Queen Liliuokalani Building
1390 Miller Street, Room 404
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Thursday, February 16, 2023

Bruce Voss, Chairperson
Kaimana Barcarse, Vice Chairperson
Bill Arakaki
Shanty Asher
Lynn Fallin
Ken Kuraya
Lauren Moriarty
Kili Namauʻu

Makana McClellan

Colonel Michael Minaudo, Military Representative
Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, Department of Education
Tammi Oyadomari-Chun, Deputy Superintendent of Strategy, Department of Education
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Executive Secretary
Lady Garrett, Secretary

I. Call to Order

Board Chairperson Bruce Voss called the Board of Education (“Board”) Special Meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. Board Chairperson Voss, Board Vice Chairperson Kaimana Barcarse, and Board Members Bill Arakaki, Shanty Asher, Lynn Fallin, Ken Kuraya, Lauren Moriarty, and Kili Namauʻu were present.

Board Chairperson Voss called for public testimony.

Lisa Morrison, member of the public, testified on agenda item II.A., entitled “Update on Hawaii Public Education 2023-2029 Strategic Plan (Phase II), Implementation Plan.” She stated that Hayashi’s memorandum states that the Department of Education’s (“Department”) primary focus for implementation planning would be on internal stakeholders, encouraged the Board to ensure that the Department engages teachers, and noted that the Hawaii State Teachers Association would be ready to provide feedback relating to indicators for student success.

Board members received written testimony before the meeting. (A listing of the people who submitted written testimony before the meeting is included at the end of these minutes.)

II. Discussion Item

Board Chairperson Voss called on Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, and Tammi Oyadomari-Chun, Deputy Superintendent of Strategy, to provide an update on the implementation plan to the Hawaii Public Education 2023-2029 Strategic Plan (“Strategic Plan”).

Chun stated that the Department is moving into the second phase of the implementation plan and explained that the purpose of the presentation is to provide a roadmap of timelines and engagement. She stated that the Department is aiming to present the final draft of the implementation plan to the Board during the first week of May 2023. Chun shared that the Department has started the process to meet with various stakeholders and that the engagement timeline is short, as referenced in Hayashi’s memo, so there is a greater focus on engaging internal stakeholders.

Chun explained that page 2 of Hayashi’s memorandum includes a timeline that has the Department presenting Key Performance Indicators (“KPI”) to the Board on March 2 and March 23. She stated that a full draft of the implementation plan would be ready early April and that the Department would ask the Board to approve the implementation plan on May 4, 2023.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that public testimony from Morrison raises a valid point and the Board received a lot of invaluable feedback by interacting with stakeholders, both internal and external. He stated that as the Department develops the implementation it is his expectation that the Department involves internal and external stakeholders and provide them with opportunities to provide input.

Chun stated that the Department would provide opportunities for all employees to participate in surveys at least once or twice. She also stated that different stakeholder group discussions would take place, but that the Department does not plan on holding in-person meetings for all complex areas, due to the timeline. Chun stated that regarding teacher engagement, the Department met with individuals with the Hawaii State Teacher Fellows program to conduct focus groups and emphasized that all teachers would have an opportunity to respond to the draft.

Board Chairperson Voss asked if teachers would have the same opportunity to provide feedback via personal interaction, similar to what he found was most valuable at community meetings. Chun replied that the Department does not intend to replicate the Board’s in-person strategic plan community meetings, but if that is what the Board wants, the Department would need to ask for more time to get it done.

Board Member Asher stated that if the Department could not conduct similar outreach, the Department should review the data collected at the Board’s strategic plan community meetings to inform the implementation plan. Chun replied that the Department is trying to balance the timeline with providing the framework for strategies, including subsequent planning processes at the school level.

Board Member Asher reminded the Department to continue to get feedback from students, which is important for this process and that what the Board and Department are building would help change the trajectory for students.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse asked when these feedback opportunities would happen. He asked if feedback would be sought on the final draft or during the drafting process.

Chun described the process as a rolling stone which would be evolving while the Department developed the implementation plan. She explained that different groups would provide feedback at different times.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that the process is ongoing, but a majority of the feedback would be gathered in late March or early April. Chun replied that information would be distributed to all employees and that everyone would be able to provide feedback.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse asked what percentage of employees would be engaged in the development process, before the final version. Chun replied that complex area superintendents ("CAS") would be involved in development and that she would meet with individuals from the Hawaii State Teacher Fellows program. She stated that the Department would also meet with the State Charter School Commission, the Hawaii State Student Council, and a student focus group. She also stated that the Department would offer opportunities through the principal’s forum and is possibly looking at providing the full draft for all employees to review in a webinar format.

Board Chairperson Voss expressed understanding of Chun’s plan, but emphasized that if the implementation plan is developed and presented without the input from those in the classroom, it would lack legitimacy. He stated that he does not want to require schools to hold an additional meeting for this and asked whether schools can meet on their own with their principals. Chun replied that this could happen, but more time is needed since convening a school meeting would require asking principals to provide the opportunity.

Hayashi expressed understanding for the concerns and noted that if the Department needs to get feedback from all schools then additional time is needed to coordinate and ensure everyone is on the same page.

Board Member Fallin expressed support and noted that the more input the Department gets on the implementation plan, the better. She asked if the internal stakeholder group represents all employees and if the Department considers School Community Councils (“SCC”) a subgroup.

Chun replied that the implementation plan for the Department and subsequent school academic plans would go through a process where schools pick enabling activities for school planning within the broader umbrella. She explained that the Department can ask the SCC to reach out since all groups are represented on the SCC.

Board Member Fallin noted that this is more about what could maximize impact to get buy-in and understanding so that people feed heard and part of the process.

Chun stated that the implementation plan includes strategies for each goal. She noted that this process identifies strategies and associated expectations.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse emphasized that when the Department proposes strategies, they need to describe how they are research-based and evidence-based in order to support the Department’s selection of the strategies. He stated that the Department needs to explain how the strategies would work to help reach the strategic plan goals.

Chun stated that student learning strategies need to be evidence-based, but goals for Priority 2 or Priority 3 might be more efficiency-based.

Board Member Arakaki stated that there is an urgency to get feedback from stakeholders because it is important. He stated that the Department has individuals who work with various groups and asked how much more time the Department needs to gather the feedback. Chun replied that the Department has wrestled with the timeline and there would be differences over time since schools are already planning for the upcoming school year. She stated that high leverage initiatives have started so shifting would happen in anticipation of the approval of the plan but changes to the Strive HI Performance System would not happen until 2024.

Board Member Namauʻu noted that the Department needs to get buy-in from those who work with students. She asked what the parameters are and if there is flexibility in the timeline and process. Board Member Namauʻu emphasized that the Department needs to gather input from those doing the work to help the Department move forward.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that the priorities, goals, and outcomes have remained largely unchanged since December 2022 and he is perplexed as to why Chun is now saying the Department does not have enough time. He stated that Priority 2 focuses on staff and he does not understand why the Department has not already done things like reaching out to unions to get input. Board Chairperson Voss noted that the timeline was designed so that the strategic plan would be in place before the start of the next school year. He stated that the timeline can be pushed back to get input, but that he is not inclined to do this unless the Department provides a robust plan to get school level input.

Board Member Moriarty shared the concerns expressed by other Board members and asked, since the first phase of the strategic plan provided clear direction, what kinds of thinking has the Department done so far. She asked that Chun give the Board a sense of what work the Department has done to figure out the different strategies.

Chun stated that the Department is not at the start point and had been working with the drafts of the first phase of the strategic plan in December and January. She stated that she had engaged with stakeholders and encouraged them to complete the Board’s second survey as a way to provide feedback for the strategic plan. Chun stated that she has been collecting feedback on strategies to achieve the goals of the strategic plan. She stated that she has been doing a plus, minus, and delta exercise to determine what to continue doing, what to change, or what to stop doing.

Chun stated that she is developing processes and procedures while she is working on existing direction setting. She said that she has KPI work groups and can now use feedback from various stakeholders. Chun stated that the Department has the component parts that it is putting together into a coherent whole before it brings it to the Board for discussion. She stated that the Department is determining at what point it should provide the information to the Board.

Board Member Moriarty stated that she would like the process to move forward. She emphasized the importance of Vice Chairperson Barcarse comments that the strategies be evidence-based and research-based. Board Member Moriarty asked how the Department has reached outside of the system to talk to those who have adopted the same strategies, including lessons learned. She asked Chun to detail the process the Department uses to evaluate expertise. Chun replied that the primary way the Department identifies research is through educators, and some principals, and CAS. She stated that state office staff are more engaged in national level research.

Board Member Moriarty asked if the Department is seeking input on specific issues and what process the Department is using to incorporate the input received. Chun replied that initiatives are underway and planning based on research and evidence was not exclusively sought.

Board Member Moriarty stated that Board Member Fallin commented that everything needs to be integrated from bottom to top and the noted the timeframe. She asked Chun to describe the process and how timing affects the Department’s plans. Chun replied that how the Department implements the implementation plan depends on key metrics and key strategies shared across schools statewide. She also stated that schools’ academic and financial plans would need to be aligned with the strategic plan so schools would look at data, Chun stated that statewide strategies would determine school plans and how schools would use resources. Chun explained that the state offices would also determine processes that would happen at the state, complex, and school levels.

Hayashi stated that Chun has engaged stakeholders, but when looking at the implementation related to feedback from the tri-level and internal stakeholders there is a process. He noted that the Department did not wait for the Board to approve the first phase of the strategic plan to engage with stakeholders. Hayashi stated that the Department has engaged the field and would do its best in the time that it has.

Colonel Minaudo asked Chun to describe the estimated timeline to present the Board with an efficient implementation plan. Chun replied that any process would be bound by the school calendar to make sure teachers and students are accessible. She noted that the Department is doubling efforts and may forgo providing the Board an update on March 2 and instead focus on engaging the field and relooking at the implementation plan sequence and timeline.

Colonel Minaudo asked if there are resources that the Board or other entities can provide to make this happen. Hayashi replied that the Department would need to engage with principals.

Board Chairperson Voss emphasized that the Board does not want to add more to the plates of those at the school level. He noted that the Board wants the implementation plan to be effective and work for the school level because that is critical for successful implementation. Hayashi replied that he does not mean to imply that the Board is requiring principals to do more and he is willing to support the effort in any way.

Board Member Arakaki expressed appreciation to principals and CAS for providing the internal voice to support education. He noted that it would be helpful if the Board could see a template that reflects the work the Department has already done.

Hayashi asked for consideration to have the implementation plan approved at the second meeting of May 2023. Board Chairperson Voss noted that the implementation plan is one of the deliverables of the superintendent’s evaluation and that the superintendent’s evaluation is scheduled for the second meeting of May 2023, so it is possible, but the Board would need to ensure there is sufficient time for Hayashi’s evaluation.

Board Member Kuraya stated that Priority 3, Goal 3.3 states that families can participate in the feedback process and individuals need to feel that the Board heard what was said.

Board Chairperson Voss expressed appreciation for the comments from Board Member Kuraya on honoring feedback from the stakeholders.

Board Member Moriarty noted that the proposed timeline does not leave much time for the Department to engage with the Board.

III. Adjournment

Board Chairperson Voss adjourned the meeting at 1:10 p.m.

List of the people who submitted written testimony before the meeting

Agenda Item
Susan Pcola-DavisIII. A. Update on Hawaii Public Education 2023-2029 Strategic Plan (Phase II), Implementation Plan