Castle Redesign RDT Presentation 121511 v1.6

Uploaded on

please email if you want to use it

please email if you want to use it

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • This was what we used in terms of a timeline for the entire project. We are now cycling through the DT process in phases [next slide]
  • Where we’ve gone through the first 4 phases of DT in order to come up with our prototypes
  • In this next phase, which we’re about to start now and continue through january and february, we’ll be cycling through the DT process again
  • And quite conceivably, once we hit the charrette process where we present our final prototypes to the larger community, we’ll go through the DT process cycle again. In each phase, we’ll use data that presented to us to inform on our prototypes, and constantly check against each other so we’re not building prototypes in isolation – and we’re not forgetting to use our creativity to address these issues.
  • …up until now we’ve gone through empathy, define and ideate phases – we’ve come up with POVs and HMW statements through this,
  • and even came up with some initial prototypes. After challenging assumptions, we were able to be creative in thinking up ideas and ways to engage students.
  • But how do we know that what we’re creating will actually address what the young people in 96744 need and want? This next phase we will be doing 2 things: 1. using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data to validate our prototypes;2. honing down our POVs and HMWs to something workable, so that the implementation is both realistic and feasible
  • We’ll do this by starting with the prototypes that we’ve created thus far
  • And introduce qualitative and quantitative data – this data will be used to go back and empathize, (re)define POVs, and ideate about the HMW statements.So what exactly is this kind of data?Qualitative: student stories (also parents, teachers) - the student interview sessions that we had you sign up for last month Quantitative: hard data (demographics, school data and statisticsWe’ll use both kinds of data and over the next 3 months, spend time listening to it, unpacking and interpreting it, and then validating our POVs, HMW statements and prototypes against it
  • Qualitative data – student interview sessions (what we asked you to sing up for last month)So far we’ve done 7 interview sessions, reaching nearly 250 students throughout the 96744 complex – you will be presented with physical copies of notes all 7 interview sessions; we will also make them available online, and tonight we will present 3 of those sessions (we’ll keep this format over the next 3 months)
  • We also need quantitative data. Here we have an ask: is anyone on the RDT willing to volunteer to be a part of a small working group specifically to help organize and present the “hard data”? We’d like you to identify and define the most relevant data that shows the state of castle education, and shows where 96744 is facing its greatest challenges. We’ll come back to this at the end of the evening but this is also an important piece – if BB and MZ don’t get any volunteers, then the project team will have to decide what information to present and the RDT is ok with this.
  • This brings us to the ground rules. Before we can do the work together, we should agree on how we will do the work together. We’ve outlined some key factors that we believe are important to create the right conditions for this important work to occur.We can’t spend the time on creating it like we’d want and I think we all agree that there are some common elements we’d all agree to, so we’ve gone ahead and listed them for you as a start.What we’d like from you, is to take a look at the list and see what’s missing, what would you like to add.


  • 1. Castle Complex Redesign Timeline Design Thinking Process We are here Multi-Week CharretteMONTH Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb/Mar April May June
  • 2. Castle Complex Redesign DEFINE PROTOTYPE (re)PROTOTYPE EMPATHY IDEATE (re)IDEATE (re)EMPATHY (re)IDEATE (re)EMPATHY PROTOTYPE (re)DEFINE (re)DEFINE Pre-Planning Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 RDT forms create validate charretteAug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Townhall Meeting
  • 3. Castle Complex Redesign DEFINE PROTOTYPE (re)PROTOTYPE EMPATHY IDEATE (re)IDEATE (re)EMPATHY (re)IDEATE (re)EMPATHY PROTOTYPE (re)DEFINE (re)DEFINE Pre-Planning Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 RDT forms create validate charretteAug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Townhall Meeting
  • 4. Castle Complex Redesign DEFINE PROTOTYPE (re)PROTOTYPE EMPATHY IDEATE (re)IDEATE (re)EMPATHY (re)IDEATE (re)EMPATHY PROTOTYPE (re)DEFINE (re)DEFINE Pre-Planning Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 RDT forms create validate charretteAug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Townhall Meeting
  • 5. Castle Complex Redesign PROTOTYPE (re)IDEATE (re)EMPATHY (re)DEFINE Phase 2 validate
  • 6. Castle Complex RedesignQualitative Data +Quantitative Data PROTOTYPE (re)IDEATE (re)EMPATHY (re)DEFINE Phase 2 validate
  • 7. Qualitative Datastudent interview sessions, parent/teacher forums • 7 interview sessions • Nearly 250 students
  • 8. Quantitative Datademographics, school data, community data, etc.
  • 9. 1. When we unpack, we will not interpret – we will repeat state-ments verbatim so that you hear the students voices directly.2. There will be dramatic symptoms of underlying complex issues such as drug use which is a symptom of a drug industry in Hawaii, peer pressure, and economic pressure. Please know that we may not be able to address all of the symptoms. We will try to dig into the deeper issues behind them.3. We will need to reach a consensus on the top POVs for the first phase of implementation. We will address the rest of the POVs after the first round and will incorporate all of them before implementation.
  • 10. SWOT AnalysisStrengths Weaknesses• Stable, older community with long-term • 9th grade retention rate ties to Castle Complex (alumnae • Graduation rate affection) • P20 terminology in math, English may not• Programs that are working to turn be aligned around AYP scores (please add)• Strong business and foundation commitment to supporting educationOpportunities Threats• Diverse physical assets in the community • Drugs and violence on campus and (e.g. Coconut Island, Kokokahi, Kualoa immediately off campus, fear Ranch fishpond, Lo`i) • Economic pressure on families in the• Diverse capacity-building training 96744 area increasing available (e.g. Junior League program for • Redefinition of student-weighted formula girls, Marimed that determines school budget• SLCs and integration with RDT
  • 11. Impact Strategies for Redesign1.
  • 12. Key Measures of Success1.
  • 13. Point of Views (POVs)
  • 14. How Might We (HMW) Statements1.
  • 15. Redesign TeamUpdated 11/10/11 GeorgiDeCosta* Cheryl Celeste Yee Ka’uhaneLupenui Charity Adaro Walter Kylee Mar* RJ Kahumoku* GeorgiDeCosta* Rodriguez Senator Jill Herb Lee Tokuda John Reppun* Rick Barboza* Brandon Hi’ileiKawelo* Hayashi David Henkin PohaiKukea- Helene Brown Ned Busch MakanaKahā’ulelio Schultz Gina Estaquio Mark Noguchi HokulaniAikau Gordon Rick Barboza* Miyamoto COMPLEX/SYSTE ORGANIZATIONS Ken Kamiya Rylan Yee Naomi Matsuzaki COMMUNITY- Edna Malia Rivera PhD SCHOOL GeorgiDeCosta BASED Michael Narimatsu Derek Minakami * student Pam Kino M Broderick Jacque Shaner Camille John Reppun* Meredith Angel Lemus Bryan FergusonMasutomi Maeda Doug Dykstra Ileana Ruelas Cathy Kawano- Sheena Alaiasa Sheila Cyboron Ching LaynieSueyasu Walter Kahumoku* Cynthi Chris Bisho Nolan KawanoKylee Mar* a Karen Kimura Matt Lorin Rick Barboza* Okaza Aaron Tsuha Hi’ileiKawelo* ki Kathy Martin Carri Morgan Karen Meyer Wendi Kamiya Duane Samson Mike Simao Brandon Hayashi Christine Shareen Marina Piscolish Rockwell Denton Matsumoto Fukino Gail Kumakura Fran Bellinger Jennie Yee Kathy Kahikina Karen Maeda Debbie Pfaltzgraf Alexis Kane Janet Lemus
  • 16. Ground Rules  Commit: students first and foremost • Students first and foremost • Active participant  Collaborate • Inclusive and respectful • Embrace diversity • One conversation at a time • Defer judgment  Consensus/Decision-making • Majority • Role of project team and facilitators  Conflict Resolution • Facilitators  Communication • Share information