to be able to compete in the dominant culture while simulateously
knowing who they were as Native Hawaiians and that they were not disconnected from the
dominant culture. This example speaks to what Sleeter and Stillman (2005) suggest should be
the epistemological framework for Indigenous and historically marginalized children as it carries
KA MANA O LOKO 105
over into pedagogical acts within CBEs. As a means of communication, Kumu Kahāhoʻomalu
spoke about multiple fluencies as the connection between different knowledge and skills
systems.
This second faction committed to promoting and achieving Native Hawaiian cultural
identity and language yet priority was given to leveraging that identity and language as a bridge
to US/Western knowledge and skills. Emphasis here was placed on attaining both Native
Hawaiian knowledge and skills and Western knowledge and skills for students to be able to
properly “walk in two worlds.”
Internal and external accountability measures were viewed as as separate expectations-
both emphasized as important to foster student learning and achievement. This next section will
address accountability and assessment by understanding the ways CBE members believed in
seeking ways to determine students’ proficiency.
Accountability
CBE members in this faction believed it was important to hold students accountable for
learning both associated with CBE and those associated with state and federal mandates.
Consistent with Elmore’s (1999) concept of accountability, both internal and external
accountability measures were accounted for by CBE members’ actions to positions of formal
authority. Kumu Kahāhoʻomalu provided an example of this perspective,
Yeah, I think that performance is… I mean you have to have a clear rubric, clear
expectations and then product based and performance based. So, do you know? Can you
master? Can you haku he mau hula? Do you understand the kaona of these mele enough
so when you perform these hula you know that it is appropriate situation for the
appropriate audience. So, I think performances are a fantastic way to assess cultural
KA MANA O LOKO 106
knowledge. And big performance too, like their Lā Hōʻikeʻike is food and hula and
hospitality. They invite their family and take care of their family when they come and
mele and oli and all these different things and then with that we have an academic
conference along with the Lā Hōʻikeʻike we have it twice a year where they can show off
their non-cultural performances so it’s a chance for them to do their speeches, perform
their skits, and present their papers and their art and all those other things and I feel that
is a huge way to assess cultural competences with performances. It just depends on the
teacher and the assessment of content is portrayed as more of a burden. Oh, we have to
be doing this mea haole. This is so sad that we are taking so much time to assessing the
mea haole. So, I think the kids might get some mixed messages about the value of
making sure they are excelling in all of their things—their content.
Kumu Kahāhoʻomalu described her beliefs about accountability and assessment in relation to
determining students’ proficiency in Native Hawaiian knowledge and skills and Western
knowledge and skills. Here Kumu Kahāhoʻomalu suggested rubrics and product and
performance based assessments for measuring cultural learning as she said, “…you have to have
a clear rubric, clear expectations and then product based and performance based.” Kumu
Kahāhoʻomalu pointed to, “performance is a fantastic way to assess cultural knowledge.” Here
assessment was “big performance too, like their Lā Hōʻikeʻike,” specifically emphasizing
cultural competencies through performance as a tool to evaluate Hawaiian content. Kumu
Kahāhoʻomalu identified the value of assessment for both cultural and Western knowledge and
skills when she said,
academic conferences along with the Lā Hōʻikeʻike, we have it twice a year where they
can show off their non-cultural performances so it’s a chance for them to do their
KA MANA O LOKO 107
speeches perform their skits and present their papers and their art and all those other
things and I feel that is a huge way to assess cultural competences with performances.
In addition, Kumu Kahāhoʻomalu spoke to the tension that existed at the school when it
came to using formalized assessement tools like rubrics for product and performance assessment.
She suggested that these tools were portrayed by some at the school as a “mea haole” or western
thing which lead to, “mixed messages about the value of making sure they are excelling in all of
their things—their content.” Tension at the school existed to the value and appropriateness of
assessments for cultural knowledge. On one hand, there were CBE members who found value in
creating assessments that spoke to student cultural learning through cultural experiences in the
school day. This idea resonates with what Resnick (1991) suggests as authentic assessments of
experiential, hands-on education in a real-world context common to Native communities. The
assessments measured culture specific behaviors that influenced the learning process for the
students. This assessment piece aligned with what Deyhle and Swisher (1997) stated works for
Indigenous students. On the other hand, there were CBE members who were skeptical of the
infusion of a Western context of assessment for things that were cultural to the extent to which
classroom assessments, are constructed by classroom teachers using the principles and formats of
large-scale, standardized models when they construct their own informal assessments (see
Kusimo et al., 2000; Stiggins, 1997).
The second faction believed in developing students’ Native Hawaiian cultural identity
and language and leveraging that identity and language as a bridge to US/Western knowledge
and skills. The CBE members in this faction were deeply grounded in Hawaiian epistemology.
Their ideology and beliefs supported learning that enabled students to be successful in the dual
world that fostered content, knowledge, and skills for in both Hawaiian and Western
KA MANA O LOKO 108
frameworks. Tension existed within this group to their approach to assessment tools—searching
for the balance between developing linguistically and culturally appropriate measures and
meeting the academic priorities and needs of the community.
Theme 3: The Third and Final Faction Believes that They are Primarily Responsible for
Developing Students’ Western Knowledge and Skills. This Faction Address Accountability
and Assessment Through Primarily US/Western Forms of Assessment Provided Through
the Race to the Top Agreement the State of Hawaiʻi Entered into with the Federal
Government.
Two of 17 members, 12% of respondents gave preference to developing Western content
skills and knowledge over developing students’ cultural and linguistic competence. CBE
members here voiced alignment to the beliefs of the CBE for language and cultural preservation,
yet emphasized developing Western content skills and knowledge attainment. CBE members in
the third faction characterized their approach to teaching and learning at the school to be one that
placed an emphasis on federal, state, and CBE accountability requirements. These members
were less grounded in Hawaiian epistemology and less ideologically grounded in the attributes of
CBE, primarily focused on Western forms of assessment. Individuals who were less grounded in
Hawaiian epistemology demonstrated the belief that the primary goal for education in Race to
the Top was to increase student achievement that builds toward college and career readiness, and
improves critical knowledge and higher-order thinking skills. (Race to the Top, 2010). Internal
and external accountability measures were viewed as separate expectations, and emphasis was
given to external measures to foster student learning and achievement.
KA MANA O LOKO 109
Responsibility for Developing Western Knowledge and Skills
Individuals in this faction characterized their approach to teaching and learning at the
school to be one that increased academic achievement in predominantly Western knowledge and
assessment. These CBE members were less grounded in Hawaiian epistemology and
demonstrated the belief that it was not critical do what Olsen and Kirtman (2002) would argue
was important for the cultural reclamation and revitalization in the school. The aligns with Olsen
and Kirtman’s (2002) idea to strengthen and honor students’ cultural and linguistic heritage by
creating conditions that supported students’ claim to their cultural world. Kumu Kainoa
provided a specific example that demonstrated a preference for Western content skills and
knowledge. While he claimed respect for language and cultural goals, he placed an emphasis on
students acquiring Western content skills and knowledge,
People who believe that it’s better for someone to graduate from the school, after high
school, can speak Hawaiian, and not be able to read and write English, is foolish. Cause
the reality is, unless you gonna go farm the land, or, you know, be a kumu, that language
isn’t gonna help you be able to live, you know support yourselves or a family. It’s
education where it meshes both the practical side in other words reading, writing,
arithmetic kind of thing with whatever culture you’re in.
Kumu Kainoa privileged to Western content skills and knowledge over knowledge of the
Hawaiian language as he said “Its education where it meshes both the practical side in other
words reading, writing, arithmetic kind of thing with whatever culture you’re in.” Here Kumu
Kainoa asserted his claim for Western content skills and knowledge with, “People who believe
that it’s better for someone to graduate from the school, after high school, can speak Hawaiian,
and not be able to read and write English, is foolish.” This same Western content skills and
KA MANA O LOKO 110
knowledge preference was also expressed in the statement, “Cause the reality is, unless you
gonna go farm the land, or, you know, be a kumu, that language isn’t gonna help you be able to
live, you know support yourselves or a family.” The two community members in this group
emphasized the USDOE/HIDOE accountability goals of increasing student achievement through
the implementation of educational initiatives such as the Race to the Top educational initiative
(Race to the Top Grant Application, 2010). Both CBE members came to Kahuewai NCPCS
from outside the state of Hawaiʻi. Throughout the interview process, both respondents admitted
they knew very little about the Hawaiian language and culture. These CBE members were not
grounded in Hawaiian epistemology. Their teacher ideology and their understanding of CBE
were not aligned to the internal accountability expectations of the school. In the interview, they
agreed that student achievement would occur with alignment of external accountability measures
of the USDOE/HIDOE.
This next section will detail how these CBE members addressed accountability and
assessment in alignment with the external accountability measures of the USDOE/HIDOE.
Accountability and Assessment
These two community members viewed internal and external accountability measures as
separate with external accountability taking precedence over internal accountability measures.
Kumu Lokelani provided a specific example that demonstrated this preference for meeting
external accountability requirements,
At this school … knowing that they still have to fit into the government glove of teaching
math and English, so just knowing that me just doing the math part allows them to help
be able to sustain the Hawaiian culture…because they are meeting that requirement that
KA MANA O LOKO 111
the local government requires of them, but yet they are still able to have the Hawaiian
culture and language.
In this statement, Kumu Lokelani suggested that her primary responsibility was to align the math
curriculum to meet the external accountability requirements (i.e. local government glove). In
this statement, Kumu Lokelani offered, “but knowing that they still have to fit into the
government glove of teaching math and English, so just knowing that me just doing the math
part allows them to help be able to sustain their Hawaiian culture.” External accountability
requirements in the form of government expectations for math and English were her priority.
She gave a secondary preference to the perpetuation of Hawaiian language and culture, “but yet
they’re still able to have the Hawaiian culture and language.” Her assumption was that there
were others in the school who were responsible for providing them with access to the Hawaiian
culture and language. This was not her responsibility. As a result, she only partially embraced the
mission of the school as she did not see it as her job to help the students connect the content she
was teaching them to their culture and language.
Another example of preference to meeting external accountability measures was offered
by Kumu Lokelani,
They have their benchmark HSA test scores…There’s so many tests…ACTs and SATs
so it’s like so many standardized forms of assessments for English and math and even
some in science…. It’s a bigger problem. Establishing what things need to be taught.
Like, don’t get upset that we’re part of the United States, English has standards... there’s
a list of stuff that you’re required to teach at certain grades, it’s just the way it works in
the Western education.
KA MANA O LOKO 112
Here, Kumu Lokelani strongly suggested that external accountability measures needed to be
given preference by the school community, “Like, don’t get upset that we’re part of the United
States, English has standards….there’s a list of stuff that you’re required to teach at certain
grades, it’s just the way it works in the Western education.” Furthermore, Kumu Lokelani
expressed the belief that external accountability measures in the form of US English standards
needed to take precedence, that there were things that the school was required to teach because
they were in a school located in a Western context. She expressed a belief that there should be no
reason to be upset that Western content and skills had to be taught or assessed. This is the United
States, she suggests, where there are standards for English. These standards translated into a
Western set of assessments in, “their benchmark HSA test scores…There’s so many
tests…ACTs and SATs so it’s like so many standardized forms of assessments for English and
math and even some in science.”
The third clearly defined faction believed in giving preference to developing Western
content skills and knowledge over developing students’ cultural and linguistic competence. CBE
members in the third faction gave priority to teaching and learning at the school that emphasized
federal mandates and local government requirements. Individuals here found little or no value in
Hawaiian medium education, and as an extension, could not speak to cultural accountability
measures or assessment practices. These CBE individuals who were not well grounded in
Hawaiian epistemology demonstrated the belief that the primary goal for education in Race to
the Top was to increase student achievement that builds toward college and career readiness, and
improves critical knowledge and higher-order thinking skills in a Western context (Race to the
Top, 2010).

KA MANA O LOKO 113
Conclusion
According to Abelmann and Elmore (1999), accountability mechanisms are the variety of
formal and informal ways by which people in schools give an account of their actions to
someone in a position of formal authority, inside or outside the school. Overall the data revealed
that there was a general agreement among the vast majority of members of the CBE community
to the school’s purpose—to foster achievement and build students’ Native Hawaiian cultural
identity and language proficiency. The tension existed as to who CBE members believed the
CBE was accountable to and the assessment measures utilized to meet the accountability
expectations and/or requirements.

KA MANA O LOKO 114
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Persistently low academic performance of Native Hawaiian children has been addressed
by Hawaiian-focused charter schools (HFCS) that joined the public school landscape to address
the disparity in educational practices and opportunities afforded to Native Hawaiian students
(Kanaʻiaupuni, 2007).
HFCSs combat the oppositional behavior that Ogbu (1991) said some minority students
engage in to reduce the stress they experience when guarding against discrimination and negative
stereotypes in the classroom. HFCSs, as culture-based education communities, have increasingly
addressed educational disparities that exist between indigenous students and their non-Native
Hawaiian peers (Kanaʻiaupuni, 2007).
Schools employing culture-based educational models in the state of Hawaiʻi have
historically been accountable to the regulations and requirements of the HIDOE through the
State Public Charter School Commission (SPCSC). Yet, in the advent of RTTT and Strive HI,
these schools are now under pressure to demonstrate that they contribute to student learning in
ways defined by the USDOE and the Department of Education for the State of Hawaiʻi. HFCSs
are also subject to other accountability measures imposed by other external agencies such as
KSBE and OHA. These new pressures have led to a need to articulate what it means for their
students to demonstrate proficiency in the content, knowledge, and skills associated with both
CBE, and Hawaiʻi DOE standards. Thus, CBE schools find themselves having to identify and
define the content, knowledge, and skills they expect their students to master in the context of
CBE, as well as adopt Strive HI measures of achievement and growth.
In order to understand how CBE schools make meaning of accountability, I examined 17
CBE members’ beliefs towards internal and external accountability measures. I approached this
KA MANA O LOKO 115
study through the lenses of Hawaiian epistemology, culture-based education, teacher ideology,
and accountability—the variety of formal and informal ways through which people in schools
give an account of their actions to someone in a position of formal authority (Elmore, 1999).
Data from interviews, documents and artifacts revealed that there was surface agreement
among all members of the CBE community that the school’s purpose (what the school was
accountable for and to whom) was to build students’ Native Hawaiian cultural identity and
language proficiency. However, this surface agreement belied the tensions that existed regarding
the school’s purpose. Within this agreement there are wide variations in members understandings
of what is necessary to build students’ Native Hawaiian cultural identity and language
proficiency. These variations also reflected differences in beliefs about accountability.
On one end of the continuum are those who believe they are responsible for revitalizing
the Native Hawaiian culture and identity and cultivating students’ desire to do the same. This
group addresses accountability and assessment thorough predominantly Native Hawaiian
methods, consistent with McCarty and Lee’s (2014) concept of reclamation and educational
sovereignty through a culturally revitalizing and sustaining pedagogy, recognition was given to
the need to reclaim and revitalize what has been disrupted and displaced by colonization. The
second group believed in developing students’ Native Hawaiian cultural identity and language
and leveraging that identity and language as a bridge to US/Western knowledge and skills. They
address accountability and assessment by seeking ways to determine students’ proficiency in
both Native Hawaiian knowledge and skills and Western knowledge and skills. The third and
final group believes they are primarily responsible for developing students’ Western knowledge
and skills. They address accountability and assessment primarily through US/Western forms of
KA MANA O LOKO 116
assessment provided through the Race to the Top agreement the state of Hawaiʻi entered into
with the Federal government.
This Dissertation’s Contribution
This dissertation provides insight into dialogues that have begun and are currently being
carried out within various CBE communities. Providing an Indigenous epistemological
perspective to an Indigenous and Western framework of learning in terms of content, knowledge
and skills is an ongoing challenge for CBE communities (Kanaʻiaupuni & Kawaiʻaeʻa, 2008). In
the advent of reclamation and revitalization efforts, CBE communities have exercised a
liberating stance of providing an Indigenous lens to content, knowledge and skills (McCarty &
Lee, 2014).
Many members of CBE communities share a general agreement of what they are about,
many exercising their rights of educational sovereignty. However, below the surface agreement,
there exists a struggle regarding which traditional knowledge and skills should be perpetuated
within the construct of the institution of formal learning. This dissertation details one CBE’s
struggle to identify the content, knowledge and skills of informal learning in a formal structure.
At the same time that CBE schools are working to clarify what they believe Native
Hawaiian children must know and be able to do as Native Hawaiians, they also continue to be
subjected to the growing demands of external measurements of Western content, knowledge and
skills. This challenge is exacerbated when those who work within the CBE differ with respect to
their knowledge and understanding of Hawaiian epistemology, their own teacher ideology and
the purpose of a CBE. As was demonstrated within this study, the variance in understanding
among CBE members, can lead to splitting or fracturing of the organization rather than
coherence. There are three major tensions revealed by this dissertation: 1. ‘Ike Hawaiʻi—As
KA MANA O LOKO 117
CBEs struggle against the race of time in reclaiming traditional practices and ancestral
knowledge (Benally & Viri, 2005), the intentional inclusion of Hawaiian language and culture at
the heart of the CBE is an act of reclamation and revitalization. At the same time though, there
remains the challenge of taking traditional knowledge and practices and contextualizing it in the
formal education setting. 2. Leverage—Hawaiian traditions and knowledge can or should serve
as the center, or piko, to bridge to knowing, studying and applying Western knowledge and
skills. Thus there is a tension within the CBE context with respect to the integration of
knowledge systems—content and context for teaching and learning. The tension that exists in
the CBE is not only with respect to implementing a Western knowledge framework in an
Indigenous context, but also for some, of making these knowledge bases “hihia” or intertwined
so that the interconnectedness is inseparable. 3. Assessment—This dissertation highlights the
ongoing conversation within CBE communities and public CBE schools regarding external
measurements of learning. Measurement of student progress through dual methods means the
constant negotiation of two (one for Native Hawaiian and one for Western) rubrics to for what is
learned, there is a failure to capture the learning that is underway at the CBE. This dissertation
also highlighted the difficulty that CBEs face with integrating the two knowledge bases from a
Native Hawaiian perspective. There exists another level of complexity with the
underdevelopment of the approach to assessing in a Native Hawaiian cultural context, both the
Native Hawaiian and Western knowledge bases.
The history of the approach to assessment in the Native Hawaiian context also
highlighted the underdevelopment of the history of assessment in more formal ways in the
Native Hawaiian context. There is tremendous opportunity for CBE communities to reconcile
these tensions. The result of such reconciliation would be the increased learning opportunities for
KA MANA O LOKO 118
children as well as creation of assessments that are consistent with the knowledge bases of the
CBE.
Practice
This dissertation can inform the practices of other members of the CBE community as
they make their own meaning of accountability. For many of the CBE schools, exercising rights
of educational sovereignty (McCarty & Lee, 2014) and managing the constraints imposed by the
Hawaii Department of Education and other external organizations that impose their own
accountability expectations is challenging. It is important for members within each CBE
community to engage in discussions that integrate Western content, skills, knowledge and
practices with Native Hawaiian content, skills, knowledge and practices. It is also imperative for
CBE communities to approach this work with an Indigenous lens— the pedagogical foundation
being grounded in Indigenous understanding and Indigenous epistemological framework. As
one respondent in the study said, “We can never look at it from the outside looking in and say
well how do we fit this stuff into your culture. You select, carefully select. Kind of paʻakīkī to
the ending too because it’s not an easy thing to do. We’re challenged all the time, if we’re doing
it, and doing it well all the time.” Here, this kumu highlights the need for the CBE to identify
what it means to integrate the two knowledge bases from an Indigenous epistemological
framework.
As members of the CBE sit along the continuum of beliefs and understandings of
Hawaiian epistemology, teacher ideology and the purpose of the CBE, it is essential for each
CBE to foster discussions that allow the members of the CBE to recognize, acknowledge, and
work through the tensions. CBE leaders must create the opportunity for members of their
community to examine their beliefs to allow the reconciliation of tensions to occur, providing an
KA MANA O LOKO 119
environment within the school that support teacher’s efforts to participate in professional
learning communities to make progress in improving one’s own practice (Horn & Little, 2010).
This is an opportunity for CBE communities to address the tensions in a manner consistent with
the principle of “reciprocity of accountability for capacity” (Elmore, 2000) that for every
investment you made in my skill and knowledge, there is a reciprocal responsibility to
demonstrate some new increment in performance. Engaging in deep learning that has the
potential to lead to significant change is both an emotional and conceptual and may be a “painful
voyage, and one that, much of the time, may feel more like mutiny than a merely exhilarating
(and less self-conflicted) expedition to discover new lands” (Kegan, 2000, p. 67).
This dissertation highlights the challenges to internal accountability measures (Elmore,
1999) when staff members’ Hawaiian epistemological framework, teaching ideology and
understanding of CBE are overshadowed by the individual’s commitment to meet external
accountability demands. This may prove to be critical as the CBE reasserts the right to define
what schools are for, whose knowledge has the most legitimacy, and how the next generation
should think about the social order and their place within it (Sleeter & Stillman, 2005). As CBEs
reach greater clarity in deciding what it stands for, it is imperative for them to go through the
challenging discussions of determining broad goals for achievement to reach the goals of the
CBE. The change associated with deep learning is both emotional and conceptual process
(Kegan, 2000).) Organizations that want to learn has to be willing to look at information that
disconfirms its past beliefs and practices and needs to support people to reflect on this unsettling
or disconfirming information, providing them with the resources of time, colleagues, and
reflection (Wheatley, 2006). The closer CBE members’ beliefs are in alignment— not
necessarily total agreement, but enough agreement so the organization can move forward
KA MANA O LOKO 120
As an extension, recruitment of kumu who embrace both content skills and knowledge
and ideology of the “dual world” is optimal. It is essential for the CBE to provide the support
and mechanisms to increase the content skills and knowledge and ideology of CBE members for
the “dual world.” According to Slayton and Mathis (2010) the primary responsibility for
creating learning conditions for adults in the organization lay with the leaders, the authority in
the school. This responsibility of the CBE is in line with Elmore’s (2000) idea of reciprocal
accountability—the idea that I can only expect you to improve if I provide you with the supports
to do so and that for every increment of performance demanded, there is an equal responsibility
to provide the capacity to meet that expectation. CBE communities that provide the proper
professional development and in-servicing may contribute to Elmore’s idea of (2002) high
internal accountability, or coherence and agreement around expectations for teaching practice
and student learning, which may lead directly to observable gains in student learning. Similarly,
the CBE’s lack agreement and coherence around expectations for student learning and the means
to influence instructional practice in classrooms in ways that result in student learning may lead
to it becoming a fundamentally failing school (Elmore, 2000).
Clearly identifying protocols for learning and assessment of what McCarty and Lee
(2014) argues is the constant negotiation of the complexity of maintaining the integrity of new
school-based rituals and traditions for exemplifying school values must first be addressed.
Secondly, addressing and negotiating what the “dual world” collectively looks like at the CBE,
and specifically in each classroom, speaks to learner outcomes of the school.
The development of assessment tools to collect longitudinal data on the effect of the CBE
on individual and community after graduation may speak to what Sims (2005) said “are central
to self-determination and sovereignty- that Indigenous languages constitute invaluable
KA MANA O LOKO 121
repositories of distinctive knowledge that Indigenous children have a right to and need for full
participation in their communities” (p. 105).
Implications for Policy
As more CBE communities and charter schools strive to meet the demands of external
accountability measures (Elmore, 1999) through promoting dual world learning, it is critical to
establish cultural assessment tools as valid pieces that reflect student achievement. This is in
accordance to the growing role charter schools play in growing Native peoples’ efforts to gain
control over their children’s education (Kanaʻiaupuni, 2008). This is an opportunity for CBE
communities to define appropriate measures for student achievement that address both the
external accountability requirements and the mission-specific achievement expectations of CBE
schools. These assessments would measure student progress in meeting rigorous academic
standards in a culturally valid context (Nelson-Barber & Trumbull, 2007) supporting Executive
Order 13336 that calls for research to evaluate promising practices for enhancing Native
American students’ academic achievement, including the role of Native languages and cultures
in successful student outcomes (Brayboy, 2010). The challenge for charter schools whose
missions are connected to community, culture, and wellness is the implementation of an
educational approach that simultaneously meets their own goals and the requirements of the state
(McCarty & Lee, 2015).
On the state level, the Hawaiʻi Board of Education Policy on educational assessment in
Hawaiian immersion schools should be expanded to include the flexibility to incorporate
culturally relevant achievement measures that build assessments would important content
knowledge and understanding of Indigenous students. CBE assessments seek to address the
cultural biases that exist in large-scale assessment (Hood, 1998), and may take the form of
KA MANA O LOKO 122
authentic assessment of experiential, hands-on education in a real-world context common to
Native communities (Resnick, 1991). Deyhle and Swisher (1997) suggests culture specific
behaviors that should be included in assessments that influence the learning process for
Indigenous students.
The Department of Education needs to address the existing Hawaiian education policies
that apply to charter schools and immersion schools within the DOE system to assure that CBE
best practices are supported and implemented in the BOE Policies 2100 Series. Specifically, the
BOE 2100 Series Academic Program Policy calls for the Department of Education to “provide
an academic program to equip each student with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values
needed to attain the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards and to give responsible direction
to one's own life” as it “recognizes that one of the key components to student achievement and
success is a quality, standards-based academic program.”
Implications for Further Research
Other charter schools and CBE communities will benefit by understanding how they
make meaning of accountability from further research of internal and external measures. In
terms of content, skills and knowledge understanding how Indigenous knowledge is transferred
through CBE communities, making into formal what is inherently an informal context of
learning. As Indigenous communities implement revitalization efforts by exercising their rights
to educational sovereignty, further research is needed to understand the impact of culturally
sustaining and revitalizing pedagogy (CSRP) approach in addressing the socio-historical and
contemporary contexts of Native American schooling (McCarty & Lee, 2014). Further
understanding of how the CBE addresses each of the components of CSRP as outlined by
McCarty and Lee (2014) is critical to understand: 1.) The asymmetrical power relations and goal
KA MANA O LOKO 123
of transforming legacies of colonization. Including the “knowing of the colonizer” and “struggle
for self-determination (Smith, 2013, p. 8); 2.) Reclaiming and revitalizing what has been
disrupted and displaced by colonization, with an emphasis on the “extent to which communities
feel they are in control of their language” (Moll &Ruiz, 2005, p. 299); and 3.) Community-based
accountability—respect, reciprocity, responsibility and the importance of caring relationships
(Brayboy, 2012) —should be studied in the context of CSRP as it serves the needs of Indigenous
communities, defined by those communities. More specifically, research that looks at what
CSRP look like in practice, addressing the possibilities, tensions and challenges (McCarty &
Lee, 2014).
In addition to content, skills and knowledge further research is needed to understand the
impact of loina and lawena on student achievement. Research that points to the construction of a
Hawaiian epistemological framework in a CBE will speak to the content, skills and knowledge
of the CBE. Also, research that contributes to understanding one’s lineage of kumu in Hawaiian
learning that have shaped their epistemological framework in informing one’s practice points
may reflect their approach to culture-based education. Finally, further research is needed on the
longitudinal assessment of the effects of CBE on cultural and language vitality or the impact
CBE graduates have had on the greater Indigenous community.

KA MANA O LOKO 124
EPILOGUE
Since data collection I have become a member of the CBE community. To me this
means that I have experienced and continue to experience firsthand the tension that exists in
making meaning of accountability in this CBE community. I realize that I now have the same
responsibilities to create authentic cultural assessment to foster student achievement through
Hawaiian language medium instruction. I am able to bring my experiences as an Indigenous
researcher to this process. There is much work ahead for all of us who have and continue to work
in CBE communities. I mua kākou a loaʻa i ka lei o ka lanakila, let us go forward until we
receive the lei of victory.

KA MANA O LOKO 125
References
Abelmann, C., Elmore, R., Even, J., Kenyon, S., & Marshall, J. (1999). When Accountability
Knocks, Will Anyone Answer? Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED428463
Aguilera, D., Lipka, J., Demmert, W & Tippeconnic, J. 2007. Special issue on culturally
responsive education for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Hawaiian students.
Journal of American Indian Education, 46, 3.
Bartolomé, L. I., & Trueba, E. T. (2000). Beyond the politics of schools and the rhetoric of
fashionable pedagogies: The significance of teacher ideology. Immigrant voices: In
search of educational equity, 277-292.
Barton, R. (2003). Challenges and opportunities of NCLB for small, rural and isolated schools.
Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from
http:/www.nwrel.org/planning/ reports/NCLB/NCLB.pdf
Battiste, M., & Henderson, J. Y. (2009). Naturalizing indigenous knowledge in eurocentric
education. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 32(1), 5-18,129-130.
Benally, A. & Denis, V. "Diné Bizaad [Navajo Language] at a Crossroads: Extinction or
Renewal?." Bilingual Research Journal 29.1 (2005): 85-108.
Brayboy, B. M. J., Gough, H. R., Leonard, B., Roehl, R.F. II, & Solyom, J. A. (2012).
Reclaiming scholarship: Critical Indigenous research methodologies. In S. D. Lapan, M.
T. Quartaroli, & F. J. Riemer (Eds.), Qualitative research: An introduction to methods
and designs. (p. 435) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Castellano, M. B. (2000). Updating Aboriginal traditions of knowledge. Indigenous knowledges
in global contexts: Multiple readings of our world, 21-36.
KA MANA O LOKO 126
Connelly, F. M., & Elbaz, F. (1980). Conceptual bases for curriculum thought: A teacher's
perspective. Considered action for curriculum improvement, 116.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research 3e. London: SAGE.
Craver, M. (2000, August) Hooponopono, a method to resolve family and personal conflicts and
achieve peace presented at the 53
rd
annual U.N. Conference of Non-Government
Organizations.
Demmert, W.G., Jr. (2001). Improving academic performance among Native American students:
A review of the research literature. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural
Education and Small Schools. Retrieved from
Demmert, W.G., Jr., Grissmer, D., & Towner, J.C. (2006). A Review and analysis of the research
on Native American students [Special Issue]. Journal of American Indian Education,
45(3), 5-20.
Demmert, W.G., Jr., & Towner, J. C. (2002). Improving academic performance among Native
American students: A review and analysis of the research literature. Bellingham,
WA:Western Washington University.
Demmert, W.G., Jr., & Towner, J. (2003). A review of the research literature on the influences
of culturally based education on the academic performance of Native American students.
Northwest Regional Educational Library, Portland, Oregon.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In
N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-17).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
KA MANA O LOKO 127
Deyhle, D., & Swisher, K. (1997). Research in American Indian and Alaska Native education:
From assimilation to self-determination. Review of Research in Education, 22, (pp. 113-
194). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Ed-Data (2008). Education data partnership: fiscal, demographic and performance data on
California’s K-12 schools. Accessed January 25, 2008, from www.ed-data.k12.ca.us.
Education Commission of the States. (2010). Annual Report. Retrieved from www.ecs.org
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert
Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Foley, D. (2003). Indigenous epistemology and Indigenous standpoint theory. SocialAlternatives,
22(1), 44-52.
García, O. (2009). En/countering indigenous bilingualism. Journal of Language, Identity &
Education, 8(5) 376-380.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. (Eds.). (2003) Social Construction: A reader. London: SAGE.
Gitlin, A., Peck, M, Aposhian, N., Hadley, S., Porter, A. (2002) Looking again at insider
knowledge production and assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4,
September/October 2002 303-315 . The American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education (p. 33).
Graham, T. C. (2002). Using reason for living to connect to American Indian healing traditions.
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, XXIX(1), 55-75.

KA MANA O LOKO 128
Hawaiʻi Charter School Board (2013, December) School specific measures committee minutes.
Retrieved from
http://sharepoint.spcsc.hawaii.gov/SPCSC/Documents/Notes_SchoolSpecificMeasuresAd
HocCommittee_December5_2013_UNAPPROVED.pdf
Hawaiʻi State Department of Education (2013). Strive HI Performance System
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/VisionForSuccess/AdvancingEducation/StriveHIPer
formanceSystem/Pages/home.aspx#NCLB
Hood, S. (1998). Culturally responsive performance-based assessment: Conceptual and
psychometric considerations. Journal of Negro Education, 67(3), 187-196.
Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. by John C. Turner and
Howard Giles, 199-243.
Kamehameha Schools. (2010, December). Sustaining quality, Hawaiian-focused charter
schools: An update to KSEGE on the Kamehameha Schools’ charter school accreditation
support program. [Unpublished presentation].Honolulu, HI.
Kamehameha Schools Hoʻolako Like. (2011). Sustaining quality, Hawaiian-focused charter
schools: an update on KS Support to 17 Hawaiian-focused charter schools [PowerPoint].
Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Schools.
Kamehameha Schools Hoʻolako Like. (2013). Charter School Support. Retrieved from
http://www.ksbe.edu/communityeducation/site/programs/grades_9-12/charter_schools/
Kamehameha Schools. (1996). Nā Lau Lama Executive Summary. Retrieved from
http://www.ksbe.edu/_assets/spi/pdfs/reports/na-lau-lama/Executive_Summary_Final.pdf
Kamehameha Schools. (2006) Nā Lau Lama End-of-year report. Retrieved from
http://www.ksbe.edu/_assets/spi/pdfs/Reports/Na-Lau-Lama/NLL06_report.pdf
KA MANA O LOKO 129
Kanaʻiaupuni, S.M. (2007). A brief overview of culture-based education and annotated
bibliography, Culture-based education brief series. Retrieved from
http://www.ksbe.edu/spi/CBE/_prod.php.
Kanaʻiaupuni, S.M., Malone, N.J. & Ishibashi, K. (2005). Ka huakaʻi: 2005 Native Hawaiian
educational assessment. Kamehameha Schools, Research and Evaluation Division.
Retrieved from http://www.ulukau.org/elib/cgi-bin/library?c=nhea@l=haw
Kanaʻiaupuni, S.M., Ledward, B., and Jensen, U. (2010). Culture-based education and it’s
relationship to student outcomes. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools, Research &
Evaluation Division. Retrieved from http://www.ksbe.edu/spi/CBE_prod.php
Kanaʻiaupuni, S.M. & Ledward, B.C. (2011). Ho‘opilina: The Call for Cultural Relevance in
Education. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/6347377/Hoopilina_The_Call_for_Cultural_Relevance_in_Ed
ucation
Kanaʻiaupuni, S. M., & Kawaiʻaeʻa, K. (2008). E Lauhoe mai nā waʻa: Toward a Hawaiian
Indigenous Education Teaching Framework. Hūlili: Multidisciplinary Research on
Hawaiian Well-Being, 5(1), 67-90. Retrieved from http://www.ksbe.edu/SPI/Hulili.php
Kawaiʻaeʻa, K., Alencastre, M., & Housman, A. (2007). Pūʻā i ka ʻōlelo, ola ka ʻohana: A living
case study of three Hawaiian language families over one generation of revitalizing the
Hawaiian language. Hūlili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-being, 4(1),
183-237. Retrieved from http://www.ksbe.edu/SPI/Hulili/vol_4.php

KA MANA O LOKO 130
Kawaiʻaeʻa, K. K. C. (2012). Kūkohu: A study on the cultural ecology of Hawaiian-medium and
Hawaiian immersion learning environments (Doctoral dissertation). Union Institute and
University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1172473925?accountid=27453 (1172473925)
Kawaiʻaeʻa, K., Hale, K., Daniel, N., & Kanaʻiaupuni, S. (2005). ʻIke to maopopo: Native
Hawaiian ways of learning and a framework for assessment. Paper presented at the
meeting of the World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education, Hamilton, Aotearoa
NZ.
Kegan, R. (2000). What “form” transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to
transformative learning. In: J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as formation: Critical
perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35-39). San Drancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kovach, M. (2005). Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. In L. Brown & S.
Strega (Eds.), Research as resistance: Critical, Indigenous, & anti-oppressive
approaches (pp. 19-36). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations and contexts.
Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Kumu Honua Mauli Ola, (1998). ʻAha Pünana Leo, Inc a me Ka Haka ʻUla O Keʻelikōlani, Ke
Kulanui o Hawaiʻi ma Hilo.
Ladson-Billings, G.. (1999). Preparing teachers for diver- sity: Historical perspectives, current
trends, and future directions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the
learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 86-123). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
KA MANA O LOKO 131
Ledward, B., Takayama, B., & Kahumoku III, W, III (2008). Hawaiian cultural influences in
education (HCIE): ‘Ohana and community integration in culture-based education
(Culture-Based Education Brief Series). Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools, Research &
Evaluation.
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language
backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 12–21.
Maxwell J.A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach. SAGE.
Mayeda, D. T., Chesney-Lind, M., & Koo, J. (2001). Talking Story with Hawaii's Youth
Confronting Violent and Sexualized Perceptions of Ethnicity and Gender. Youth &
society, 33(1), 99-128.
McCarty, T. and Lee, T. (2014). Critical Culturally Sustaining/Revitalizing Pedagogy and
Indigenous Education Sovereignty. Harvard Educational Review. 84(1), 101-124.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.q83746nl5pj34216.
McGuinn, P. (2011). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants and the Obama
education agenda. Education Policy, 26(1), 136-159.
McKenzie, B., & Morrissette, V. (2003). Social work practice with Canadians of Aboriginal
background: Guidelines for respectful social work. In A. Al-Krenawi & J. R. Graham
(Eds.), Multicultural social work in Canada: Working with diverse ethno-racial
communities (pp. 251-282). Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press. (p.
259)
KA MANA O LOKO 132
Meighan, R. (1981). “A new teaching force? Some issues raised by seeing parents as educators
and the implications for teacher education.” Educational Review 33 (1981): 133-142.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, M. (1998). Native Hawaiian epistemology: sites of empowerment and resistance. Equity
& Excellence in Education. http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueee20
Meyer, M. (2003). Hoʻoulu, our time of becoming. Hawaiian epistemology and early writings.
ʻAi Pōhaku Press.
Moll, L.C and Ruiz,R. (2005). The educational sovereignty of Latino/a students in the United
States. In P. Pedraza and M. Rivera (eds) Latino Education: An agenda for community
action research (p. 295-320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2008) Adequate Yearly Progress. Retrieved from
nces.ed.gov
National Governors’ Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, (2010). Common
core state standards initiative. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org
Nelson-Barber, S. & Trumball, E. (2007). Making assessment practices valid for indigenous
American students. Journal of American Indian Education, 46(3).
NWT (2013). North Western Territories Educational Renewal Framework. Retrieved from
http://www.ece.gov.nt.ca/files/ERI
Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Minority coping responses and school experience. The Journal of
Psychohistory, Vol 18(4), 1991, 433-456.
OHA (2013). Office of Hawaiian Affairs Native Hawaiian Data Book 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.ohadatabook.com/DB2013.html
KA MANA O LOKO 133
Olsen, B., & Kirtman, L. (2002). Teacher as mediator of reform: An examination of teacher
practice in 36 California restructuring schools. The Teachers College Record, 104(2),
301-324.
Order, E. (2003). 13270, Tribal Colleges and Universities, July 3, 2002.
Order, E. (2003). 13096, Tribal Colleges and Universities, July 3, 2002.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100.
Porter, A.C. & Polikoff, M. S (2007). NCLB: State interpretations, early effects and suggestions
for reauthorization. Social Policy Report, 21(4).
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J and Yang, R. (2011). Common core state standards: The new
U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
Pukui, M. K., Elbert, S. H., & Mookini, E. T. (1974). Place names of Hawaiʻi. Honolulu:
University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Pukui, M.K. (1983). ʻŌlelo Noʻeau. Hawaiian proverbs & poetical sayings. Honolulu: Bishop
Museum Press.
Pukui, M.K., Haertig, and E.W., Lee, C. (1979). Nānā i ke Kumu (Look to the Source).
Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: thinking as social practice in: LB Resnick, JM Levine
& SD Teasley. In Lauren Resnick, Levine B., M. John, Stephanie Teasley & D. (eds.),
Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. American Psychological Association.
Rice, B. (2005). Seeing the world with Aboriginal eyes: A four dimensional perspective on
human and non-human values, cultures and relationships on Turtle Island. Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Canada: Aboriginal Issues Press.
KA MANA O LOKO 134
Rigney, L., 1999. Internationalization of an Indigenous Anticolonial Cultural Critique of
Research Methodologies: A Guide to Indigenist Research Methodology and Its
Principles. Wicazo Sa Review, (14)2, 109-121.
Rogers, C. & Jaime, A. (2010). Listening to the Community: Guidance From Native
Community Members for Emerging Culturally Responsive Educators. Equity &
excellence in education, 43(2), 188-201.
Rossman, G and Rallis, S., 2003. Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research.
SAGE.
Runes, D.D. (1980). Dictionary of Philosophy. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams and Co.
Sahlins, M., 1995. How "Natives" Think: About Captain Cook, For Example. University of
Chicago Press.
Simpson, L. (2000). Anishinaabe ways of knowing. Aboriginal health, identity, and resources,
165-185.
Sims, C. (2005). Tribal Languages and the Challenges of Revitalization Anthropology and
Education Quarterly 36(1), 104-106.
Slayton, J. & Mathis, J. (2010). "Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, learning
conditions, and andragogy in developing leaders who can change the face of Pre-K
through 12 education." Advances in Educational Administration 11 (2010): 23-45.
Sleeter, C. & Stillman, J. (2005). Standardizing knowledge in a multicultural society. Curriculum
Inquiry, 35(1), 27-46.
Smith, L.M. (1978). An evolving logic of participant observation, educational ethnography and
other case studies. Review of Research in Education, 316-377.
KA MANA O LOKO 135
Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London:
Zed Books.
Smith, L.T. (1998). Towards the new millenium: International issues and projects in indigenous
research in Te Pumanawa Hauora (ed.) Proceedings of Te Oru Rangahau Mäori
Research and Development Conference. School of Mäori Studies, Massey University,
Palmerston North (pp. 12-31)
Struthers, R. 2001. Conducting sacred research: An Indigenous experience. Wicazo Sa Review
16(1), pp. 125-133.
The Education Alliance (2013). Principles for culturally responsive teaching. Retrieved from
http://www.alliance.brown.edu/tdl/tl-strategies/crt-principles.shtml.
Tharp, R. (2006). Four hundred years of evidence: Culture, pedagogy, and Native America.
Journal of American Indian Education, 45(2), 6-25.
Trueba, H.T. (2002). Multiple ethnic, racial, and cultural identities in action: From marginality to
a new cultural capital in modern society. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(1). 7-28.
doi: 10.1207/S1532771XJLE0101_2
U.S. Census Bureau, (2013). Hawaiʻi school site populations. Retrieved from www.census.gov/
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Native Hawaiian Education Act. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/nathawaiian/index.html.
U.S. Department of Education (2001). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml.
U.S. Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml.
KA MANA O LOKO 136
U.S. Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. 107-110. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2010) Hawaiʻi Race to the Top Grant Application. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/hawaii.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2014). Hawaiʻi Race to the top updated application.
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1applications/appendixes/hawaii.pdf.
Valdez, G., 1996. Con reseto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and
schools: An ethnographic portrait. New York: Teachers College Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the
development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Wages, M. (2015). Creating culturally responsive schools: Once classroom at a time. Rowman
& Littlefield.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax, NS, Canada:
Fernwood.

KA MANA O LOKO 137
Appendix
Individual Interview Protocol
School Name: _______________________________ Date: ___________
Name of Person Interviewed: ______________________________________________
Position: _______________________________________________________________
Time Started: ______________Time Completed: ___________Total Time: _________
Researcher: _____________________________________________________________

The purpose of this interview is for me to get to know your perspective- including your
experience and beliefs that shape your ideas about culture-based education and accountability.

A. Background
1. What is your name? Who are you? Where are you from?
2. What is your affiliation with Kahuewai NCPCS (Administration, Board Member,
Community Partner, Teacher)?
3. How long have you been in that position?
4. Have you held other positions at Kahuewai NCPCS? If yes, what were they and number of
years in that position?
5. How did you come to Kahuewai NCPCS?
6. Do you have keiki at Kahuewai NCPCS? If yes, what are their ages?
7. Do you have other ʻohana at Kahuewai NCPCS?
8. Number of years teaching/administration at other schools?
9. (And where?)

B. Hawaiian Epistemology
10. Who were/are influential kumu that shapes your thinking?
11. What are teaching and learning beliefs that shape your approach to work at the school?
a. How you see the world?
b. What shapes your thinking?
c. Specific examples?
12. What does ʻIke Hawaiʻi look like to you?
13. What does a Hawaiian way of Knowing look like to you?

Language
14. What do you believe should be the role of Hawaiian language in schools today?
15. What are those things specifically?
16. Why?

KA MANA O LOKO 138
Place
17. What do you believe where you are from influences your perspective/belief system or how
you see the world?

Spiritual
18. What do you believe is the place of spirituality at a CBE/HFCS school?
19. What does that look like?

Relationship
20. What is the relationship of the community in Hawaiian learning?

Worldview
21. How do you see the world that offers a worldview that challenges the dominant worldview?

C. CBE
22. What do you think CBE is?
23. Is your definition of CBE reflected in the vision and mission of the school? If so, what at the
school is evidence of this?
24. How do you see the vision and mission and goals (strategic plan) of the school align with and
applied practices of the school?

ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
25. What do you believe are the language and cultural goals that you think are supposed to
happen at the school?
26. What are those things specifically?

Culture
27. What does “Hawaiian-focused” look like in a Hawaiian-focused Public Charter School?
28. What do you believe is the cultural knowledge framework that should be fostered at the
school?
29. What do you think is the cultural educational thinking that should be the foundation of the
school?
30. What role do you believe place-based learning should play at the school? What does that
look like? Specific example of where you see it happen or what would you like to see?
31. How is the Hawaiian cultural foundation of the school operationalized and implemented
through student learning experiences?
32. In your opinion, how does CBE foster student achievement?
33. How does Kahuewai NCPCS approach to educating the whole child?
34. How do you feel the CBE seeks to increase cultural identity, language vitality and positive
academic outcomes for students?
35. What does CBE proficiency look like?

D. Teacher Ideology
36. What are the things that causes you to be here? OR I came to work/kōkua at the school
because…
37. What are the things about the school that you value?
KA MANA O LOKO 139
38. What shapes your commitment to the school?
39. How did you get interested in Hawaiian learning/teaching?

40. Kumu (member-specific)- What are your beliefs as a kumu that strengthen the learner?

41. Admin/Board (member-specific)- What are your expectations of the kumu in building or
shaping students in who they will become?

42. How do you think the school should address the needs of the Hawaiian learner?
43. How do you feel teaching is a framework for reconstruction of language and culture of
expectations?

E. Assessment
44. In your opinion, how do you feel cultural knowledge should be assessed?
45. Ask for specific examples?
46. How has the new charter school contract, Strive HI and/or Common Core affected or
influenced the school schedule, the school curriculum or student learning experiences?
47. In your opinion, what impact did the accreditation process have on the school?
48. What does proficiency look like in content, knowledge and skills associated with CBE?
49. What does Hawaiʻi DOE standards look like for a CBE?
50. How do you feel the accountability and assessment for building content skills and knowledge
using cultural identity is portrayed at the school?
51. What does culture-based assessment look like to you?
52. Assessment framework- what does that look like?
53. Can you give me examples (photocopies or pictures) or blank test.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Defining and implementing Hawaiian culture based education at a Hawaiian focused charter school

PDF

Ma ka hana ka ike perpetuating excellence in Native Hawaiian education: Native Hawaiian Education Council members' approaches to supporting the needs of Native Hawaiians

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of the epistemic interface between indigeneity and technology in the Cook Islands

PDF

Canoe to classroom: examining why Hawai'i's schools are adopting a navigation approach to education

PDF

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice

PDF

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

PDF

Examining the intersection of ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy in creating open-forum discussions in secondary English classrooms

PDF

Cross-cultural adjustment: examining how involvement in service-learning contributes to the adjustment experiences of undergraduate international students

PDF

Facilitation of authentic teaching and learning in a problem-based learning (PBL) environment

PDF

What does multicultural teaching look like when U.S. professors teach classes mainly composed of East Asian students?

PDF

If it takes two to tango then teach both to dance: examining the influence of interpersonal and contextual features on a co-teaching partnership

PDF

From meaning‐making to expansive learning: how contradictions shape teachers' implementation of technology‐based personalized learning

PDF

Cogenerative dialogues as spaces for teacher, student, and public learning: a design investigation into two instantiations

PDF

Creating a community of practice: serving student veterans in higher education

PDF

The role of leadership in using data to inform instruction: a case study

PDF

Perspectives of Native American community college students

PDF

The factors present in an outperforming charter middle school: a case study focusing on promising practices, school leadership, and cultural norms

PDF

Undocumented students' personal reflections on the role institutional agents play in providing social capital towards post-secondary education

PDF

The influence of globalization on the Irish educational system in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and development of 21st-century skills in secondary schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Okamura, Kay ʻAlohilani Hisako (author)

Core Title Ka mana o loko: examining the ways in which a culture-based education community makes meaning of accountability

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/15/2015

Defense Date 06/22/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag accountability,culture-based education,Hawaiian epistemology,Hawaiian-focused public charter schools,ʻike Hawaiʻi,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher ideology

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Kawaiʻaeʻa, Keiki (committee member), Stillman, Jamy (committee member)

Creator Email kokamura@usc.edu,kumualohilani@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-178300

Unique identifier UC11273318

Identifier etd-OkamuraKay-3899.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-178300 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-OkamuraKay-3899.pdf

Dmrecord 178300

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Okamura, Kay ʻAlohilani Hisako

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA