n i ty:

o r tu
a l O pp
i n P ublic
equ uality
Unhnic Ineq tion in H a wa i i
Et E d uc a a m u ra
n Y. Ok eau
o n atha ers Bur
J p e ak
S TA S
b y H
sh e d
Publi

1
2
The primary purpose of this study of the
kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12)
public schools and the University of Hawaii
(UH) system is to demonstrate how ethnic
inequality is deeply entrenched in both
sectors of public education in Hawaii and its
differential impact on students of differing
ethnicity. Rather than operating
independently in each sector, ethnic
inequality in the state Department of
Education (DOE) schools significantly affects
the opportunity for students to proceed to the
UH system or higher education in general.
Ethnic inequality is hence evident in the
enrollment and graduation of students of
differing ethnicity from the various institutions
in the UH system, especially in comparison to
their overall representation in the public
schools. As a prime example of ethnic
inequality, it will be shown that the two largest
groups in the public schoolsNative
Hawaiians and Filipino Americansare the
two most underrepresented groups at UH
Mnoa as undergraduates and graduates of
the university. The ethnic inequality that
prevails in the DOE schools is magnified
in the UH system because public
education is no longer free, much
to the disadvantage of minorities,
such as Native Hawaiians,
Filipino Americans, Samoans, and
other numerically small groups.
My focus on public education,
particularly higher education, is
because it plays a key role in
the opportunity for occupational
and income mobility for those
minorities, which has become
increasingly more difficult without a
college degree.
3
The period covered in this study is from 2006
to 2016; one primary reason is because my
previous analysis of ethnic inequality in public
education in Hawaii encompassed the prior
decade from 1995 to 2005. My principal
concern is with ethnic inequality in student
access, representation and graduation in
both the DOE and UH systems rather than
with the many other major problems that
plague public education in Hawaii, which
may not directly affect educational inequality.
The problem that will be emphasized as the
primary factor which maintains ethnic
inequality in public education is the long-term
underfunding of the DOE and UH systems by
the state legislature, which continues to
restrict the educational and broader
socioeconomic advancement of minorities in
Hawaii. The study begins with the public
school system under the state Department of
Education and emphasizes how the chronic
inadequate funding of the
public schools especially
disadvantages their
majority clientele of
minority students.
Ethnic inequality in
the UH system is
then discussed,
particularly how
underfunding and
annual tuition
hikes during the
past decade
have perpetuated the
underrepresentation of minority
students at UH Mnoa and
contributed to its plummeting
enrollment of undergraduates
from Hawaii.
Hawaii State
Department of
Education4
Any discussion of the K-12 public school
system in Hawaii must begin by emphasizing
that it is the only statewide such system in
the nation. The 289 public schools, including
elementary (167), middle/intermediate (38),
high (33), multilevel (16), charter (34), and
special (1, for deaf and blind students), are
all administered by the state Department of
Education. Every other state is divided into
Every other state is divided into numerous public
school districts that receive a substantial
amount of their funding from local property taxes
and some state and federal funds. Hawaii State
Department of Education schools receive no such
local funding from the county governments and
are primarily dependent on appropriations from
the state legislature for their operation.
numerous public school districts that receive
a substantial amount of their funding from
local property taxes and some state and
federal funds. The DOE schools receive no
such local funding from the county
governments and are primarily dependent on
appropriations from the state legislature for
their operation. These appropriations to the
DOE amounted to $2.33 billion in general
funds in 2014-2015, including for teacher
salaries and student support activities. The
DOE also received $253 million in federal
funds and $95 million in state special funds in
the same school year. Not being based on
local property tax assessments, state funding
of the public schools should provide for
greater educational equality among students
and schools, unlike the situation in other
states, such as California, which have huge
5
disparities among communities in local
property tax revenues and thus available
funds for public schools. These differences
in funding virtually guarantee educational
inequality among students from different
racial and ethnic groups residing in
increasingly segregated local communities,
but such inequality should not be the case in
Hawaii.
Starting with appropriations from the state
legislature to the DOE, the public schools
receive their operating funds each year
according to what the department calls the
weighted student formula (WSF). First
adopted for the 2006-2007 school year, the
WSF allocates budget funds to each school
based on the number of its students and on
certain student needs and characteristics,
which affect their learning and achievement.
The DOE maintains that the WSF is a fair
and equitable way to distribute funds for
school budgets. The amount of money given
to a school is based on individual student
need, not enrollment. This means that
students [and schools] with more needs will
receive more resources,equalizing
opportunities at the student level. The WSF
informs the development of each schools
Figure 1: Department of Education Students by Ethnicity, 2014-2015
Korean American 1.1%
Indo-Chinese 1.2%
Portuguese American 1.5%
African American 2.8%
Chinese American 3.1%

Financial Plan, which the

community can help craft by joining
a School Community Council.

To determine a schools annual

budget from the DOE, a specific
dollar amount per student is
established for all schools, and then
additional funds are provided to a
school based on the number of
students with various needs and
characteristics. The latter include
economic disadvantage, limited
English proficiency, gifted and
talented, and transiency. Insofar
as it dispenses supplementary funds Source: 2015 Superintendents Annual
Report, State of Hawaii Department of
to schools with greater educational needs for Education, Appendix C. Data Tables,
students from economically disadvantaged Table 7, Ethnicity of Students and

and immigrant families, the WSF appears to
be a means for equalizing opportunities at
the student level. However, educational
equality among students and schools is only
possible if sufficient funds are allocated from
the state legislature to provide the baseline
and additional funds required to address fully
the educational needs of their economically
disadvantaged and immigrant students, who
are predominantly from ethnic and racial
minorities. Otherwise, the WSF is a fair and
equitable way to distribute inadequate funds
among schools.
With regard to being economically
disadvantaged, the DOE states that it refers
to students from families that meet the
income qualifications for the federal free or
reduced-cost school lunch program, which is
an indication of low income, if not poverty.
During the 2014-2015 school year, a majority
of public school students, totaling more than
90,000, were considered economically
disadvantaged (51 percent), while 7 percent
were English language learners, who very
likely had limited English ability. The
percentage and number of economically
disadvantaged students have increased

6
since 2007-2008 with the onset of the Great
Recession from 39 percent to its current
majority level, which has held steady since
2011. However, following the start of the
recession, the number of economically
disadvantaged students expanded hugely
from 69,000 students to its peak exceeding
94,000 in 2013-2014. Since a substantial
Since a substantial majority of DOE students are
from minority groups, one can safely assume that
an even greater majority of those who are
economically disadvantaged are also from
minority backgrounds. With most public school
students from families facing economic hardship,
their continuation to college becomes more
difficult as UH tuition rises each year.
majority of DOE students are from minority
groups (see below), one can safely assume
that an even greater majority of those who
are economically disadvantaged are also
from minority backgrounds. With most public
school students from families facing
economic hardship, their continuation on to
college becomes increasingly more difficult
as tuition in the UH system is raised each
year.
In 2014-2015, enrollment by ethnicity of the
181,000 students in the DOE schools
included: Native Hawaiian (26 percent),
Filipino American (22 percent), White (17
percent), Japanese American (9.1 percent),
Micronesian (4.2 percent), Hispanic (3.6
percent), Samoan (3.4 percent), Chinese
American (3.1 percent), African American
(2.8 percent), Portuguese American (1.5
7
percent), Indo-Chinese (1.2 percent), and
Korean American (1.1 percent) (see Figure
1). The DOE does have categories for
students who are racially or ethnically mixed,
including Multiple, two or more [groups] (1.3
percent), but a very minimal number of
students were tabulated in them, including
Asian two or more (180 students), Pacific
Islander two or more (19 students), and
White two or more (3 students). Given the
high rate of intermarriage in Hawaii of about
45 percent, these extremely low figures are
highly improbable and reflect how the DOE
counts students by ethnicity, which also is an
issue in the UH system (see below).
As is evident, the largest groups in the DOE
schools are Native Hawaiians and Filipino
Americans, who together comprise nearly
one-half of the students. According to the
2010 U.S. Census (race alone or in
combination), Filipino Americans (25 percent)
and Native Hawaiians (21 percent) rank
second and fourth in the state population with
Whites (42 percent) first and Japanese
Americans (23 percent) third. If other
minorities, including Micronesians, Hispanics,
Samoans, African Americans, Indo-Chinese,
and other smaller groups, are added to
Native Hawaiians and Filipino Americans,
more than 70 percent of public school
students are from minority groups. The
remaining 29 percent consists of the
socioeconomically and politically dominant
groupsWhites, Japanese Americans and
Americansthat are well represented in
Hawaiis private schools. At 42 percent of the
state population, Whites can be considered
hugely underrepresented in the DOE
schools. Among the minorities, it is
noteworthy that Micronesians, which includes
a number of culturally and nationally distinct
groupssuch as Marshallese, Belauans and
Chuukeseand Hispanics outnumber longer
resident populations, including Samoans and
Chinese Americans. This higher percentage
of Micronesians and Latinos reflects their
significant ongoing migration to Hawaii.
8
In marked contrast to its students, the 11,200
DOE teachers include Japanese Americans
(25 percent), Whites (24 percent), Native
Hawaiians (9.9 percent), Filipino Americans
(6.4 percent), Chinese Americans (3.6
percent), and Others (27 percent), which is
the largest and an undefined group. The
latter category probably consists primarily of
teachers who chose not to indicate their
ethnicity rather than those who belong to very
small groups because figures for Samoan
(57) and Native American (10) teachers are
provided. Hence, the percentages for all of
the groups are very likely higher. But it
remains the case that the two largest student
groupsNative Hawaiians and Filipino
Americansare vastly underrepresented
among DOE teachers.
Japanese Americans, Whites and Chinese
Americans continue to constitute a majority of
DOE teachers, and the two former groups
are substantially overrepresented in
comparison to their proportion of students.
White teachers include a considerable
number from the continental United States,
who are recruited each year by the DOE to
address its chronic shortage of teachers (see
below). As for Japanese Americans, their
percentage of both teachers and students
has been declining since the 1980s with the
then ongoing retirement of nisei (second
) and currently sansei (third generation)
educators. Regarding students, the lesser
number of children in Japanese American
families and the private school enrollment of
some of them have contributed to their
9
diminishing proportion in the public schools
during the past three decades.
The significance of the ethnic disparity
between DOE students and teachers
involves differences between the culture-
based learning styles of students and the
instructional methods of teachers. This
discrepancy is especially important in the
case of teachers recruited from the
continental United States with no prior
training in educating Hawaii students, who
represent a wide diversity of minority and
immigrant cultures. Multicultural teacher
educator Patricia Espiritu Halagao has
argued regarding instructing Filipino
American students in Hawaii, Lack of
professional development that focuses on the
needs of Filipino students prevents teachers
from teaching in culturally responsive ways,
which use the cultural and linguistic
backgrounds of students to teach them more
effectively. The unfamiliarity of newcomer
educators from the continental United States
with the pidgin English spoken by many local
children can result in difficulties in teaching
and communicating with them. But the
educational problems created by recruiting
teachers from the continental United States
are very much a consequence of the
underfunding of the public school system.
With increased funds for teacher salaries,
more teachers could be retained instead of
the ongoing loss of experienced instructors
well before retirement.
Due to such well known problems with the
public school system, Hawaii has the highest
proportion in the nation of K-12 students
enrolled in private schools at 16 percent or
more than 33,000 students in 2014-2015.
The Education Law Centers annual school
funding report in 2015 had a much higher
figure of 21 percent for Hawaii and the
District of Columbia, which were tied for the
highest percentage of private school
enrollment. Due to the fees they charge, one
can assume that a plurality, if not a majority,
of private school students are White,
Japanese American and Chinese American.
However, about 5,500 Native Hawaiian
students attend the Kamehameha Schools
on Oahu, Maui and Hawaii island, and
Filipino Americans are the most numerous
group in the Catholic schools.
It should not be presumed that private
schools necessarily provide better quality
education than the public schools do,
although those with established academic
reputations, such as Punahou School and
Iolani School, certainly do. At their high
schools, the entire graduating class goes on
10
to college in the following fall, most of them in
the continental United States, which is not
the case with public high school graduates.
But many private schools are limited in their
educational resources and activities for
students by their small enrollment, which is
itself an indication that they are not well
regarded academically by Hawaii parents
with school-age children. During and shortly
after the global recession, several private
schools had to close because of their
declining enrollment. Furthermore, private
school teachers are not required to be
professionally certified as DOE teachers are.
While clear differences in ethnicity, family
income, and access to college distinguish
public and private school students, it would
be incorrect to view this contrast between
public and private schools as reflecting an
ethnically divided K-12 school system in
Hawaii. No doubt more than two-thirds of
the students in the DOE schools are from
minority groups, while the largest number of
private school students are White, Japanese
American and Chinese American. However,
more White and Japanese American students
are enrolled in public schools than in private
schools, although they tend to attend the
public schools with better educational
reputations, at least as measured by higher
standardized test scores, which are likely to
be located in more affluent communities.
In spring 2016, almost 91,000 public school
students in grades three through eight and in
grade eleven took the Smarter Balanced
Assessment exam as part of the DOE-
developed Strive HI school accountability
system, which in 2013 replaced the federal
mandates under the No Child Left Behind
Act. The highest performing elementary due to the proximity of the Papakolea
schools in English language arts, based on Hawaiian Home Lands community, and at
the percentage of students who met or Kaiser, because of nearby Waimanalo, are
exceeded the achievement standard, were the only minority well represented at those
Kaelepulu Elementary (91 percent), Waikiki schools.
Elementary (84 percent), Momilani
As in the continental United States, the high
Elementary (83 percent), Mililani Ike
cost of homes in Hawaii is a highly relevant
Elementary (82 percent), and Lanikai
factor in the concentration of students based
Elementary (81 percent). These schools
on ethnicity at some public schools. For
vastly surpassed the overall state average of
example, Whites, Japanese Americans and
51 percent for all elementary school students.
Chinese Americans comprise a majority of
In math, the top achieving schools were
students at Kaiser High School in Hawaii
again Momilani Elementary (84 percent),
Kai, a middle to upper-middle class
Waikiki Elementary (84 percent), Kaelepulu
community, where only 16 percent of the
Elementary (83 percent), and Lanikai
students are considered economically
Elementary (80 percent), which were joined
disadvantaged, the lowest figure for all DOE
by Noelani Elementary (81 percent). These
high schools in the state. In contrast, Filipino
schools again far exceeded the state average
Americans and Samoans are minimally
of 42 percent. Most of the students at these
represented at the school. On the other
highest performing schools are White,
hand, Filipino Americans alone constitute 61
Japanese American and Chinese American
percent of the students at Farrington High
with smaller numbers of minority students.
School in Kalihi, a working class community
They also are located in communities in
in which they also are a majority of the
which Whites (Kaelepulu, Waikiki, Lanikai)
population, while Micronesians, Samoans
and Whites, Japanese Americans and
and Native Hawaiians (in that order) are also
Chinese Americans (Momilani, Mililani Ike,
well enrolled. Reflecting its surrounding
Noelani) are most numerous.
community, including two large public
housing complexes, a very high 71 percent of
Among DOE high schools, regarding the
Farrington students are from economically
percentage of students enrolled in college
within sixteen months of graduating from high disadvantaged families. But the considerable
school, the highest achieving schools were differences between the assessed value of
University Laboratory School (96 percent), homes in Hawaii Kai and Kalihi do not affect
Kalani High (84 percent), Kaiser High (81 the respective budgets for their local high and
percent), Kihei Charter School (78 percent), other public schools. Nonetheless,
and Roosevelt High (78 percent), while for significant differences in educational
Hawaii as a whole the figure was 62 percent. performance on standardized tests between
The largest groups of students at Kalani High students at those and other schools are
and Roosevelt High are Japanese American evident, which ultimately can be attributed to
and Chinese American, while Whites and
the deficient state funds allocated to the
Japanese Americans number the most at
DOE.
Kaiser High. Native Hawaiians at Roosevelt,

11
Underfunding and
Ethnic Inequality
12
As noted above, the most significant factor
that contributes to ethnic inequality in the
public school system is inadequate funding
by the state legislature, a long-term practice
that worsened in the years following the
onset of the global recession. Underfunding
is evident in the per pupil expenditure for
K-12 education by the state, which increased
by less than $200 between 2007-2008
($11,800) and 2011-2012 ($11,973), the last
year for which such data are available. While
Hawaiis per student expenditure during
those years was more than a $1,000 higher
than the national average, it was generally
lower than for states with which the DOE
compares Hawaii. These states are most
similar to Hawaii in terms of K-12 enrollment,
state population, per capita income, and per
capita state and local revenue. They and
their K-12 per pupil expenditure in 2011-2012
included Delaware ($13,600), Nebraska
($11,600), Rhode Island ($15,200), and
Wyoming ($16,000); thus except for
Nebraska, Hawaii spends much less per
student on K-12 education than its peer
states.
Insufficient funding is also apparent in
Hawaiis percentage of state and local
expenditures supporting public education,
which was substantially lower than the
national average (23 percent) during the
same five-year period as above and declined
each year from 19 percent (2007-2008) to 15
percent (2011-2012). As a result, Hawaii
continues to rank dead last of the fifty states
in the proportion of state and local
expenditures per capita devoted to public
education. The percentage for 2011-2012 is
the same as it was in 1998-1999 when
Hawaii also ranked the lowest. This lack of
13
progress in funding public education clearly
indicates that the K-12 public schools are not
regarded as a policy priority by state
legislators, who instead continue to
demonstrate a troubling lack of concern for
the deteriorating condition of public
education.
This intentional neglect was highly evident
during the 2009-2010 school year when the
public schools were closed for seventeen
days on Furlough Fridays because of a $1
billion deficit the state faced as a result of the
recession. Instead of convening a special
session in fall 2009 or taking up this critical
problem at the start of the legislative session
in January 2010, legislators did nothing about
it until the very end of the session in late
April. They then approved appropriating $50
million from state emergency funds so that
the schools would not be shut down again in
the next school year. In short, the funds were
always there for lawmakers to allocate if they
had wanted to keep the schools open in
2009-2010, but they chose to write off that
school year by not taking any action. While
the closure of the public schools and the
underfunding problem in general of the DOE
affect all students, it must be kept in mind
that 70 percent are from minority groups, so
they are more educationally disadvantaged
by inadequate funding than students from the
socioeconomically dominant groups. Given
their greater financial resources, the latter
also can opt to send their children to a private
school to avoid the educational deficiencies
prevalent in the DOE schools.
One of the major adverse consequences of
the insufficient funding of the public schools
is the persisting teacher shortage. As
schools across the state began the new
school year on August 1, 2016, the DOE still
had to fill 625 teaching positions, having
been able to hire only 100 teachers during
the summer. In recent years, new hires have
exceeded 1,000 teachers each year as
educators retire or leave the DOE. Another
primary reason for the teacher shortfall is that
the annual number of new hires with teaching
This intentional neglect was highly evident
during the 2009-2010 school year when the public
schools were closed for seventeen days on
Furlough Fridays because of a $1 billion deficit
the state faced as a result of the recession.
Instead of convening a special session in fall
2009 or taking up this critical problem at the
start of the legislative session in January 2010,
legislators did nothing about it until the very end
of the session in late April.
degrees from Hawaii public and private
universities has fallen to less than 500. This
decline is not necessarily because fewer
college students are interested in becoming
teachers but can be attributed to deficient
funds allocated to the College of Education at
UH Mnoa and the Departments of
Education at UH Hilo and West Oahu, which
otherwise could hire more faculty and accept
more students into their teaching programs.
Compounding the problem of not training
enough teachers is the continuing loss of
educators. The DOE reported that, of the
785 teachers hired in the 2010-2011 school
year, only 60 percent were still employed in
2014-2015, which nonetheless was the
14
highest five-year retention rate in ten years.
According to the Hawaii State Teachers
Association (HSTA), the union representing
13,500 public school teachers, the reasons
for teachers leaving the DOE include low
salaries, less than optimum classroom
facilities, and top-down administrative
dictates. In 2012, the state Board of
Education responded to the teacher retention
problem by requiring all probationary
teachers to participate in a DOE mentoring
program in which a dedicated teacher-mentor
is assigned to new teachers in their first two
years. This program might lessen the
retention problem but does not address the
recruitment problem.
To meet the annual teacher shortage, the
DOE continues to recruit new teachers from
across the continental United States, as it did
in 2016 in Chicago, Dallas, Las Vegas, Los
Angeles, Newark, New Jersey, Portland, and
Poughkeepsie, New York where previous
recruitment campaigns were successful.
Despite these aggressive recruitment efforts,
the teacher shortfall emerges each year, and
the DOEs fallback response is to fill
otherwise teacher-less classrooms with
emergency hires. The latter have bachelors
degrees, which do not have to be in
education, and have not completed or even
started a teacher certification program. The
starting salary for such uncertified teachers is
only $34,840. As HSTA president Corey
Rosenlee remarked about these substitute
teachers, they do not need to have any
content knowledge of the area theyre
teaching. We have tens of thousands of kids
every day going to what I call pretend
schools. We pretend theyre getting an
education, but they dont have teachers.
The tens of thousands of students who are
not being provided with an education
because of the lack of a qualified teacher in
their classroom consist primarily of minorities.
As noted above, the relatively low salaries
received by Hawaii public school teachers is
a major reason for their leaving the DOE.
According to the HSTA, the average salary
for a DOE teacher is about $55,000, which is
approximately $15,000 to $20,000 less than
their counterparts in comparable school
districts. Starting pay for a certified teacher
is $45,963, which is above the national
average but, when adjusted for Hawaiis high
cost of living, is lower than in school districts
with similar living costs, such as in Los
Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C.,
according to the HSTA. In 2016, WalletHub,
a finance and credit website, rated Hawaii
fifty-first or last in the nation (including
Washington, D.C.) as the worst state for
teachers based on a number of measurable
factors, including average starting salary for
teachers adjusted for cost of living, in which
15
Hawaii ranked last. Hawaii also had the
lowest median annual salary for teachers,
again adjusted for cost of living, although it
did somewhat better in terms of teachers
income growth potential (39th), ten-year
change in teacher salaries (34th), pupil-
teacher ratio (37th), and public-school
spending per student (19th). Being the worst
state for teachers leads one to wonder what
Hawaiis ranking would be for public school
students. An earlier study of K-12 public
education by the American Legislative
Exchange Council, the nations largest
bipartisan organization of state legislators,
rated Hawaiis public schools forty-seventh
among the fifty states in a study of one
hundred measures of educational resources
and student achievement between 1977 and
1997. This study points to the long-term
nature of the deficiencies of the DOE school
system, which have yet to be resolved, and
to their long-term impact on minority students
and hence ethnic inequality in Hawaii.
Yet another problem that has resulted from
underfunding over time is Hawaiis huge high
schools, the largest of which are Campbell
(3,100 students), Waipahu (2,500),
Farrington (2,400) and Mililani (2,400).
Filipino Americans are the most numerous
group at the first three schools and the
second in number at Mililani, while Native
Hawaiians are the second largest at
Campbell and Waipahu and the third most
numerous at Mililani. The issue with large
schools is that, besides small classes, small
schools have been found in educational
studies to enhance student achievement, so
the enormous size of public high schools
unfairly disadvantages minority students.
The DOE is fully aware of the educational
problems created by its overpopulated
schools and, in its $705 million capital
improvements budget request through bond
funding to the state legislature for the 2017
session, much of the funds would be used for
constructing new classroom buildings and
schools. These proposed projects include
the DOEs top priority for a new classroom
building at Campbell High School ($26.7
new high school in Kihei ($123.4 million). But
these are just a few of the many new
classroom buildings and schools that are
urgently needed to provide the basic facilities
for an adequate education for public school
students.
All of the critical problems outlined above in
K-12 public education in Hawaii, such as the

Despite aggressive recruitment efforts, a teacher

shortfall emerges every year, and the DOEs
fallback response is to fill otherwise teacher-less
classrooms with emergency hires. [They] do not
need to have any content knowledge of the area
theyre teaching, says HSTA President Corey
Rosenlee. We have tens of thousands of kids
every day going to what I call pretend schools.
We pretend theyre getting an
education, but they dont have
teachers.
relatively low per pupil expenditure by
the state and especially the teacher
shortage, can be traced back to the
chronic underfunding of the DOE by the
million),
state legislature. Hawaii is hardly the
implementation
only state that has experienced severe
of a campus
educational problems as a result of
modernization
insufficient funding of its public schools. In
master plan at
nearly every state during the past half
Farrington High
century, these issues have led to legal cases
School ($44.2
concerning the financing of public education,
million), and
and in 2016 such cases were pending in
construction of a
Kansas, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South
long-planned

16
Carolina and Washington. In
September 2016, a Connecticut
Superior Court judge ruled that
the state was defaulting on its
constitutional duty to give all
children a fair opportunity for an
elementary and secondary
school education. The judges
decision was in response to a
lawsuit filed by the Connecticut
Coalition for Justice in
Education Funding, which
argued that the state was not
allocating sufficient funds to its
poorest school districts. While
the state of Hawaii has no
constitutional provision requiring
that it provide its public school
students with an adequate
education, these numerous
lawsuits across the nation
demonstrate that continued
underfunding of public education
is not being accepted as the
normal state of affairs. Similarly,
parents and their children in
Hawaii should insist that
legislators provide them with
equal educational opportunity.

With $1 billion in the state

treasury to work with in
developing the next biennium
state budget during the 2017
legislative session, lawmakers
can have no excuse for
shortchanging Hawaiis public
school students and their
parents, who contributed to that
surplus by paying their taxes to
the state.

17
Challenging Ethnic
Inequality:
Transition to
College Programs
18
Fortunately, not all the news about Hawaiis
public schools is bad. A highly successful
initiative in fostering student entry into
college, and thus alleviating ethnic inequality,
are dual credit programs in which public high
school students take UH courses for credit
while fulfilling their high school graduation
requirements. These programs include
Running Start, started in 2001, in which
individual high school students enroll in a
course with college students at a UH
campus. Jump Start, begun ten years later,
allows high school seniors to spend their last
year at a UH community college enrolled full
time toward a job-related associates degree.
Lastly, the most promising program, Early
College, started in 2012, enables high school
students to take UH courses taught by
college faculty at their high school during or
after the school day or in the summer.
Students have responded very
enthusiastically to the three dual credit
programs, such that participation has grown
by 75 percent over the last five years. During
the 2015-2016 school year, every DOE high
school had students enrolled at a UH campus
through the Running Start program, and
seven high schools collaborated with four UH
community colleges in the Jump Start
program.
Very likely because of the convenience of
taking courses at their high school, the Early
College program has had remarkable
success in its four years of implementation.
At Waipahu High School, where Early
College was first introduced and which has
the largest program, about 600 students took
an Early College course during the last
school year. Besides students, the number
of college courses offered has increased
exponentially to meet student demand from
one class in summer 2012 to fifteen courses
scheduled for spring 2017, including English
204, Math 205 and History 151. Waipahu
19
Principal Keith Hayashi remarked on what
the program has meant to his students: I
cannot emphasize enough how Early College
has changed the lives of our students. From
not knowing what college is about and
college being [viewed as] something thats for
someone else to now being able to access
these courses, its changed the thinking of
our students and our families. Two-thirds of
Waipahu High School students are Filipino
American, followed by Native Hawaiian and
Samoan, and Early College has changed
their lives and their thinking about a college
degree as something they can attain for
themselves and their parents.
In the 2015-2016 school year, twenty-five
DOE high schools provided Early College
courses for their students, including
Farrington High School. The schools college
counselor Regan Honda observed, Many of
our students come from low-income
households, are first-generation college
students, and come from under-represented
populations and would never have
considered taking college classes while in
high school. Since the Early College
program commenced at Farrington, students
are not only taking college classes but finding
success, which in turns builds their
confidence. He related that most of their
students earned A grades in Farringtons
four Early College courses offered each
semester.
Providing an early college opportunity for
students to take UH courses at their high
school actually began in 2005 in a
partnership between Kamehameha Schools
(KS) Maui and UH Maui College. Similar to
the Early College program in the DOE high
schools, college courses, such as
Psychology 100 and Calculus 205 and 206,
are taught by Maui College instructors on
campus that enable students to earn high
school and college credits simultaneously.
Over the past decade, more than 500 KS
Maui students have enrolled in such courses,
and alumni have reported in surveys how
they were academically better prepared for
college after taking early college courses
while in high school. The effectiveness of the
KS Maui early college program has resulted
in its extension to the KS Kapalama and
for students and the salary of instructors.
Waipahu High Schools Early College
program is supported by the McInerny
Foundation, which provided a $256,000 grant
in 2013. Twelve other high schools, including
Farrington, received three-year grants in
2014 to develop Early College programs from
the Harold K. L. Castle Foundation and the
Hawaii P-20 Partnerships for Education

At Waipahu High School, where Early College was

first introduced and which has the largest
program, about 600 students took an Early
College course during the last school year, a
program which has had remarkable success in its
first four years.

Two-thirds of Waipahu High School students are

Filipino American, followed by Native Hawaiian
and Samoan.

Early College has changed their lives by

convincing them that a college degree is
something they can attain for themselves
and their parents.

Hawaii campuses in 2016, which promises to
increase Native Hawaiian entry into the UH
system and other universities.
A major obstacle in expanding the Early
College program to other DOE high schools
is the perennial problem in K-12 public
education in Hawaiiadequate funding
which has come from external sources rather
than from the state legislature. These funds
are needed to pay for the tuition and books
nonprofit organization (from hereon Hawaii
P-20). According to its website, the latter is a
statewide partnership led by the [state]
Executive Office on Early Learning, the
Hawaii State Department of Education and
the University of Hawaii System [that] works
to strengthen the education pipeline from
early childhood through higher education so
that all students achieve college and career
success. It has established a very ambitious
goal of 55 percent of Hawaiis working age

20
adults to have earned a two- or four-year
college degree by 2025 (55 by 25),
compared to the 44 percent at present. With
funding from private sources such as local
foundations, Hawaii P-20 provides
scholarships to cover tuition for Early College
students.
Hawaii P-20 recently issued an evaluation
report on the three DOE-UH dual credit
programs, which convincingly demonstrates
their effectiveness in promoting student entry
into college. The report found that public
high school students who participated in one
of the three programs are one-and-a-half
times more likely to attend college than their
peers, far exceeding Hawaii and national
college enrollment averages. Its findings
indicate that, among the 10 percent of the
graduates in the class of 2015, or almost
1,100 students, who had taken part in one of
the three dual credit programs, a very
impressive 81 percent of them enrolled in
college after graduating. In contrast, a much
lower 53 percent of their classmates who did
not participate in a dual credit program went
on to college. In 2015, Hawaiis overall
going rate for public high school graduates,
or the percentage of them who enroll in
college the next fall, was 56 percent (the
national rate was 68 percent), so dual-credit
program students again have a much higher
going rate to university.
The Hawaii P-20 report also found that
Hawaiis dual credit programs boosted
college enrollment among low-income
students, who are predominantly from
minority groups. Of the 2015 public high
school graduates, 76 percent of the
economically disadvantaged students who
had been in a dual credit program
subsequently enrolled in college, which
compared favorably with the 85 percent of
their noneconomically disadvantaged
21
classmates, who took dual credit courses and
went on to university. Perhaps more
significantly, economically disadvantaged
students who did not participate in a dual
credit program had a relatively low 41
percent going rate to college, which was
considerably less than the 61 percent going
rate for their noneconomically disadvantaged
counterparts who earned no dual credits.
Of the three dual credit programs, the
success of the Early College program has led
to DOE plans to request $9 million from the
state legislature during the 2017 session for a
two-year expansion of the program to all
public high schools in Hawaii. The
requested funds would be used to pay tuition
for six UH credits for every graduating senior,
which is a very bold initiative to raise the
college going rate of public high school
graduates, especially minority students. The
Early College program has succeeded
because of the collaboration among the
Department of Education, the University of
Hawaii, and local private foundations, which
have generously provided funds through
Hawaii P-20. What is obviously lacking at
this point is the active participation in this
partnership of the state legislature. However,
it remains to be seen if the legislature will
respond positively to the DOE funding
request for an obviously effective program.
As in previous legislative sessions, state
lawmakers have their own funding and
program priorities for K-12 public education,
which are often not the same as those of the
DOE or its students and teachers. However,
unlike in previous sessions, in 2017
legislators will have a historic $1 billion in
surplus funds to appropriate for the state
budget for the next two years. Giving every
high school senior the opportunity to take a
college course is a small step in reducing
ethnic inequality by directing them toward a
UH campus.
 After graduating from a
public or private high school
in Hawaii, a majority of such
graduates enter a UH
campus in the fall in differing
numbers from different
schools and ethnic groups.
This section of the study
discusses ethnic inequality in
the University of Hawaii
system among students of
differing ethnicity in Hawaii.
This inequality is evident in
their representation as
undergraduates and their
graduation from the different
campuses in the system,
particularly in relation to their
proportion of public school
students. As with the
previous section, the
discussion encompasses the
period from 2006 through
2016, during which
significant issues affecting
access, enrollment and
graduation occurred,
including the global
recession and annual tuition
hikes during that decade.

University of
Hawaii System
22
 Figure 2. University of Hawaii System

Samoan 0.9%
Undergraduate Students by Ethnicity, Fall 2016

African American 1.7%

Hispanic 2.0%
Korean American 2.1%

Source: Special tabulation, Institutional Research and Analysis Office, University of Hawaii.

Raising tuition was necessitated by the inequality, particularly at UH Manoa, where

underfunding of the UH system by the state
legislature, a critical problem the university
shares with the DOE, with resulting negative
consequences for enrollment. The analysis
of that period reveals that tuition increases
and deficient funding had different impacts on
students from different ethnic groups, but the
overall result has been to reinforce ethnic
minority students continue to be greatly
underrepresented.
With a total enrollment of about 53,400
students in fall 2016, the University of Hawaii
system consists of ten campuses led by UH
Mnoa (18,100 students), its flagship
research-extensive institution that offers a full

23
range of bachelors, masters, professional
and doctoral degrees. UH Hilo (3,700) grants
a wide number of baccalaureate degrees and
a limited number of masters and doctorate
degrees in fields such as Hawaiian and
indigenous language, pharmacy, and
education, while UH West Oahu (2,900)
provides only bachelors degrees. The seven
community colleges (28,800) include four on
OahuKapiolani (7,400), Honolulu (3,900),
Leeward (7,300) and Windward (2,500)and
three on neighbor islandsKauai
Community College (1,400), Hawaii
Community College (3,000) and Maui
College (3,300). Since 2011, the latter has
offered a bachelor of applied science degree
in three fields in addition to associates
degrees and certificates. Besides
considerably lower tuition, the much higher
enrollment in the community colleges reflects
their open admissions policy of accepting
anyone at least eighteen years of age,
whether or not they have a high school
diploma or a General Education
Development (GED) certificate.
number of such students in the community
colleges. However, these systemwide figures
obscure wide disparities in enrollment by
ethnicity at the various campuses, especially
substantial minority undergraduate
underrepresentation at UH Mnoa, although
such is not necessarily the case at the other
campuses. Among the latter, community
college enrollment by ethnicity can be very
misleading, particularly if it is assumed that
students will transfer to and graduate from
the UH baccalaureate-degree institutions in
approximately the same proportion as their
community college representation. In the
discussion below, an ethnic group is
considered under-, over- or proportionately
represented at a given UH
campus based on its
percentage in the
public schools.

In terms of ethnicity among

undergraduate students, the UH system
in fall 2016 includes in descending order:
Native Hawaiian (24 percent), White (16
percent), Filipino American (15 percent),
Japanese American (7.4 percent),
Chinese American (4.2 percent),
Korean American (2.1 percent),
Hispanic (2.0 percent), African
American (1.7 percent), and Samoan
(0.9 percent) students (see Figure 2).
The university administration often cites
such systemwide enrollment data when it
seeks to argue that minority representation
has risen, which is the result of the large

24


25
Enrollment
Since 2006, enrollment in the UH system has
fluctuated considerably, rising to all-time
highs of more than 60,000 students for three

& Lowered
consecutive years starting in 2010, but then
beginning to drop two years later, which has

Tuition
continued to fall 2016 (see Appendix 1).
Enrollment in the latter semester is slightly
less than what it was in 2008. The system

Hikes
enrollment highs were primarily driven by
similarly unprecedented numbers in
community college students, which exceeded
34,000 in 2010 and the following year.
26
To place these record figures in perspective,
as recently as 2000, enrollment in the UH
system totaled less than 45,000 students,
while at the community colleges it was below
24,000 and at UH Mnoa less than 17,300.
In all three cases, these were enrollment
nadirs that followed five consecutive years of
decrease, which had resulted from massive
tuition hikes throughout the UH system,
especially at Mnoa of 50 percent in 1996
and 23 percent the next year. However, after
attaining the historic highs in student
numbers noted above, since 2012 they have
been falling at every UH campus with the
notable exception of West Oahu, which
opened its new campus that year. In
Hawaii residents are much better represented at
UH Mnoa among undergraduate than graduate
students because UH Board of Regents policy
mandates that 70 percent of the former must be
state residents.
consequence, ongoing enrollment decline,
particularly at UH Mnoa, has developed into
a major problem for the UH administration to
contend with as it seeks to maintain student
numbers by limiting tuition increases, which
created the problem in the first place.
Regarding the recent record numbers of UH
students, they can be attributed to the global
recession beginning in 2008, which resulted
in many workers who had lost their jobs to
enroll especially in the community colleges,
perhaps to gain new work skills that could be
used when the labor market improved. Thus,
when the Hawaii economy began to recover
starting in 2011, those laid-off workers
returned to work, and UH enrollment has
consequently shrunk, particularly at the
community colleges, which lost more than
27
5,000 students by 2016, and at UH Manoa.
Unfortunately, the enormous gains in
community college students during the
recession did not result in their significant
transfer to UH Mnoa, although student
numbers grew at UH Hilo and UH West
Oahu during and after the recession. Insofar
as the record enrollment figures directly
resulted from the recession and its impact
especially on the tourist industry, they were
unsustainable in the long term once the
economy began to improve and more jobs
became available in service and sales work,
thus attracting residents without a college
degree.
At UH Mnoa, enrollment did not fluctuate as
much as at the community colleges due to
the recession. Between 2006 and 2011, the
number of both undergraduate and graduate
students rose by only 72 to about 20,400.
However, the overall enrollment trend at
Mnoa since 2006 has been persistent
reduction from 20,400 to 18,100 students in
fall 2016, although small gains of several
hundred students occurred during the
recession years of 2008 and 2009. But since
the latter year, UH Mnoa, the campus with
the largest enrollment by far, has
experienced virtually seven consecutive
years of decrease with consequent losses in
tuition revenue. The Enrollment Projections
report for UH Mnoa for 2016 to 2021, which
was issued in March 2016 by the UH
Institutional Research and Analysis Office,
predicted that university by far in
Subsequent mild Despite the continuing the state.

reduction in students due

decline will bring
the campus total to A UH report, High
just over 18,000 by to tuition being raised, School Background
fall 2021; however, university officials of First-Time
that figure has
continue to invoke their Students [at the]
already arrived five University of
years earlier than view that UH tuition is Hawaii for fall
projected. affordable and very 2015, presented
cheap without the most recent

considering if Hawaii
Since 2006 at UH
Mnoa, the number
of classified students and their
undergraduates families have a similar
has dropped from
understanding.
13,500 to 12,800
students in fall
2016, although it
grew annually between 2008 (13,400) and
2012 (14,300) and then began to fall (see
Appendix 2). Some of those students, after
losing their jobs during the recession, may
have either returned to Mnoa to complete
their bachelors degrees or decided to
transfer after completing a UH community
college degree because of lesser
employment prospects, especially in the
tourist industry. Hawaii residents are much
better represented at UH Mnoa among
undergraduate than graduate students
because UH Board of Regents policy
mandates that 70 percent of the former must
be state residents. While the total number of
Mnoa undergraduates has fallen by 700
during the past decade, more significantly,
the number of undergraduates who are
Hawaii residents has plummeted by 1,400
students between 2012 and fall 2016. This
huge reduction in just four years shows that
the largest constituency that UH Mnoa
should be servingstudents from Hawaii
has become either unwilling or unable to
pursue their college education at the best
data on the going
rate of Hawaii high
school graduates to
the UH system.
The going rate of
those high school
graduates, both
public and private,
to the UH system was 34 percent that fall,
which represented a sizable 5 percentage
point drop since the most recent peak in fall
2009 during the recession. In fall 2015, the
number of first-time freshmen from Hawaii
high schools (4,600) who enrolled at a UH
campus decreased by nearly 20 percent from
the 2009 high (5,700). At UH Mnoa that fall,
42 percent of the 1,900 first-time freshmen
were from Hawaii public high schools, 18
percent from private high schools in the state,
and 38 percent from high schools in the
continental United States. The latter figure is
troubling since it indicates that UH Mnoa is
greatly exceeding the 30 percent Board of
Regents limit on nonresident admissions,
which it resorts to because of the ongoing
loss of resident undergraduates.
These more recent enrollment declines at UH
Mnoa since 2012, especially among Hawaii
undergraduates, can be correlated with the
five-year tuition schedule for the academic
years 2012-2013 through 2016-2017. The
schedule included approximately 5 percent
hikes for resident undergraduates in the first

28
two years and 7 percent increments in the
last three years, which would raise tuition by
more than 30 percent. It was approved by
the Board of Regents in 2011 when the
university was confronted with major cuts in
state funding. While seemingly modest,
these tuition hikes have clearly had an
adverse impact on Mnoa enrollment.
Similar tuition increases also were approved
for the other UH campuses for the same five-
year period.
As a result of the precipitous enrollment
losses since 2012, the UH administration and
the Board of Regents have had to take the
extraordinary action of lowering planned
tuition hikes for resident undergraduate
students throughout the system. In May
2015, they first reduced the previously
approved 7 percent increase to 5 percent for
each of the last two years of the five-year
tuition schedule at UH Mnoa. At UH Hilo
and UH West Oahu, tuition was lowered
from 7 to 4 percent raises, while at the
community colleges it was cut back to 5
percent, indicative of enrollment downturns
throughout the system (except West Oahu).
As student numbers continued to drop, the
following year in July 2016 the Board of
Regents approved the next three-year tuition
schedule for the 2017-2018 through
2019-2020 academic year. At UH Mnoa, it
included a surprising 0 percent hike in the
first year to be followed by minimal 2 percent
increments the last two years. When this
three-year tuition plan was first proposed in
February 2016 by UH President David
Lassner, it had a 2 percent increase for
resident undergraduates in the first year, but
that hike was rescinded by him at the July
board meeting, very likely because
enrollment continued to shrink.
The last time tuition was not raised at UH
Mnoa from one academic year to the next
29
was between 1999 and 2000, although the
university is hardly flush with appropriations
from the state legislature. The other UH
campuses also will not increase tuition in fall
2017, but UH Hilo and UH West Oahu will
have 1 percent hikes the following two years,
while the community colleges will have a 2
percent increment in those years. In the
context of continued underfunding from the
state legislature, these decisions
demonstrate that the UH administration and
the Board of Regents are seeking to mitigate
the ongoing loss of tuition revenue resulting
from the ongoing loss of students.
Despite the continuing reduction in students
due to tuition being raised, university officials
continue to invoke their view that UH tuition is
affordable and very cheap without
considering if Hawaii students and their
families have a similar understanding. In
February 2016 when the proposed three-year
schedule was unveiled, university
spokesperson Dan Meisenzahl asserted,
Were still affordable. You can go to UH
Mnoa, put it on a credit card and graduate
like you just bought a brand-new car. You
can pay $30,000 in debt down over time
considering the amount of money youd make
over your lifetime with a college degree. Its
still a fantastic deal. If attending Mnoa was
affordable by simply using ones credit card,
why does the university need financial aid
offices at every campus to assist students
obtain scholarships and loans? Also, if the
cost of tuition at Mnoa was already such a
fantastic deal, why was the 2 percent
increment in the first year of the new tuition
schedule eliminated just five months later?
More ominously, the UH chief financial officer
Kalbert Young professed a similar view of the
low cost of UH tuition in testimony at the
state legislature in February 2016. He
argued, We recognize the tuition increases
in recent history have been substantial.
However, it may be important to note that
tuition at UH as recently as 2011 were [sic]
very cheap, and even today remain relatively
low. Many Hawaii students and their
parents probably disagree with his financial
opinion based on their relative family
circumstances. Young was giving testimony
at a state House Committee on Higher
Education hearing in opposition to a bill that
would have allowed the legislature to veto
At UH Mnoa, the 15 to Finish campaign is
intended to raise its four-year graduation rate
particularly for first-time freshmen by
encouraging them to enroll for fifteen credits each
semester. Not mentioned on the 15 to Finish
website as one of the major reasons for the
creation of the initiative was that, in its 2011
accreditation report of UH Mnoa, the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges
recommended that the university raise its below
average four-year graduation rate.
tuition hikes approved by the UH Board of
Regents. Noting annual raises the previous
four years, the bills introduction stated, The
Legislature finds that the tuition schedule
established by the Board of Regents of the
University of Hawaii has created an
unreasonable increase in the cost of
attendance. Instead of seeking to
micromanage the university, state legislators
could have easily addressed the
unreasonable increase in tuition by
appropriating sufficient funds to the university
so that tuition did not have to be inflated so
much. The failed bill makes clear that the
crux of the issue is the politics of funding
30
public education and not simply its financing.
These political squabbles should not be used
to deny equal access to a college education
for Hawaiis young people.
In his July 2016 address to the Board of
Regents regarding the most recent tuition
plan, UH President Lassner asserted that he
believe[d] the planwas sound and protects
student access, including an increased
commitment to financial aid. If protecting
student access, especially of minorities, to a
college education was a policy priority of
theirs, the UH administration and Board of
Regents would not have boosted tuition to
the extent they have since 2006. The six-
year tuition schedule which started that fall
through 2011 included $816 yearly increases
at UH Mnoa, which inflated tuition 140
percent over that period. To put those huge
hikes in perspective, from 1998 through
2005, Mnoa tuition grew by a miniscule $48
each year except, as noted above, in fall
2000 when it remained the same. As a
result, enrollment began a five-year recovery
of annual gains between 2001 until 2006
when the descent resumed.
Rather than protecting student access,
particularly to UH Mnoa, the new 2017-2020
tuition plan is intended primarily to protect
tuition revenue for the university. Without
minimizing tuition increases, the university
could find itself in even worse financial
straits, despite (or because of) the Hawaii
economy doing especially well with the
lowest unemployment rate since 2006. The
availability of jobs results in many high school
graduates opting to go to work instead of
going to college at the community colleges.
Significantly, Lassner did not mention
plummeting enrollment as a reason for his
administrations new tuition schedule,
focusing instead on the concern [of Regents
and very likely state legislators] that our
campus resourcesdollars, positions and
spaceare not being managed as
strategically as they could be to meet the
comprehensive needs of our state. He thus
implied that for the next several years the
university would focus on belt-tightening as
its primary financial strategy rather than
recovery of lost faculty positions or long-
overdue repair and maintenance of the
campus infrastructure.
It appears that after annual raises since
2000, tuition at UH Mnoa has reached a
point that it has become unaffordable for
many Hawaii residents, particularly the
parents of minority students. As I wrote in my
book Ethnicity and Inequality in Hawaii
regarding proposed tuition increases for
2006-2011, at the Board of Regents meeting
in May 2005 when they were approved, none
of the Regents asked the basic question of
whether students would continue to enroll at
their current level if tuition was raised
substantially. Since 2012, that question has
been clearly answered with the declining
number of undergraduates, especially from
31
Hawaii, at UH Mnoa and other campuses.
Tuition hikes have been necessitated by
dwindling funding provided by the state
legislature to the UH system, even after the
economy had recovered from the recession.
In fiscal year 2009 (starting July 1, 2008), the
university received about $460.5 million in
general appropriations from the legislature
and $422.5 million the following year as the
recession continued, which fell to $413
million in fiscal year 2014. In the current
fiscal year, state appropriations to UH total
$432 million, which is still much less than the
pre-recession amount. As Lassner observed
in his July 2016 remarks to the Board of
Regents concerning the 2017-2020 tuition
schedule, It is clear that the [repair and
maintenance] condition of the Mnoa campus
is a problem that has been created over
decades during which UH has requested
support from the Legislature and has not
received what the campus needs. The
repair and maintenance backlog exceeded
$500 million in 2016 and grows annually as
buildings continue to deteriorate and threaten
the health and safety of tens of thousands of
students, staff and faculty every day.
Commenting on tuition expansion over the
years, state Representative Roy Takumi, who
is a member of the House Higher Education
Committee, remarked, Frankly, the reason
the university has to raise tuition is because
weve refused to general-fund it. If we had
funded the university to the degree that we
should, they probably wouldnt raise tuition.
So I find it odd that were the proximate
cause for some of the tuition raises, and yet
theyd have to come back to us. The issue is
that enrollment is dropping and tuition can
only be inflated so much, leaving the
university having to come back to the
legislature for additional funds to replace
those that it stopped allocating during the
recession.
It might be argued that a possible factor
contributing to the decline in resident
undergraduates at UH Mnoa is the
universitys 15 to Finish campaign. Started
in 2012, this initiative encourages students to
graduate on time in four years at the
baccalaureate-degree granting institutions
and in two years at the community colleges.
At UH Mnoa, the campaign is intended to
raise its four-year graduation rate particularly
for first-time freshmen by encouraging them
to enroll for fifteen credits each semester.
According to UHs 15 to Finish website, the
reasons why a student should take fifteen
credits every semester include: Youre more
likely to graduate on time; Research has
shown youre more likely to get better
grades; and If you attend a 4-year college,
youll save money, since taking 15 credits is
the same cost as taking 12 credits. Youre
getting 3 credits for FREE! Not mentioned
on the website as one of the major reasons
for the creation of the initiative was that, in its
2011 accreditation report of UH Mnoa, the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
recommended that the university raise its
below average four-year graduation rate. It is
well known, at least by faculty, that a primary
reason that UH Mnoa students take longer
to graduate than their peers in the continental
United States is because a substantial
majority of them work while they are
attending college, which can be attributed to
the ever increasing cost of tuition. The
proportion of working students at the UH
community colleges is even higher, which
accounts for the much lower percentage of
them who have enrolled for fifteen credits
since the campaign began. Without such
income from part-time or even full-time jobs,
many students in the community colleges
would not even be there.
32
The first cohort of first-time freshmen that
entered UH Mnoa when the 15 to Finish
campaign began in 2012 just completed their
fourth year at the university. The nearly
1,900 students in the cohort had an overall
graduation rate of 32 percent. Chinese
Americans (48 percent) had the highest rate
and were the only group above the overall
percentage for the cohort. They were
followed by Japanese Americans (32
percent), Filipino Americans (29 percent),
Native Hawaiians (29 percent), Whites (28
percent), and African Americans (19 percent).
The below-average graduation rate for
Whites is because many of them from the
continental United States do not remain at
UH Mnoa for four years. At UH Hilo, the 15
to Finish initiative has been less successful
after four years with the first cohort having a
graduation rate of 19 percent. Japanese
Americans (33 percent) were the only group
exceeding that rate, while Whites (19
percent), Native Hawaiians (18 percent) and
Filipino Americans (12 percent) were at or
below it.
The 15 to Finish campaign is one of the
principal components of the Hawaii
Graduation Initiative (HGI) of the University of
Hawaii that seeks to enlarge the number of
college graduates in the state, especially the
Hawaii P-20 goal of 55 by 25. HGI is one
of four primary strategic directions or
priorities of the university outlined in its
University of Hawaii Strategic Directions,
2015-2021 planning document. The goal
of HGI is to increase the educational capital
of the state by increasing the participation
and completion of students, particularly
Native Hawaiians, low-income students and
those from underserved regions and
populations and [by] preparing them for
success in the workforce and their
communities. This goal is to be achieved
through four action strategies, including 1)
Strengthen the pipeline from K-12 to the
university to improve college readiness and
increase college attendance; 2) Implement
structural improvements that promote
persistence to attain a degree and timely
completion; 3) Anticipate and align curricula
with community and workforce needs; 4)
Solidify the foundations for UH West Oahu
and Hawaii CC at Palamui [in Kona], our
startup campuses, and establish large-scale
student support services for Native
Hawaiians, low-income students, and the
under-represented populations they serve.
Except for the third strategy, the others are
certainly very relevant for this study since
their concern is with increasing minority,
especially Native Hawaiian, representation
and graduation in the UH system, starting
with the K-12 educational pipeline.
Like most strategic plans, each of these
action strategies has various tactics by
which they are to be achieved; for example,
for the first strategy, one of the tactics is to
Emphasize pipeline and college readiness
initiatives for Native Hawaiians, rural
communities, low-income and under-
represented groups, including through UH
programs and through partnerships with non-
UH entities. The university could be said to
be implementing this tactic through the Early
College and other dual credit programs. It
can be lauded for explicitly stating that it has
a goal to expand the enrollment and
graduation of Native Hawaiian and other
minority students in the UH system through
various action strategies and tactics. But
this planning document is hardly the first in
the history of the university, and it may very
well end up mostly unrealized by 2021
without substantial funding support from the
state legislature.
33
The only UH campus not to experience
enrollment losses since 2012 has been West
Oahu. It has had annual gains almost every
year during the past three decades and thus
has more than tripled the number of its
students from less than 900 in 2006 to 2,900
in fall 2016 (see Appendix 1). The primary
reasons for this huge growth are the opening
of its new campus in 2012 and becoming a
four-year university in 2007 when it began to
admit freshmen. UH West Oahu has also
been appropriated funds by the state
legislature that have enabled it to hire many
new faculty and hence to offer a wider range
of majors than it did at its previous campus,
which was located in portable wooden
structures next to Leeward Community
College.
Native Hawaiian and Filipino American
students have enrolled in considerable
numbers at West Oahu, where they are the
largest groups by far, and their representation
reflects their relatively greater presence in
leeward Oahu than in Honolulu. The
attraction of leeward area students to UH
West Oahu very likely has reduced the
number of Mnoa undergraduates since the
campus is much closer to where they live,
and new housing subdivisions in the Kapolei
area have greatly expanded the surrounding
population. The substantially lower annual
tuition ($7,200 in 2016) than at UH Mnoa
($10,872) also has contributed to West Oahu
augmenting its enrollment in contrast to
Mnoa. As for its student growth, especially
of Filipino Americans and Native Hawaiians,
in the former plantation field of dreams where
it is located, the UH West Oahu campus truly
embodies the slogan, If you build it, they will
come.
 Differential
Ever rising
tuition and the Ethnic Impact
on Enrollment
persisting
underfunding
of the UH
system have
differing Americansare financially able to pay the
impacts on ethnic groups and their higher UH tuition or can send their children to
representation and graduation in the system
colleges in the continental United States and
and thus on ethnic inequality in thus for the most part have not been
postsecondary public education in Hawaii.
adversely affected. But socioeconomically
The socioeconomically dominant groups disadvantaged groups, including Native
Whites, Japanese Americans and Chinese Hawaiians, Filipino Americans and Samoans,

34
with their considerably lesser financial
resources are less able to afford the tuition
hikes and hence continue to be severely
underrepresented at UH Mnoa in relation to
their proportion of public school students.
Although between 2006 and 2016 their
numbers at UH Mnoa have grown by more
than 600 undergraduates, Native Hawaiians
have suffered enrollment losses since 2012,
such that they constitute 15 percent of such
students (see Appendix 2). Their
undergraduate representation especially
expanded starting in 2010, when the
universitys new race and ethnicity
classification system was instituted (see
below), by more than 600 students in two
years but has since declined for four
consecutive years. In contrast to UH Mnoa,
in fall 2016 and earlier, Native Hawaiians are
much better represented at UH Hilo (29
percent) and UH West Oahu (28 percent),
where they are the largest undergraduate
group at both campuses, and can be
considered somewhat overly represented in
relation to their public school enrollment (26
percent).
A possible factor in the gain in Native
Hawaiian undergraduates at UH Mnoa
during the past ten years is how the
university counts who is Native Hawaiian. All
applicants to the ten UH campuses complete
the System Application Form that includes
three items on race and ethnicity. One
question asks, Were any of your ancestors
Hawaiian? with yes or no boxes to mark.
The next item, Ethnicity, requests applicants
to check one of two boxesHispanic or
Latino or Not Hispanic or Latinofollowing
U.S. Census Bureau practice. The last item,
Race, asks applicants to circle one or more
acronyms (for example, HW for Native
Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian/Mixed Hawaiian) for
various racial and ethnic categories, including
Caucasian or White, African American,
American Indian/Alaska Native, and
Chinese, Filipino, and so forth.
In spring 2010, the University of Hawaii,
along with other U.S. higher education
institutions, changed its procedures for
collecting race and ethnicity data on students
to comply with reporting requirements of the
U.S. Department of Education. However, the
university follows a different rule for
counting Native Hawaiian students. This rule
is simply stated as Hawaiian/part-Hawaiian
trumps all, in other words, a student who
indicates on their application form that they
have Hawaiian ancestors or that their race
is Native, Part-, or Mixed Hawaiian is
tabulated as Hawaiian, even if they circled
other categories under the Race question
and thus could be classified as Mixed Pacific
Islander. Furthermore since 2005, according
to the universitys methods for counting
Native Hawaiians, a student can answer
negatively or not respond to the question
about having Hawaiian ancestors but still be
categorized as Native Hawaiian, if they claim
such in the Race item.
The University of Hawaii appears to be
seeking to maximize the number of students
it can claim as Native Hawaiian, even those
who explicitly indicate that they lack the
defining legal criterion of being Hawaiian,
which is ancestry, and whether or not those
students identify themselves as Native
Hawaiian as their primary identity. Since
1978 when the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was
35
established as a state agency, the Hawaii undergraduates occurred especially between
constitution has defined a Native Hawaiian as 2008 (2,400 students) and 2012 (1,700
a member or descendant of the aboriginal students), a period during which Mnoa
people who, before 1778, occupied and undergraduates grew by more than 800
exercised students. Most of this
sovereignty in the decrease of Japanese
area that now In spring 2010, the American students (500)
comprises the State University of Hawaii, happened between
of Hawaii. As such, along with other U.S. 2008 and 2010 when
the university is
higher education the current UH race and
arguably violating ethnicity classification
state law by
institutions, changed system became
classifying as Native its procedures for effective, a reduction
Hawaiian students collecting race and which is historically
who state that they ethnicity data on unprecedented for a
lack Hawaiian students to comply two-year period for any

with reporting
ancestry. The ethnic group at UH
reason why the Mnoa since at least
university is requirements of the 1977. Japanese
intentionally U.S. Department of American representation
enlarging its Native Education. However, at Mnoa has actually
Hawaiian enrollment the university follows a been falling, although
is obviousso that it
different rule for not necessarily every

counting
can appear to be
doing a more
effective job in Hawaiian
recruiting and
retaining them than is
actually the case because they remain
severely underrepresented at UH Mnoa.
In contrast to Native Hawaiians, since 2006
Japanese American undergraduate
enrollment at UH Mnoa has dropped by
1,300 students to less than 1,200 in fall 2016
(see Appendix 2). They thus constitute 9
percent of undergraduates and are the fourth
largest group after Whites, Native Hawaiians,
and Filipino Americans, as they are in the
public schools. Their more than 50 percent
decline between 2006 and 2016 of Mnoa
Native
year, since 1996 when
they totaled more than
students. 3,300 students and 27
percent of
undergraduates. Given
the relatively high socioeconomic status of
Japanese Americans, their enrollment losses
are not primarily due to their financial inability
to afford the rising tuition at UH Mnoa.
Instead, several other factors have
contributed to the drop in Japanese American
undergraduates at UH Mnoa during the past
two decades, although that does not
necessarily mean that the number of
undergraduates of Japanese ancestry has
declined. The first factor is the UH race and
ethnicity classification system because it

36
results in multiracial or multiethnic students of
Japanese descent being counted as Mixed
Race, Mixed Asian, or Native Hawaiian,
as in the case of students who are of
Japanese, especially Okinawan, and Native
Hawaiian ancestry. Classifying such
students into the above categories reduces
the number of Japanese American students.
For example, a student who indicates on the
UH application form that s/he is of White and
Japanese descent is counted as Mixed
Race, while one who states that s/he is of
Korean and Japanese ancestry is tabulated
as Mixed Asian. The number of such
racially or ethnically mixed Japanese
American college students has undoubtedly
grown since the 1990s as intermarriage
between Japanese Americans and other
groups began to increase starting in the
1970s, particularly with Whites and other
Asian groups, such as Chinese Americans
and Korean Americans.
In fall 2016 at UH Mnoa, the number of
Mixed Race undergraduates was a
considerable 2,100, while Mixed Asian
students totaled 1,300 and, combined
together, at about one-third they would
comprise the largest group among
undergraduates. Japanese Americans very
likely constitute a substantial number of those
racially or ethnically mixed students. An
overall mixed ethnic and racial category had
been available for UH students to select for
themselves on the previous application form
since at least the 1970s, but many Japanese
American and other racially or ethnically
mixed applicants chose to claim membership
in a single racial or ethnic group. However,
that option is no longer available to them, and
they are being classified by the university into
racial or ethnic categories that do not reflect
the racial or ethnic identities they assert for
themselves.
Another relevant demographic factor in the
decline in the number of Japanese American
undergraduates at UH Mnoa is the
continuing decreasing number of children in
Japanese American families, which results in
fewer of them attending college. This smaller
number of children has been apparent earlier
in the public elementary schools where
Japanese American enrollment has fallen
over the years, although private school
education also has contributed to it. The
relatively high socioeconomic status of
Japanese Americans also means that
parents have the financial means to send
their children to the continental United States
for their college education, thus reducing the
number who attend UH Mnoa. This high
financial status also implies that most
Japanese American families and their
college-bound children have not been
negatively affected by the regular tuition
hikes during the past decade. If they had
been adversely impacted, then Japanese
American enrollment in the community
colleges would have risen due to the lower
cost, but in fact has also plunged by 60
percent since 2006 such that they were just
6.6 percent of such students in fall 2016.
Therefore increasing tuition is not the
principal reason for the apparent enrollment
decrease of Japanese Americans.
Like Native Hawaiians, Filipino Americans
are highly underrepresented among UH
Mnoa undergraduates (12 percent)
compared to their proportion of K-12 public
school students (22 percent) (see Appendix
37
2). Unlike Japanese Americans, since 2006
their enrollment at Mnoa has risen by
almost 200 students and since 2012 has not
dropped and has stabilized at more than
1,400 undergraduates. In the context of
annual tuition hikes and Filipino Americans
having lower median family income than
other groups, their numbers not declining is a
remarkable achievement. However, Filipino
Americans have yet to regain their all-time
second largest group (20 percent) and can
be considered proportionately represented in
relation to their public school enrollment.
They are also well represented at the UH
community colleges (17 percent) in fall 2016
but remain hugely underrepresented at UH
Hilo (8 percent), which has been the case for
at least the past thirty years, if not longer, and
can be correlated with the minimal number of
Filipino American faculty.

More costly out-of-state tuition is the primary

reason that UH Mnoa and UH Hilo began actively
recruiting White and other students from the
continental United States in the early 2000s,
given stagnating appropriations from the state
legislature and plunging enrollment. This
recruitment led to the marginalization of students
from Hawaii, especially from underrepresented
minorities, as both Mnoa and Hilo openly violated
the UH Board of Regents cap on nonresident
undergraduate enrollment of 30 percent. The
result was that Whites quickly became the largest
group at UH Mnoa by 2002 and have remained
such since then, even with their declining
numbers.

high in undergraduate representation at UH

Mnoa of 1,600 students in 1995, the year
just before the enormous tuition increases in
1996 and 1997. The latter led to their
enrollment plummeting for six consecutive
years until 2001 when the downward
trajectory finally ended. As noted above,
their recent numbers at UH Mnoa have
been reduced by the expansion of UH West
Oahu where Filipino Americans are the
Similar to Japanese Americans, White
undergraduate enrollment at UH Mnoa (20
percent) has shrunk since 2006 but by about
500 students, most of which (400) occurred
after 2012 with annual losses since then (see
Appendix 2). Unlike other undergraduates at
Mnoa, most Whites are not Hawaii
residents and, as such, they pay
considerably higher tuition than what

38
residents pay. This more costly tuition is the Most out-of-state students do not pay full
primary reason that UH Mnoa and UH Hilo nonresident tuition if their permanent
began actively recruiting White and other residence is in one of the Western
students from the continental United States in Undergraduate Exchange (WUE) states.
the early 2000s, given stagnating Through this agreement among public
appropriations from the state legislature and universities in Alaska, Arizona, California,
plunging enrollment. This recruitment led to Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
the marginalization of students from Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, North
especially from underrepresented minorities, Dakota, Oregon, South
as both Mnoa and Hilo openly violated the Dakota, Utah,
UH Board of Regents cap on nonresident Washington, and
undergraduate enrollment of 30 Wyoming,WUE
percent. The result was that exchange
Whites quickly students are
became the largest eligible to pay 150
group at UH Mnoa percent of the
by 2002 and have resident tuition
remained such at the university
since then, even they attend,
with their declining instead of the
numbers. The entire
latter may well be nonresident
due to the tuition. In fall
ongoing tuition 2016 when there were
hikes since 2,300 WUE students at Mnoa, not all of
2006, which whom are White, they paid $16,308 in
have raised tuition for the academic year. Other
annual tuition and out-of-state undergraduates have to
fees to a whopping pay full tuition, including those from
$33,764 for non-WUE universities and
nonresident international students. These
undergraduates in fall nonexempted nonresident students have
2016, which does not dropped by more than 600 since 2006 to
include the cost of housing and 700 students in fall 2016 as tuition has
food. Whites continue to be well escalated. These losses demonstrate that by
represented as undergraduates at raising tuition UH Mnoa has priced itself out
UH Hilo (25 percent) but less so at UH West of the higher education market for a growing
Oahu (13 percent) and the community number of students from the continental
colleges (13 percent). United States and abroad.

39
40
Ethnic Inequality
in Graduation
Besides enrollment, another significant
indicator of ethnic inequality in the UH
system is graduation from its baccalaureate-
degree granting institutions, particularly
among first-time freshmen. At UH Mnoa, for
such freshmen who entered in fall 2010, after
six years their overall graduation rate with a
bachelors degree was 58 percent, which is
about the national average for such students.
The graduation rate varied widely among
ethnic groups with Chinese Americans (80
percent), Japanese Americans (72 percent),
Korean Americans (64 percent), Filipino
Americans (59 percent), and Mixed
Asians (76 percent) above the overall rate.
Groups below it included Native Hawaiians
(52 percent), Whites (42 percent), African
Americans (37 percent), and Hispanics (32
percent). Again, the relatively low graduation
percentage for Whites is because many of
them from the continental United States
leave Mnoa before earning their degrees.
The two other socioeconomically dominant
groupsChinese Americans and Japanese
Americansvery much exceed the total
graduation rate. Completion of a bachelors
degree or higher, including by their graduates
of universities in the continental United
States, serves as a means for those groups
to maintain their high socioeconomic status in
Hawaii.
41
In contrast, among the socioeconomically
subordinate and underrepresented groups,
Native Hawaiians, African Americans and
Latinos are below the overall graduation
figure, and Filipino Americans are slightly
above it, which is a very promising trend. An
earlier longitudinal study of the first-time
freshman graduation rate at UH Mnoa after
six years for cohorts that entered starting in
fall 1990 found, as of 2002, an overall rate of
54 percent with Chinese Americans (72
percent) and Japanese Americans (64
percent) again having above average rates.
While Native Hawaiians (42 percent) and
Filipino Americans (51 percent) were below
the overall rate, both groups have greatly
improved their graduation figures since then.
At UH Hilo, the fall 2010 entering first-time
freshman cohort had a much lower six-year
graduation rate (35 percent) than at UH
Mnoa. Japanese Americans (58 percent)
and Native Hawaiians (36 percent) are the
only groups to surpass that overall
percentage, while Filipino Americans (30
percent) and Whites (26 percent) are below
it. The above-average graduation rate of
Native Hawaiians also is very encouraging
and indicates the significance of the
considerable presence of other students and
faculty for Native Hawaiian academic
success.
 Fostering
Ethnic Equality

42
Comparing the enrollment by ethnicity figures
for the DOE schools and the UH system
makes it quite evident that there is a wide
disjuncture between them, especially at UH
Mnoa. This disconnect can be attributed to
the underfunding of both sectors of public
education that results in ever increasing
tuition at Mnoa, which constitutes a major
barrier to minority access. As a result, the 70
percent majority representation of Native
Hawaiians, Filipino Americans, Samoans,
and other numerically small minorities in the
public schools is not replicated at UH Mnoa,
and they remain vastly underrepresented as
undergraduates in comparison to their
enrollment in the DOE schools, where just
the two former groups are almost one-half of
the students. With regard to the politically
and socioeconomically dominant groups,
Whites and Chinese Americans can be
regarded as overly represented at UH
Mnoa, although most of the former are not
Hawaii residents. As for Japanese
Americans, they are proportionately
represented, at least those who are racially
or ethnically unmixed. Besides enrollment,
minority students have lower graduation
rates, whether after four years or six years,
from UH Manoa compared to Chinese
Americans and Japanese Americans, who
have the highest graduation rates. The much
lesser enrollment and graduation of minority
groups at UH Mnoa demonstrate how ethnic
inequality is deeply embedded in public
education in Hawaii, which has been the
case for decades.
American Community Survey (ACS) data
from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2006 to
2010 provide more general information on
ethnic inequality in educational attainment in
43
Hawaii. Regarding the percentage of
persons (twenty-five years and over) with a
bachelors degree or higher, Whites (35
percent), Japanese Americans (35 percent),
and Chinese Americans (31 percent)
continue to exceed the Hawaii median (29
percent) as they did in 2000. In contrast,
Filipino Americans (17 percent), Native
Hawaiians (15 percent), and Samoans (9
percent) are significantly below the median
as in 2000. As for college or graduate school
enrollment, only Whites (28 percent) are at
the median for Hawaii (28 percent), while the
two other dominant groups, Japanese
Americans (26 percent) and Chinese
Americans (22 percent) are below it. The
seemingly anomalous figures for the latter
two groups might be attributed to significant
numbers among them who already have
completed their college or graduate
education, as is evident from their relatively
high percentages for college completion or
higher, and hence are not enrolled in higher
education anymore. As for the subordinate
groups, Filipino Americans (21 percent),
Native Hawaiians (17 percent), and Samoans
(14 percent) all had considerably lower
percentages than the Hawaii median in
college or graduate school. Unfortunately,
this circumstance is not a very positive
indicator of socioeconomic mobility by those
groups in the near future given the
importance of a college degree for both
occupational and income advancement.
Combining the above data on educational
achievement with other 2006-2010 ASC
information on the occupational and income
status of ethnic groups in Hawaii provides an
overall socioeconomic ranking of those
groups. The ethnic stratification order
persists in being dominated by Japanese
Americans, Whites and Chinese Americans,
who have the highest levels of bachelors
degree or higher attainment, of employment
in the professions and management, and of
median family and individual income. At the
opposite end of the ethnic hierarchy are
Filipino Americans, Native Hawaiians,
Samoans, and other small minorities that
continue to have below-median college
completion rates, to be overrepresented in
blue collar occupations, and to have family
and individual income less than the Hawaii
median. The continued lower socioeconomic
status of those minorities reflects the long-
term ethnic inequality in Hawaii, which can
be traced to the pre-World War II plantation
period. Furthermore, the wide gap in
socioeconomic status between the dominant
and subordinate ethnic groups is not being
closed through higher education, especially
public education in Hawaii, serving as a
means of social mobility.
Thus, what I concluded in 2008 still prevails
nearly a decade later: Public education
does not constitute a site of equal
opportunity and upward mobility
for aggrieved ethnic minority
groups and, in fact, contributes
to educational inequality in
Hawaii by restricting minority
access to higher education.
The public schools do not
facilitate the transition into the
UH system in sufficient
numbers of Native Hawaiian,
Filipino American, and other
minorities such that it could be
argued that those groups, as
opposed to individual members of
44
them, are able to earn college degrees,
acquire professional, management or other
high status occupations, and obtain a middle-
class income.
However, some progress has been made
over the past decade in minority access,
enrollment and graduation in the UH system.
Native Hawaiians are the largest group of
undergraduates at UH Hilo, UH West Oahu,
and the community colleges, and have
significantly raised their six-year graduation
rate at UH Mnoa. Filipino Americans slightly
exceed that Mnoa graduation rate and have
not experienced the enrollment declines at
UH Mnoa that Japanese Americans and
Whites have since 2006. During the past ten
years, UH West Oahu, where Native
Hawaiians and Filipino Americans are the
largest groups, has gone against the trend of
enrollment loss at every other UH institution,
although the reasons for its unique situation
a new campusare not readily
replicable. But keeping tuition
affordable, as also is the case
at UH Hilo, appears to be
key to maintaining
minority access. In this
regard, Early College
programs have
demonstrated great
promise to foster
substantially expanded
minority entry into the
UH system but require
stable funding to maintain their
momentum. Otherwise,
underfunding of public education will
only result in continued ethnic
inequality in Hawaii well beyond the
DOE schools and the UH system.
 NOTES
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________

45
Appendix 1. University of Hawaii Students by Campus, 2006-2016

Fall Total UH Mnoa UH Hilo UH West Oahu Community Colleges

2006 49,990 20,357 3,507 866 25,260
2007 50,454 20,051 3,573 940 25,890
2008 53,526 20,169 3,773 1,140 28,444
2009 57,945 20,435 3,974 1,333 32,203
2010 60,090 20,337 4,079 1,471 34,203
2011 60,330 20,429 4,139 1,662 34,100
2012 60,295 20,426 4,157 1,997 33,715
2013 58,941 20,006 4,043 2,361 32,531
2014 57,052 19,507 3,924 2,661 30,960
2015 55,756 18,865 3,829 2,692 30,370
2016 53,418 18,056 3,666 2,939 28,757

Source: Fall Enrollment Reports, University of Hawaii, UH Institutional Research

and Analysis Office. http://www.hawaii.edu/iro/maps.htm.

46
Appendix 2. University of Hawaii at Mnoa Undergraduate Students by Ethnicity,
2006-2016

ETHNIC GROUP
White Native Hawaiian Filipino American Japanese American

Fall Total Total % Total % Total % Total %

2006 13,542 3,085 22.8 1,260 9.3 1,288 9.5 2,531 18.7
2007 13,417 2,984 22.2 1,323 9.9 1,282 9.6 2,468 18.4
2008 13,438 2,956 22.0 1,419 10.6 1,312 9.8 2,426 18.1
2009 13,583 2,910 21.4 1,530 11.3 1,370 10.1 2,287 16.8
2010 13,599 2,883 21.2 1,981 14.6 1,307 9.6 1,917 14.1
2011 14,054 2,958 21.0 2,140 15.2 1,399 10.0 1,818 12.9
2012 14,279 3,018 21.1 2,202 15.4 1,388 9.7 1,716 12.0
2013 14,097 2,947 20.9 2,105 14.9 1,436 10.2 1,543 10.9
2014 13,667 2,819 20.6 2,026 14.8 1,429 10.5 1,391 10.2
2015 13,320 2,739 20.6 1,919 14.4 1,435 10.8 1,290 9.7
2016 12,767 2,584 18.2 1,821 14.3 1,469 11.5 1,188 9.3

Source: Fall Enrollment Reports, University of Hawaii at Mnoa, UH Institutional

Research and Analysis Office. http://www.hawaii.edu/iro/maps.htm.

47
48