Written Testimony for 20200723 GBM.pdf

A. Finance and Infrastructure Committee Report on: Presentation on Department of Education’s financial plan supporting its comprehensive plan for reopening schools for the 2020-2021 School Year: budget appropriations from 2020 Legislative Session; unspent carryover amounts from the 2019-2020 school year; plan for reprioritization of existing funds, assistance from the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency (“HI-EMA”) and timeline for these HI-EMA funds; Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (“ESSR”) Funds (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Funds awarded directly to the Department for K-12 education); potential sources of additional funds; additional cost of reopening schools for 2020-2021 School Year; and anticipated shortfalls and potential impacts of anticipated shortfalls

Board Chairperson Payne called for public testimony. There was no public testimony at this time.


VI. Action Items

A. Board Action on findings and recommendations of Investigative committee (a permitted interaction group pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 92-2.5(b)(1)) concerning Board and standing committee strategic priorities for the 2020-2021 school year

B. Board Action on State Librarian’s evaluation for the 2020-2021 Fiscal Year: State Librarian’s Priorities

C. Board Action on Superintendent’s evaluation for the 2020-2021 School Year: Superintendent’s Priorities and strategic plan indicator targets

Kishimoto stated that her first priority is to accelerate digital transformation to enable more individualized experiences for all students, both in response to the impact of COVID-19 and as a modernization expansion of the school system. She noted that during the fourth quarter, the Department identified disparities between students who have access to technology at home and are able to participate in different learning approaches and those who lack access and miss out on various opportunities. She detailed that her digital transformation plan focuses on ensuring all students who do not have a device due to poverty factors have access to a loaner device at home regardless of the learning model they are engaged in; deploying mobile learning hubs statewide in highly targeted areas to extend access and support services to isolated and vulnerable students; implementing an Ohana Help Desk to provide technology support for students and families; and providing ongoing professional development for teachers and staff to effectively deliver instruction, actively engage students, and address the social and emotional needs of students. Kishimoto highlighted that her priorities and indicators align to the reopening plan and strategic priorities regarding equity and access; staff professional development, recruitment, and retention; and communication and engagement. She stated that the Department is focused on reopening schools successfully and addressing issues of equity and access throughout the duration of the school year.

Kishimoto stated that her second priority is to re-engage the Department’s tri-level team in identifying viable 2030 Promise Plan metrics that will inform the development of the strategic plan dashboard in preparation for Board feedback. She detailed that the Department’s 2030 Promise Plan centers around five promises and the Department plans to engage community members, including teachers, in defining metrics for each measure. She detailed one of the indicators, including reviewing multilingualism, engagement, ʻaina-based science, and STEM metrics and measures. She described the Department’s plan to identify system-wide metrics to tell a more complete story of the student learning experience, including career pathways, the percentage of students exposed to college courses, and access to and completion of Advanced Placement courses. Kishimoto stated that another indicator is to establish and convene advisory committees for each promise theme. Members will include multiple stakeholders representing the Department, Board, higher education institutions, communities, and external partners. She stated that the Department delayed convenings due to COVID-19 but is reviewing how to staff, assign, and invite members to each committee. Kishimoto stated that the third indicator is to create and propose to the Board a data dashboard with metrics indicating the progress the Department is making. The Department plans to present its data dashboard and all metrics in the early spring.

Kishimoto reviewed the third component of her priorities, including strategic plan indicator targets. She stated that the Department plans to continue to report on existing Strive HI measures but she views this component as an opportunity to review metrics that align to school reopening and her first priority related to equity and access. She detailed ways in which to create or identify specific measures that relate to the five strategic plan promises, including the promises of Hawaii, equity, school design, empowerment, and innovation. Kishimoto asked for the Board’s feedback on her approach and detailed plans to focus metrics on the students with the highest needs. Kishimoto stated that she could report on Strive HI data at annual Board data retreats but suggested that her evaluation focus on equity measures.

Board Member Takeno moved to: (1) Approve Superintendent Priority 1 for the 2020-2021 school year, as described in the submittal dated July 23, 2020; (2) amend Superintendent Priority 2 to instead provide, “maximize the readiness of schools for physical school reopenings that ensure the health and safety of students and staff as the most important concern of the public education system in light of COVID-19, pursuant to the Board’s June 18, 2020 resolution,“ with two indicators, first, all schools begin the 2020-2021 school year using a distance learning model and accept students to physical campuses no earlier than August 18, 2020, and second, the results of a survey (as described in this priority’s data sources) demonstrate 100% of responding principals confirmation that they do not have any remaining significant concerns about reopening their respective school campuses for in-person instruction. The proposed priority would have two data sources, first written directives and timely announcements to school principals from the Superintendent regarding school reopening on August 4, 2020 using a distance learning model and second, an anonymous survey issued and conducted by Board staff one business day prior to the first day of instruction with students on physical campuses (as determined by the Superintendent) to all Department principals who submitted public testimony to the Board by the close of business on July 24, 2020 with concerns regarding school opening; and (3) eliminate the targets proposed for Component 3. Board Member Barcarse seconded.

Board Chairperson Payne asked about Board Member Takeno’s amendments. Board Member Takeno explained that he was proposing the Board approve Superintendent Priority 1, amend Superintendent Priority 2, and eliminate Component 3. He stated that the Board should acknowledge and recognize concerns regarding safety and health protocols and noted that the Department’s measures and guidance remain unresolved and unanswered. Many testifiers brought forth issues and concerns which should have been addressed if the Board’s reopening resolution was being implemented and raised questions regarding whether the Board operates with transparency, objectivity, and openness. He emphasized that the public may lose trust and faith in the Board if their concerns fall on deaf ears at a time when all need to collectively work together. Board Member Takeno stated that the Board’s responsibility is to ensure that concerns and issues are addressed and resolved prior to students returning to campus. Providing schools with additional time allows the Superintendent to resolve concerns to the Board’s satisfaction. He stated that an anonymous survey would provide the Board and Department with input, comments, and concerns. He emphasized that replacing Superintendent Priority 2 with his amendments aligns with the Board’s messaging and unanimous adoption in its resolution that of all the priorities, health and safety are the least flexible and cannot be compromised because the health and safety of students and staff are the most important things. Board Member Takeno noted that the original Superintendent Priority 2 is also not actionable because it proposes measures based on a 2030 Promise Plan which has yet to be approved and adopted.

Board Member Cox detailed recent conversations with school principals and noted that principals want more time to meet with teachers prior to students returning to campuses. She stated that she supports Board Member Takeno’s amendments because principals need more time for training and preparations. Board Member Cox stated that principals have questions regarding operations and would like clear guidelines that are easy to follow. Board Member Cox asked if students would return to campus on August 18, 2020 per Board Member Takeno’s amendments. Board Member Takeno explained that his amendments address concerns regarding the need for more time to train and prepare. He stated that a return date of August 18, 2020 provides the Department with time to address and resolve questions and concerns.

Board Member Cox detailed additional discussions with school principals and noted that some principals would like a phased reopening approach and would be more comfortable if students were to return in phases rather than all at once. She stated that teachers and parents need to feel comfortable on campus and noted that the Department would need to address additional concerns regarding distance learning, such as questions regarding telework and childcare.

Board Chairperson Payne detailed that the process for the Superintendent’s Priorities include the Board and Superintendent mutually agreeing on and setting strategic plan indicator targets and Superintendent Priorities that support strategic priorities and meet SMART criteria. She stated that Board Member Takeno’s amendments relate to how the Department should reopen schools rather than the Superintendent’s evaluation and asked the Board to consider whether these amendments might be more appropriate for the Board’s next action item. Board Member Takeno stated that his amendments relate to performance and are measurable and ratable based on performance metrics. He noted that he believes his amendments are permissible and allowable under this action item.

Board Chairperson Payne asked if the Board would be able to identify and measure SMART goals for this priority. She expressed concern that portions of Board Member Takeno’s amendment relate to collective bargaining negotiations and require consultation. Board Member Takeno stated that his amendments do not conflict with the existing memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) with HSTA.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board and Superintendent must mutually agree on the Superintendent’s priorities. She stated that the Board has an action item related to school reopenings later in the meeting and noted that it might be more appropriate for the Board to include these amendments as part of its expectations under that action item. She stated that metrics for the proposed amendment are unclear and the priority setting process is supposed to be mutual versus the Board giving directives.

Board Member Bruce Voss disagreed with Board Member Takeno’s amendment. He noted that this is not the appropriate vehicle to delay school reopenings to a different date. Board Member Voss expressed concern that the lack of in-person instruction would have negative consequences for students receiving special education and EL services and students who are economically disadvantaged. He emphasized the importance of equity and stated that the Board and Department would need to consider and address concerns regarding how to mitigate negative effects for at-risk students prior to arbitrarily changing school reopening dates.

Kishimoto stated that many factors relate to her evaluation but a concrete reopening date is not an evaluation matter although it could fall under the Board’s expectations. She stated that the second component of her evaluation was a way in which to put her priorities forward and emphasized the importance of mutual agreement. Kishimoto expressed concern regarding the Board’s discussions and amendments. Kishimoto stated that in other districts these kinds of amendments and suggestions are typically discussed between both parties and do not occur in single meetings. She suggested that as part of her evaluation, the Board Chairperson and another Board Member meet with her to have discussions regarding what she would like Board Members to consider and what Board Members would like for her to consider. After these discussions, she could bring her priorities before the Board. She stated that she has not had the opportunity to have participate in thorough discussions with the Board regarding processes and metrics. Receiving feedback from one or two Board Members prior would allow for professional discourse. Kishimoto expressed concern that the pandemic and emergency situation affected her ability to prepare her evaluation document for her most recent evaluation and noted that she received feedback to draft her documents as best as possible. However, during the public Board meeting the Board was not satisfied with her documentation.

Board Vice Chairperson Uemura stated that he supports taking action on Board Member Takeno’s amendments in both the current action item and later action item because the amendments fall under both agenda topics and it is important to set priorities regarding the health and safety of students and staff. Board Vice Chairperson Uemura stated that he is in support of removing the original Superintendent Priority 2 because it relates to the 2030 Promise Plan. He noted that the Board has not vetted or adopted the 2030 Promise Plan, so it does not make sense to approve indicators related to the 2030 Promise Plan. Board Vice Chairperson Uemura stated that Kishimoto agreed to complete her priorities from the previous school year since she was unable to prior to her evaluation due to the pandemic and the Board asked Kishimoto to include her priorities from the previous school year in this upcoming school year. Board Vice Chairperson Uemura expressed concern regarding the Component 3 strategic plan indicator targets. He stated that the premise of including these targets was for the Board to receive results. He stated that Kishimoto’s indicators for this component are not ideal because the Board has not adopted the 2030 Promise Plan and there is no historical data to support the five promises.

Board Member Cox stated that Board Member Takeno’s amendments are more appropriate for action items related to school reopenings rather than the Superintendent’s evaluation. She agreed with Kishimoto’s suggestion to meet with Board Members prior to presenting her priorities because it is obvious that Board Members are not on the same page and would like the Superintendent to prioritize different matters. She stated that the Board could discuss the process in a future meeting and does not have to take action today if the Board is not in agreement.

Board Member Lynn Fallin stated that it would be difficult to set Kishimoto’s proposed indicators under the strategic plan indicator targets as foundational for metrics because the Board has not yet adopted the 2030 Promise Plan and it might be more appropriate to include proposed adoption dates or contingencies if these are to be part of her evaluation. She stated that Kishimoto should include specific dates and deliverables if the Board is to use metrics as part of her evaluation, including dates and deliverables for her mid-year formative assessment so that the Board is able to review implementation throughout the year and provide feedback.

Board Member Takeno stated that his amendment requests that the Department delay the return of students to in-person instruction to August 18, 2020 at the earliest. He noted that it might not be appropriate to propose this amendment under other action items because those items are not related to school reopenings. Board Chairperson Payne stated that these amendments might be appropriate under the Board’s action item related to its MOU because it relates to the Board’s expectations. Board Chairperson Payne suggested that the Board establish a permitted interaction group to meet with Kishimoto and discuss her indicators and priorities.

Board Member Kili Namauʻu agreed with Board Chairperson Payne’s suggestion to establish a permitted interaction group. She emphasized the importance of providing Kishimoto with an opportunity to discuss her priorities with Board Members and agreed that current indicators are not appropriate as the Board has not yet adopted the 2030 Promise Plan. Board Member Namauʻu acknowledged testimony and Board Member Takeno’s intent but noted that the Superintendent’s evaluation is not the appropriate vehicle for his amendment.

Board Member Voss emphasized the importance of procedures consistent with Sunshine Law. He stated that the Board could express its desires under other action items but did not agendize school reopening dates and did not provide the public with notice nor an opportunity to comment. Thus, the Board could not take action on school reopening dates. He suggested that the Board defer action on the Superintendent’s Priorities and establish a permitted interaction group to mitigate concerns.

Board Member Takeno requested to withdraw his original motion. Board Chairperson Payne asked if there was any objection to withdraw the motion. There were no objections, and the motion was withdrawn.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board could agendize the establishment of a permitted interaction group at its next meeting to follow up on concerns and suggestions.

D. Board Action on metrics to monitor and evaluate the Department of Education’s comprehensive plan for reopening schools for the 2020-2021 School Year, including student access to devices and connectivity; personal protective equipment and sanitation supply needs; student attendance; and student academic status and progress

Kishimoto detailed that the Department organized 12 metrics around four Board priorities, including health and safety of students and staff, students most vulnerable to school closures and disruptions to learning, in-person instruction, and student access to devices and connectivity. She highlighted that its metrics are vital sign metrics that are intended to be actionable, informative, and clearly communicate needs and concerns. The metrics provide opportunities to understand various types of learning models and needed resources. She detailed that the Department identified students that fall under the second priority by using already identified demographics and asking schools and complexes to identify its high-needs students based on conditions in their schools and communities. The third priority examines attendance based on different types of learning models and the number of students who choose various learning options and tracks instructional design. She emphasized that the Department plans to use the data it collects under the fourth priority to advocate for state level support related to connectivity and devices. Kishimoto highlighted that the Department’s alignment of vital sign metrics with Board priorities and its Return to Learn plan reflects the Board’s expectations.

Kishimoto stated that the Department took important steps to ensure that its metrics reflect easily accessible data and incorporate lessons learned over the summer. She detailed that the Department evaluated its summer learning data collection processes, reviewed school reopening plans from other states, and examined possible metrics to consider as vital signs. Vital sign metrics will provide valuable insight for the Return to Learning plan, not be burdensome to schools and staff, and inform decision making. She highlighted that the Department solicited feedback from stakeholders and plans to share Board feedback with schools for final discussion.

Kishimoto reviewed metrics under the first priority area include the percent of schools that are adequately equipped with personally protective equipment (“PPE”) and the percent of schools offering various learning models. Metrics under the second priority area include the percent of elementary and secondary students receiving poor marks in certain subjects at the end of the quarter, the percent of vulnerable students who have high-risk attendance, and the number of elementary and intermediate students not meeting grade level. She detailed that the Department is tracking student performance and points in time this school year as compared to prior years to review changes in overall student performance and determine needs related to student performance outcomes. The third priority area includes metrics regarding the percentages of average daily attendance and students enrolled at a school who choose to remain at home. Metrics under the fourth priority area include the percentages of schools that have provided professional development, students with devices at home, vulnerable students with internet connectivity, and schools whose vulnerable students are adequately equipped to support distance learning.

Kishimoto reviewed the Department’s proposed vital sign metrics calendar. She stated that the calendar overviews data collection and reporting timelines. The Department plans to report on a monthly basis through November and publish a final report in January. The final report will be a cumulative report that covers one quarter of data collection from August through October. She noted that the Department would continue to publish and provide standard annual reports.

Board Member Barcarse moved to approve the metrics to monitor and evaluate the Department’s comprehensive plan for reopening schools for the 2020-2021 school year as described in the Department’s memorandum dated July 23, 2020. Board Member Cox seconded.

Board Member Fallin asked whether the Department of Health (“DOH”) or the Department would track COVID-19 illnesses within schools. Kishimoto explained that the DOH tracks COVID-19 data and reports it through the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency (“Hawaii EMA”). She detailed that the Governor’s office has typically designated the reporting structure. Kishimoto noted that the DOH is also responsible for identifying necessary contact tracing and follow-up requirements, such as quarantine or involvement of the medical community.

Board Member Fallin expressed concern that the Department did not include COVID-19 spread metrics and emphasized the importance of this data informing PPE areas. Kishimoto explained that DOH and the Department have different responsibilities. She stated that the Department could report DOH data regarding COVID-19 incidents in schools and embed the DOH’s responsibilities regarding reporting measures in its reports. However, the Department does not want to assume any liability of health data reporting because it is not the Department’s responsibility. Board Member Fallin noted that DOH’s data relates to decision-making regarding PPEs and school closures. She stated that the Department should determine how to incorporate that data in its internal deliberations. Kishimoto noted that the Governor designated DOH as the party responsible for setting statewide metrics that would inform rolling closures for various sectors within the state, such as transportation or education. However, the Department plans to share out DOH’s decision-making and use its data to frame conversations.

Board Member Voss expressed concern that testifiers reported a lack of PPE. He asked what the term “adequately equipped” means in the Department’s first metric and who determines whether schools are adequately equipped. Kishimoto detailed that school principals use a data collection system to input their own data regarding PPE and other safety adequacy, the Office of Facilities and Operations (“OFO”) coordinates responses based on received data, and this data is then reported to the Board.

Board Member Shanty Asher expressed concern regarding schools reopening, including concerns relayed in testimony, lack of preparation and resources within schools, and COVID-19 exposure. She expressed further concern regarding families experiencing financial challenges and students living in small apartments being asked to quarantine and asked how the Department plans to address these concerns. Kishimoto stated that DOH assigns health experts to follow-up with active cases and directly provides guidance regarding quarantine, especially in situations where individuals live in multifamily homes or share small spaces.

Board Member Takeno asked about the Department’s directives if schools need PPE but stockpiles are exhausted. Kishimoto explained that the Department included a metric to track PPE to review needs and ensure that OFO is aware of needs before schools run out of supplies. She noted that OFO designated a staff member to be the contact person for schools and respond to needs. She stated that the Department would need to have different discussions regarding school closures if stockpiles were exhausted and resources were unavailable and noted that schools would not run if they were out and waiting for PPE. Kishimoto stated that the Department is having these conversations with Hawaii EMA. She noted that the Department received funds for PPE from the Legislature but the Legislature is responsible for outfitting a variety of service providers who also need PPE. The Department is projected to have PPE through January but these funds might not be sufficient depending on the demand on those resources.

The meeting recessed at 5:34 p.m. and reconvened at 5:45 p.m.

Board Vice Chairperson Uemura asked how many months of supplies constitute “adequately equipped.” He stated that ideally schools would have more than a month of supplies at hand and have the ability to handle COVID-19 emergencies that would require additional supplies. Board Vice Chairperson Uemura noted that the Governor has not yet released funds for the Department to purchase materials and asked how the Department is purchasing and funding PPEs for schools. Kishimoto explained that the Department receives shipments through Hawaii EMA and is not the agency purchasing nor managing purchases and has received private donations. She detailed that OFO tracks supplies that come in through Hawaii EMA, donations, and Department expenditures. She noted that the Department is able to seek reimbursement at this point in time for centrally funded purchases. Kishimoto stated that she could follow-up and provide the Board with a more detailed response in the future and keep the Board aware of where the Department is on supplies. Kishimoto stated that some schools are concerned and do not feel as though their current stockpile is adequate. The Department’s teams are contacting and following up with complex areas and principals who have these concerns and reviewing whether concerns are isolated to certain areas or across the board. She noted that the Department has provided hundreds of thousands of pieces of PPE and materials and is following up with adequacy issues, especially in rural areas.

Board Vice Chairperson Uemura asked if one month or two month of supplies would constitute “adequately equipped” or if “adequately equipped” is dependent on areas. For example, rural schools are adequately equipped if they have two months of supplies whereas schools in suburban areas are adequately equipped if they have one month worth of supplies. He stated that the Board would need a specific definition to evaluate the metric. Kishimoto stated the Department is discussing adequacy of resources for different areas and she would need to follow up with a specific definition for the purposes of metrics. She stated that the Department has been relying on school feedback and schools have been making the determination of whether they believe their supply is adequate.

Board Vice Chairperson Uemura asked for more detailed funding information for PPE and expressed concern that some schools have sufficient supplies while others do not. Kishimoto explained that the Department previously allocated $300,000 of Department of Defense funds to complex areas to assist in funding purchases of PPEs to ensure that complex areas had supplies in their inventories. More recently, some principals have expressed concern that they do not have a sufficient number of materials. She noted that the Department is following up with complex areas and principals to address their concerns.

Board Member Cox commented that many cleaning supplies are currently on back order.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously with all members present (Board Vice Chairperson Uemura, Board Members Asher, Barcarse, Cox, Fallin, Namauʻu, Takeno, and Voss) voting aye.

ACTION: Motion to approve the metrics to monitor and evaluate the Department’s comprehensive plan for reopening schools for the 2020-2021 school year as described in the Department’s memorandum dated July 23, 2020 (Barcarse/Cox). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

E. Board Action on Board Action on Board Policy 500-20, entitled “School Community Council Waivers and School Community Council Exceptions,” and School Community Council Process and Procedures for Requesting Waivers from Policies, Rules, or Procedures

F. Board Action on authorizing a Board Member to represent the Board in successor bargaining with the Hawaii State Teachers Association (Bargaining Unit 5) and authorizing a Board Member to represent the Board of Education in successor bargaining with the Hawaii Government Employees Association (Bargaining Unit 6)

Board Chairperson Payne stated that Board Members Barcarse and Takeno previously represented the Board in collective bargaining and asked if they would like to continue representing the Board.

Board Member Takeno stated that he is unable to represent the Board in successor bargaining with for HSTA bargaining unit 5. He explained that the code of conduct states that individuals cannot use positions to personally benefit themselves and it would be a conflict of interest for him to participate in negotiations due to his current employment.

Board Member Cox asked about successor bargaining meetings. Board Chairperson Payne stated that meetings have been held virtually and have not required travel. Covell confirmed that meetings are virtual for the time being and can possibly remain virtual if needed.

Board Member Barcarse and Board Member Cox expressed concern regarding future in-person meetings and stated that it might be more prudent for Board Members from Oahu to participate in negotiations. Board Chairperson Payne stated that virtual meetings would be held for the foreseeable future and accommodations could be made if in-person meetings were to resume.

Board Member Fallin moved to appoint Board Member Cox to represent the Board in successor bargaining with HSTA (Bargaining Unit 5) as described in the Department’s memorandum dated July 23, 2020. Board Vice Chairperson Uemura seconded.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously with all members present (Board Vice Chairperson Uemura, Board Members Asher, Barcarse, Cox, Fallin, Namauʻu, Takeno, and Voss) voting aye.

ACTION: Motion to appoint Board Member Cox to represent the Board in successor bargaining with HSTA (Bargaining Unit 5) as described in the Department’s memorandum dated July 23, 2020 (Fallin/Uemura). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

Board Member Namauʻu moved to appoint Board Member Barcarse to represent the Board in successor bargaining with HGEA (Bargaining Unit 6) as described in the Department’s memorandum dated July 23, 2020. Board Member Asher seconded.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously with all members present (Board Vice Chairperson Uemura, Board Members Asher, Barcarse, Cox, Fallin, Namauʻu, Takeno, and Voss) voting aye.

ACTION: Motion to appoint Board Member Barcarse to represent the Board in successor bargaining with HGEA (Bargaining Unit 6) as described in the Department’s memorandum dated July 23, 2020 (Namauʻu/Asher). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

G. Board Action on temporary discontinuance of extra compensation for classroom teachers in special education, hard-to-staff geographical locations, and Hawaiian language immersion programs for the 2020-2021 school year

Board Member Voss moved to adopt the Department’s proposal to temporarily discontinue extra compensation for classroom teachers in special education, hard-to-staff geographical locations, and Hawaiian language immersion programs for the 2020-2021 school year, as described in the Department’s memorandum dated July 23, 2020. Board Member Namauʻu seconded.

Board Member Cox stated that the Board and Department made promises to staff and stated that she is against discontinuing differentials. She stated that the Department should determine a way in which to continue to fund extra pay.

Board Vice Chairperson Uemura asked why this action is coming before the Board and noted that the Department should have addressed this matter internally. He stated that the Board supported pay differentials but had concerns regarding how the Department would fund the program if it did not receive legislative funding. The Department made assurances and presented its internal funding plan in December 2019 if it were to not receive funds from the Legislature. He asked if the Department is still experiencing shortages or if it filled all of its shortages and is suspending the program because it has no need to continue to fill shortages. He stated that the conditions present in December 2019 are still present today and the Department should be accountable for its initiative and not look to the Board for relief. The Department cannot use the pandemic as a reason to discontinue differentials because the Board approved differentials prior to the pandemic and the Department should have incorporated differentials into its budget.

Board Chairperson Payne commented that Board policy addresses extra pay for Hawaiian immersion teachers.

Board Member Voss stated that he supports pay differentials but the Legislature declined to fund the program and should also be held accountable. He stated that the Legislature is responsible for this decision based on its appropriations. The Department cannot spend funds that the Department does not have. He stated that the Department is experiencing an $84 million shortfall this upcoming fiscal year and has no choice but to discontinue extra compensation.

Board Member Namauʻu stated that Board policy requires the Department to appropriately compensate Hawaiian immersion teachers. She suggested that the Board separate the categories of teachers and discuss them separately.

Board Member Takeno agreed with Board Vice Chairperson Uemura. He stated that he acknowledges that Board policy recognizes Hawaiian immersion teachers and compensation. He noted that the differential was predicated on the fact that the Department was experiencing a recruitment shortage and thus it provided temporary differentials to help recruit for those positions. Hawaiian immersion teachers were included in the program because it was an easy solution to provide these teachers compensation as required by the Board. Board Member Takeno stated that if the Board continues to provide differentials to Hawaiian immersion teachers per Board policy rather than the differential program, it would be a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Board would need to negotiate the separate compensation schedule with HSTA because it does not have the authority to unilaterally determine salaries. He stated that he recognizes that the Board is obligated to provide additional compensation for immersion teachers but cannot continue that practice under the shortage category.

Board Chairperson Payne asked if the Board’s action to include Hawaiian immersion teachers in the differential category was inappropriate. Board Member Takeno explained that shortage differentials are employer discretionary and do not require negotiations. However, the Board would need to enter into negotiations if it determines that it needs to compensate Hawaiian immersion teachers per Board policy. He stated that it is permissible to continue differentials if the Board is not separating Hawaiian immersion teachers from other groups of teachers but may not be practical because of the unintended message it sends. He stated that it could appear as though the Board is pitting employees against one another if it begins to separate categories for discussion purposes. Board Member Takeno stated that shortage differentials are a matter of equity and are not applied department wide, but the Board would send an unintended message if it decided to fund extra compensation for some groups of teachers and not others.

Board Member Fallin asked about the Department’s internal funding plan for shortage differentials, including the allocation of existing resources and legislative funds. Board Chairperson Payne explained that the Legislature did approve shortage differentials. The Board, Department, and Governor worked together to address an employer’s right to make changes in shortage areas. The Department presented a plan regarding how it would fund differentials from within its budget if the Legislature did not provide funding. She explained that the Department started differentials in January to determine whether it made a difference in recruitment and retention outcomes in shortage areas. She noted that employees moved to specific teaching areas in order to receive differentials as a result.

Board Member Barcarse stated that the Board and Department made a commitment and teachers made life choices based on the Board and Department’s decisions. Furthermore, the Department experienced improvement in shortage areas.

Board Member Cox asked about HSTA’s suggestion to defer action on differentials. Board Chairperson Payne detailed that HSTA suggested postponing action because the Department might receive additional federal funding to support schools due to the pandemic.

Board Member Namauʻu stated that teachers made life choices based on differentials and are going to financially struggle if the Department stops providing differentials. She stated that the Department has struggled to retain and recruit teachers and differentials have had positive outcomes for shortage areas. She emphasized that the Board needed to support teachers during this difficult time. Board Member Namauʻu stated that the Board should defer action until decisions are made regarding federal funding and the Department should continue to compensate teachers in the meantime.

Board Member Barcarse stated that he does not support deferring action because the Board and Department made a commitment and should continue funding differentials regardless of whether it receives federal funds or has to determine how to internally fund differentials.

Board Member Voss stated that the Department is experiencing shortfalls and the Board and Department would need to make many difficult decisions this upcoming school year. He noted that the Department would need to reallocate $36 million from other important areas, such as EDN 100 or EDN 200, if other sources of funding do not exist. Board Member Voss stated that it would not be financially responsible for the Board to defer action or vote against temporary discontinuance.

Board Member Asher emphasized that teachers filled shortage areas after differentials went into effect and the public would lose faith and trust if the Board discontinued differentials during this difficult time. The Board and Department cannot break promises and commitments.

Board Member Fallin asked how the Department would fund differentials and how reallocation would affect other programs. Kishimoto explained that the Department would be obligated to continue differentials through August if the Board did not temporarily discontinue extra compensation. She stated that the Department previously presented its funding plan to the Board and determined that it could fund differentials by making adjustments within the biennium budget. However, the Department no longer has the same biennium budget and is experiencing $85 million in shortfalls plus $26 million in obligations. She noted that there is no guarantee that the Department would receive additional federal funds and there is no guarantee that the Department would be able to use these funds to pay for differentials. She noted that federal funds might be limited to specific uses. She stated that she recommended that the Board temporarily pause differentials because otherwise she would not be meeting her responsibilities as Superintendent or her responsibility to the Board and its fiduciary duties.

Brian Hallett, Interim Assistant Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer, Office of Fiscal Services, reviewed budget reductions, shortfalls, and preexisting shortfalls. He noted that in the Department’s previous memorandum, the Department laid out contingency plans and identified five possible areas for funding differentials. However, the Department identified these same areas more recently to manage the upcoming school year. He noted that other previously identified funding sources are no longer available due to budget reductions and shortfalls.

Board Member Fallin asked about carryover funds and whether the Department could use carryover funds to fund differentials. She noted that carryover amounts were higher this year due to the pandemic. Hallett explained that the Department would first review the areas it previously identified and then look to other areas. He noted that the Department had $107 million of unexpended balance at the end of the last fiscal year due to shutdowns. However, $50 million of that balance lapsed to the state general fund and $57 million is being returned to schools. The leftover centralized balance of $835,000 is to address shortfalls.

Board Chairperson Payne commented that there is a human cost to discontinuing differentials and there are costs to classrooms not having qualified teachers.

Board Chairperson Uemura commented that in her previous presentation to the Board, Kishimoto stated that she would not take funds away from school level programs to fund pay differentials if the Department did not receive funding from the Legislatures and would need to fund differentials through its current budget. The Department previously indicated that it would review state office restrictions, salary savings, and other areas that would affect support services at the highest level but would not affect school funding. He stated that the differential matter is a departmental budget consideration and the Department should return to the Board with a potential plan, effects, and outcomes. He stated that during the Finance and Infrastructure Committee meeting, the Department alluded to additional resources, possible congressional funding, and other ways in which it could move around funds.

Board Member Voss requested to withdraw his original motion. Board Chairperson Payne asked if there was any objection to withdraw the motion. There were no objections, and the motion was withdrawn.

H. Board Action on Memorandum of Understanding between State of Hawaii Board of Education and Hawaii State Teachers Association (SY 2020-2021 COVID-19 Response): 2017-2021 contractual modifications and conditions of work related to COVID-19 response for Bargaining Unit 5 employees

Board Member Cox stated that the MOU does not address concerns of staff and teachers regarding reopening. She suggested that the Board hold a special meeting to discuss reopening dates and accept the MOU at that point in time. Board Chairperson Payne explained that the MOU is already in effect. The Board asked the Department to return to the Board to ensure mutual understanding. However, it appears as though Board Members are concerned with other issues.

Board Member Voss stated that it is important to not mix issues. He noted that the Board asked the Department to negotiate issues regarding masks and social distancing and come to a mutual agreement, which it did. He stated that he understands Board Member Takeno’s symbolic gesture, but the Department did what the Board asked of it.

Board Member Voss moved to approve the MOU between the Board and HSTA (School year 2020-2021 COVID-19 response): 2017-2021 contractual modifications and conditions of work related to COVID-19 response for Bargaining Unit 5 employees effective June 26, 2020, as described in the Department’s memorandum dated July 9, 2020, to the Board’s July 23, 2020 meeting. Board Member Takeno seconded.

Board Member Takeno referenced the Department’s memorandum, specifically the mutual agreements that schools reporting a plan to configure spaces of less than six feet of physical distancing would need to request a contract exception no later than July 21, 2020, and teachers would determine routines and rules related to the wearing of face coverings in their particular classrooms. He stated that public health agencies and officials have been communicating the importance of face masks in mitigating spread. He noted that there were concerns regarding face masks impeding learning for certain groups of students. He clarified that face coverings could be interpreted to refer to face masks, face shields, or a combination of both. He stated that requiring face coverings would allow both masks and shields and noted that this would be at the teacher’s discretion but at any given time an individual must wear either one or both. He stated that this would fulfill concerns regarding facial expressions and enunciations.

Board Chairperson Payne asked if Board Member Takeno was suggesting an amendment and noted that the Board does not have the authority to make amendments to the MOU.

Board Member Takeno stated that he was providing clarification and asked if other Board Members or the Department could verify his comments. Covell explained that classroom-based curriculum teachers might need to gather students closer than six feet and ensure all students are wearing masks. Students receiving special education services might need to wear face shields depending on what projects they’re working on and what’s occurring in the classroom. She stated that teachers need to ensure that students wear face coverings similar to how art teachers require students to wear aprons when working on art projects. She explained that this was the intent of that statement in the Department’s memorandum.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that these are simply clarifying statements because the Board does not have the authority to make amendments to the MOU. She stated that the Board might have other concerns it would like the Department, such as training time requests, but it would need to raise these concerns separately in a future meeting.

Board Member Takeno asked if students are only required to wear masks when they are within six feet or less of one another and not required to wear masks if they are more than six feet from one another. He asked if teachers have the authority to mandate masks in the classroom and dictate when students do not need to wear masks or if teachers have the authority to mandate when students would need to switch from face shields to masks. He asked if the Department and schools are providing teachers with empowerment to make these decisions for their classrooms. He noted that other schools and universities are mandating masks within classrooms irrespective and stated that he would like clarification as to what the Department and HSTA agreed to.

Kishimoto explained that everyone, including staff, teachers, and students, are required to wear masks in the classroom and throughout the school on school campuses. She stated that the Department and HSTA agreed that situations regarding instruction are evolving and there are differences between grade levels and needs. She explained that teachers might place several students within a group and require them to wear masks while simultaneously separating a couple of students to work on oral language development and require them to switch to face shields. Teachers can determine whether students can remove their masks, for example if students are more than six feet apart, working independently, or are outside. She stated that these determinations would align with county and state mask requirements. Kishimoto explained that there are many instructional situations where it would be appropriate for a teacher to ask a child, a group of children, or all students to remove masks. She stated that this agreement recognizes the instructional process and needed flexibility, does not override mask requirements, and allows for appropriate instructional design.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that testifiers and Board Members raised concerns that were not addressed in the MOU and that are separate from the MOU. She noted that the Board may need to hold a meeting in the near future to discuss these concerns and provide the Department with an opportunity to address concerns.

Board Member Namauʻu stated that the Board does not have time to wait to hold a future meeting. She asked if the Board could hold an emergency meeting to address testimony and emphasized that concerns relate to health and safety. Board Chairperson Payne stated that she would need to work with Board staff to determine how to hold another meeting as soon as possible and would like the meeting to be posted in advance so that the public has ample notice.

Board Vice Chairperson Uemura expressed concern regarding testifiers’ grievances and asked if the Department has adhered to and is following all of the agreements in the MOU. Board Chairperson Payne stated that the MOU is already in effect and the Department followed the Board’s directives from its last meeting.

Board Vice Chairperson Uemura stated that the Department should review whether it is indeed following all of the agreed upon terms within the MOU. He stated that the Board needed and would like to weigh in on school reopenings and other matters. He noted that the Board’s approval of the MOU is symbolic as it is already in effect, but it is important for the Board to approve or deny in order to have a voice. Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board weighing in on the MOU is moot as it is already in effect. In order to weigh in on other matters and participate in decision making and discussions, the Board would need to hold another meeting where it agendized these matters.

Board Member Cox explained that principals would like more time for training because they were not able to meet with all teachers over the summer to review technology, COVID-19 processes, and other matters. She stated that she would like the Board to hold another meeting where it could be part of the decision making in regards to school reopening dates.

Board member Voss asked if the Board could take action to the effect of Board Member Takeno’s request. He stated that the Board has an opportunity during this meeting to express its concerns to the Superintendent so that the Superintendent could consider all concerns and find a balance.

Board Member Fallin stated that principals and teachers want more time to prepare for school reopenings and asked if the Board could engage in further discussions and participate in the decision making process.

Board Member Takeno emphasized that the Board received over 4,000 pieces of testimony and further emphasized that members of the public are reaching out to the Board for help. He asked if the Governor’s emergency proclamation suspends provisions of Sunshine Law that require the Board to provide a six days’ notice of an upcoming meeting. He stated that the Board might be able to hold a meeting sooner rather than later to address the concerns of teachers and testifiers and emphasized the importance of understanding their perspectives.

The Board recessed at 7:24 p.m. and reconvened at 7:31 p.m.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board could hold an emergency or special meeting but would need to determine the outcome and items up for discussion. She stated that simply continuing discussions without considering outcomes would not provide intended outcomes.

Board Member Takeno stated that he would like to discuss reopening matters. The Board could consider beginning the school year with distance learning for the first two weeks and move into in-person instruction on August 18, 2020. Board Chairperson Payne clarified that there are processes and procedures for changing school calendar and the Board cannot just change the school calendar without following the appropriate procedures. She noted that the Board could perhaps express its desire to begin the school year with distance learning because this would not constitute a calendar change.

Board Member Cox stated that principals would like more time to prepare schools and teachers. Teachers have not had enough training over the summer and need additional training prior to reopening schools. Principals want at least two weeks set aside for training. She asked how the Board could address concerns regarding time and training and provide principals and teachers with additional time to train. She noted that beginning the school year with distance learning does not address these concerns if teachers need time to train for distance learning as well as in-person instruction.

Board Member Takeno stated that the Board’s resolution instructed the Department to review whether calendar changes were necessary by a specific date. However, the Department did not recommend or request any calendar changes. The Board would need to determine how to address these concerns within the existing school calendar. The best option is to begin the school year with distance learning so that teachers and administrators have time to meet during the day to prepare and train.

Board Member Cox emphasized the importance of addressing students’ emotional needs as they return to school. She asked if it would be possible for teachers to spend the first couple of weeks of distance learning focusing on emotional needs, which would leave them with time during the day to participate in training. She stated that teachers would need training on how to address emotional needs as students might be experiencing negative emotions due to the pandemic and current circumstances.

Board Member Voss clarified that Board Member Takeno is suggesting that the Board take action on its resolution to direct the Department to delay the reopening of school or begin the school year in a certain way. He expressed concern that students with special needs and at-risk students might need in-person instruction in order to effectively learn. He stated that the Board needed to consider how some students might be harmed by reopening delays.

Board Member Fallin commented that students are required to have 180 instructional days and pushing back the first day of school might impact their 180 instructional days. She noted that the Superintendent previously indicated that changing the start date does not require legislation but requires negotiations with unions. However, adjustments made to delay the start date while still providing students with 180 instructional days might require additional resources and have budget implications. She stated that the Department would need to request funding from the Legislature or find internal or new funding sources in the case of adjustments and school start delays.

Board Member Namauʻu asked if there is any flexibility regarding the 180 instructional days. Board Chairperson explained that statute requires 180 instructional days but noted that the Board could waive various requirements and already does so, for example allowing schools to add additional training or professional development days to their calendars. She stated that the Department would need to determine how to provide additional training in addition to delaying the start date to ensure a smooth reopening.

Board Member Namauʻu agreed that it would not be productive to simply begin the school year with virtual learning on the same day as currently scheduled. She stated that teachers need time to train and principals need time to phase into situations.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board could not approve a waiver at this meeting to waive requirements because it did not agendize this topic. However, the Board could hold a special meeting to receive clarity, ask questions, discuss concerns, and consider waivers.

Board Member Voss stated that the Board and Department could negatively affect students if the Board changed the start date but did not extend the school year. He stated that he would like to discuss and consider the extension of the school year if the Board is agendizing this topic for its next meeting.

Board Member Cox commented that teachers would be short changed if they need to provide instruction that they are not prepared to provide. She agreed that the Board should hold a special meeting to discuss these matters.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board would need to determine the purpose of its special meeting. She noted that calendar changes require negotiations with unions. The Board could request that the Department engage in these discussions with unions and provide the Board with a recommendation at its special meeting. The Board would also need to provide the public with a six day notice.

Board Member Fallin asked if the Board accepts public testimony during special meetings. Board Chairperson Payne confirmed that the public has an opportunity to testify during special meetings.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board could take action on an amended school calendar for the 2020-2021 school year at its special meeting. She would need to determine if this action item is broad enough to cover distance learning, training, and other concerns. Board Chairperson Payne stated that 2/3 of the Board would need to agree to a meeting and the Board would need to specify whether the Board would take action on distance learning matters.

Board Member Takeno asked for assurance that the Board would hold a meeting to address and discuss various concerns. Board Chairperson Payne confirmed that the Board would hold a special meeting. Board Chairperson Payne asked if there was any objection to hold a special meeting. There were no objections.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously with all members present (Board Vice Chairperson Uemura, Board Members Asher, Barcarse, Cox, Fallin, Namauʻu, Takeno, and Voss) voting aye.

ACTION: Motion to approve the MOU between the Board and HSTA (School year 2020-2021 COVID-19 response): 2017-2021 contractual modifications and conditions of work related to COVID-19 response for Bargaining Unit 5 employees effective June 26, 2020, as described in the Department’s memorandum dated July 9, 2020, to the Board’s July 23, 2020 meeting (Voss/Takeno). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.


VII. Adjournment

Board Chairperson Payne adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m.