STATE OF HAWAII
BOARD OF EDUCATION
GENERAL BUSINESS MEETING

MINUTES

Queen Liliuokalani Building
1390 Miller Street, Room 404
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Thursday, February 20, 2020


PRESENT:
Catherine Payne, Chairperson
Brian De Lima, Esq., Vice Chairperson
Margaret Cox
Kili Namauʻu
Dwight Takeno
Kenneth Uemura
Bruce Voss, Esq.
Daniella White (student representative)
Colonel Sharon Stehlik (military representative)

EXCUSED:
Kaimana Barcarse
Nolan Kawano

ALSO PRESENT:
Christina Kishimoto, Superintendent
Phyllis Unebasami, Deputy Superintendent
Rodney Luke, Assistant Superintendent, Office of Strategy, Innovation, and Performance
Glenn Nochi, Ph.D., Accountability Section, Office of Strategy, Innovation, and Performance
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Executive Secretary
Irina Dana, Secretary

I. Call to Order

The Board of Education (“Board”) General Business Meeting was called to order by Board Chairperson Catherine Payne at 1:30 p.m.


II. Public Testimony on Board of Education (“Board”) Agenda Items

Board Chairperson Payne called for public testimony. The following people provided oral testimony.


Name
Organization
Agenda Item
Position
Art SouzaDepartment of EducationVI.L. Board Action on 10-year Department of Education Strategic Plan, The Power and Promise of Public EducationSupport
David MiyashiroHawaiiKidsCANVI.L. Board Action on 10-year Department of Education Strategic Plan, The Power and Promise of Public EducationComment
Linda Elento PublicVI.E. Board Action on Human Resources Committee recommendation concerning approval of draft report for review and comment by Special Education Task Force and English Learners Task Force (HR Strategic Priority 1)Comment

Art Souza, Department of Education (“Department”), representing the Department’s Complex Area Superintendents (“CAS”), testified in support of the 10-year Department Strategic Plan, The Power and Promise of Education (“2030 Promise Plan”).

Souza highlighted that the 2030 Promise Plan provides opportunities and aspirations for students and communities and would drive transformations.

Souza stated that the Department’s five promises provide the Department with an outward outlook.

Souza detailed the Department’s efforts to collaborate and gather input and highlighted the Department’s inclusion of personalized measures, growth, and qualitative and quantitative outcomes in the 2030 Promise Plan.

David Miyashiro, HawaiiKidsCAN, testified on the 2030 Promise Plan and stood on his written testimony. He stated that he is encouraged by the Department’s ambitious targets and highlighted that the 2030 Promise Plan aligns with HawaiiKidsCAN’s priority initiatives. Miyashiro expressed concern over unaddressed questions and encouraged the Department and Board to answer questions and provide additional clarity prior to taking action.

Linda Elento, member of the public, testified on the Human Resources Committee’s recommendation concerning approval of a draft report for review and comment by the Special Education and English Learners (“EL”) Task Forces’. She urged the Board to review how the Department currently implements Board policies and the task forces’ recommendations and asked the Board to investigate implementation closely this school year rather than the following school year. She encouraged the Board to include charter schools and Hawaiian Education professionals in further discussion regarding the Special Education Task Force’s recommendations. Elento detailed how her child was able to participate in the Hawaii State Secondary Student Conference and emphasized the importance of participation being an option for all students.


III. Approval of Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2020 Special Meeting and January 16, 2020 General Business Meeting

ACTION: Motion to approve the Special Meeting minutes of January 16, 2020, and the General Business Meeting minutes of January 16, 2020 (Uemura/Takeno). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.


IV. Reports of Board Committees, Board Members, and Superintendent
Human Resources Committee Chairperson Dwight Takeno reported that the committee received an update on the Department’s Experimental Modernization Project to provide extra compensation to licensed, tenured teachers to address equity and compression of salaries. He detailed that the committee reviewed a plan identifying the purposes of the project, the methodology to be used, the duration of the project, the criteria for evaluation of the project, and the cost of the project. The committee also received an update on work ensuring Board policies enable the Board and Department to collect necessary teacher retention data and implement bold teacher recruitment and retention strategies. He detailed that he notified the committee that he had modified the timeline by changing deadlines.

Committee Chairperson Takeno reported that the committee took action on the recommendation concerning the appointment of the CAS for the Nanakuli-Waianae Complex Area. He highlighted that the Department thoroughly detailed its process to recommend candidates and further highlighted that the nominee understands the complex area’s strategic mission and community. Committee Chairperson Takeno reported that the committee took action on amendments to the Department’s plan of organization and detailed that the committee reviewed the basis for the amendment. He detailed that Board policy authorizes the Board to approve or deny changes to plans of organization and noted that the amendment relates to the name of an office and does not affect positions. Committee Chairperson Takeno stated that the committee also took action on the approval of a draft report for review and comment by the Special Education and EL Task Forces. He stated that the committee adopted a work plan and timeline in August and determined that Committee members were responsible for reviewing Board policies and determining whether existing policies support the recommendations of the task forces. He stated that the committee adopted the draft report and directed Board staff to forward the draft report to the task forces. Committee Chairperson Takeno reported that the committee also took action on a declaration of annual reduction in force (“RIF”) for classified employees to initiate collectively bargained placement rights for employees displaced due to changes in staffing needs. He noted that 45 employees could be subject to a RIF. Committee Chairperson Takeno stated that the committee voted to authorize the Department to commence the RIF with the caveat that the Department provide a follow-up report at the conclusion of the RIF process. Committee Chairperson Takeno reported that the committee also took action on a recommendation concerning Board policy positions for the 2020 Legislative Session. He detailed that the committee reviewed the rationale for amendments to Board policy positions and expressed concerns regarding legislative bills which infringe upon the Board’s authority.

Finance and Infrastructure Committee Chairperson Uemura reported that the committee discussed the Department’s fiscal reports and asked the Department for more information regarding some of its reports. He noted that the committee previously directed the Department to present on fiscal reports semi-annually rather than on a quarterly basis. Committee Chairperson Uemura reported that the committee did not discuss extra compensation for classroom teachers in special education, hard-to-staff geographical locations, and Hawaiian language immersion programs. He noted that the committee deferred discussion to May 21, 2020 because more information would be available regarding legislative funding. He stated that he asked the Department to return and present on data, measures, program success, and costs in May 2020 during a joint Finance and Infrastructure Committee and Human Resources Committee meeting. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the committee deferred action on the Department’s repair and maintenance priority list and priority criteria for executing Capital Improvement Program projects to its April 16, 2020 meeting. Committee Chairperson Uemura reported that the committee reviewed a recommendation concerning Board policy positions for the 2020 Legislative Session, specifically the establishment of a separate entity responsible for public school facilities.


Board Chairperson Payne reported that ad hoc committee members have been attending hearings and submitting testimony on various measures.

Board Chairperson Payne highlighted some active bills of interest. She detailed that House Bill (“HB”) 1996 would require the Board to include evaluation of the most current strategic plan indicators as a component of the Superintendent’s annual performance evaluation and require improvements in at least one-half of those indicators for any salary increase for the Superintendent. She noted that the Human Resources Committee took action to determine the Board’s policy position on this bill earlier today and the full Board would be taking action later in the meeting.

Board Chairperson Payne detailed that HB 2510 and Senate Bill (“SB”) 2664 would require the Board to hold no less than six community forums annually, with at least one forum in each county; include an open forum for public comments on non-agenda items through June 20, 2025; and submit a report to the Legislature on implementing open forums. She stated that the Board submitted comments on this bill included in Board members’ meeting materials.

Board Chairperson Payne detailed that HB 2544 and SB 3103 would establish the School Facilities Agency, which would be responsible for all public school development, planning, and construction related to capital improvement projects assigned by the Legislature, Governor, or Board. She noted that the Finance and Infrastructure Committee took action earlier today to determine the Board’s policy position on this bill and the full Board would be taking action later in the meeting.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that SB 587 would require the Board to hold at least two community meetings each year in each county to receive public input on public education and public library issues. She noted that the Board submitted comments on this bill included in Board members’ meeting materials. She detailed that ad hoc committee members attended a hearing related to this bill and support the bill’s intent. She noted that a couple of legislators suggested that the bill might not be necessary because the Board has already been engaging communities and holding community meetings on various islands.

Board Chairperson Payne detailed that HB 2543 originally would have transferred the Executive Office on Early Learning from the Department to the Department of Human Services and renamed the office as the Learning to Grow Agency. However, the House Committees on Lower and Higher Education and Finance proposed a new draft that would instead, among other things, establish the Early Learning Coordinator position in the Office of the Governor with the goal of providing all children who are three to four years old with enrollment in a preschool program by the year 2030 and appropriate funds for various activities related to the expansion of prekindergarten, child care, and other learning programs, including funds for building early learning services classrooms on public library property. She stated that the Board submitted testimony with comments on this bill. Board Chairperson Payne noted that the joint House Committee would hold decision-making on this measure next week Tuesday, February 25, 2020.

Student Achievement Committee Chairperson Margaret Cox reported that the committee held a meeting on February 6, 2020. She stated that the committee took action on two agenda items that would be coming before the full Board later in the meeting. The committee took action on evaluation team recommendations concerning the application for chartering authority from Lei Hoʻolaha. The committee agreed with the evaluation team’s findings and recommendations and will be recommending that the Board deny the application for chartering authority. She stated that the committee also took action on a recommendation concerning Board Policy positions for the 2020 Legislative Session, specifically multiple charter school authorizer funding and authorizer system. She detailed that there was recently at least one bill related to charter school authorizer funding and the charter school authorizer system, and Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Payne recommended that the Board authorize the Ad Hoc Committee to take positions on these matters. Committee Chairperson Cox noted that the committee is recommending adoption of the policy positions described in Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Payne’s memorandum.


Board Chairperson Payne reported that Board Members Kili Namauʻu and Kaimana Barcarse hosted a Board Community meeting on February 4, 2020 on Maui. She detailed that over 100 community members attended and highlighted that Superintendent Christina Kishimoto, CASs, and Department leadership were in attendance as well. Board Chairperson Payne detailed that Board members listened to concerns and stated that notes from the community meeting are included in Board members’ materials.

Board Member Namauʻu highlighted that the Board initially held a community meeting with the primary purpose of inviting immersion community members to share concerns and priorities, craft solutions, and help Board members to understand how the Board can be supportive of the immersion community and what Board members can learn about immersion education in public school in November 2019 on Oahu. She highlighted that there was so much statewide interest that the Board decided to hold additional meetings on other islands, starting with Maui. She detailed that attendees participated in robust discussion focusing on Board policies, leadership, staffing, and curriculum. Board Member Namauʻu highlighted that participants expressed appreciation for differential pay for immersion teachers. She detailed that they raised concerns regarding priorities, including the need for leadership positions focused on immersion programs, awareness and advocacy for immersion programs at all levels of the school system, collaboration across grade levels, and school facilities devoted to immersion education. Board Member Namauʻu highlighted that the Board intends to continue its community meetings on Hawaii Island in the next couple of months.

Board Chairperson Payne expressed appreciation for the Office of Hawaiian Education’s support and facilitation.
V. *Public Testimony on Board Agenda Items

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


VI. Action Items

Student Achievement Committee Chairperson Cox stated that the committee recommends that the Board deny the application for chartering authority from Lei Hoʻolaha based on the evaluation team’s findings in its recommendation report. She noted that the evaluation team highlighted many positive elements of the application but ultimately found that the applicant was not ready to become an authorizer at this time.

ACTION: Motion to approve the evaluation team’s recommendation to deny the application for chartering authority from Lei Hoʻolaha (Student Achievement Committee/no second required). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

Student Achievement Committee Chairperson Cox stated that the committee recommends that the Board approve the amendments described in Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Payne’s memorandum, dated February 6, 2020, to the Board’s policy positions it adopted at its September 19, 2020 general business meeting for the 2020 Legislative Session.

ACTION: Motion to adopt the policy positions described in Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Payne’s memorandum dated February 6, 2020 and incorporate them into the policy positions the Board adopted at its September 19, 2020 general business meeting for the 2020 Legislative Session, as shown in Exhibit B attached to Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Payne’s memorandum (Student Achievement Committee/no second required). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

ACTION: Motion to approve the appointment of Sione Thompson as CAS for the Nanakuli-Waianae Complex Area (Human Resources Committee/no second required). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

ACTION: Motion to approve amendments to the Department’s plan of organization to change the name of the Office of School Facilities and Support Services (“OSFSS”) to the Office of Facilities and Operations (“OFO”) in accordance with Board Policy 500-2, Plan of Organization, as described in the Department’s memorandum dated February 20, 2020 (Human Resources Committee/no second required). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

ACTION: Motion to: 1) Adopt the report attached as Exhibit A in Human Resources Committee Chairperson Takeno’s memorandum dated February 20, 2020; and 2) Direct Board staff to provide the report to members of the 2018 Special Education and English Learner Task Forces for review and comment (Human Resources Committee/no second required). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

Human Resources Committee Chairperson Takeno stated that the committee recommends the Board authorize the Department to commence a RIF provided that the Department provide the committee with a report on the outcome of the RIF at the end of the process.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that he had requested a list of affected schools and positions during the committee meeting but understands that the Department would need time to redact confidential information. He stated that he would like a redacted list sometime after the meeting.

ACTION: Motion to authorize the Department to commence a reduction in force for classified employees for the purpose of initiating collectively bargained reassignment and bumping rights for affected employees, as described in the Department’s memorandum dated February 20, 2020 (Human Resources Committee/no second required). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

ACTION: Motion to approve the amendments described in Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Payne’s memorandum dated February 20, 2020 to the Board’s policy positions it adopted at its September 19, 2020 general business meeting for the 2020 Legislative Session (Human Resources Committee/no second required). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

The Board took this agenda item together with agenda item VI.I, entitled “Board Action on Finance and Infrastructure Committee recommendation concerning Department of Education’s priority criteria for executing Capital Improvement Program projects (FIC Strategic Priority 2).” See the minutes under agenda item VI.I for the discussion.

Finance and Infrastructure Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the committee deferred action on the Department’s repair and maintenance priority list and priority criteria for executing Capital Improvement Program projects to its April 16, 2020 meeting.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the committee had robust discussion and took action to amend Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Payne’s recommendations. He detailed that the committee amended Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Payne’s recommendation to add a policy position to its Department positions and approved her recommendation to amend the Board’s general policy positions.

Board Chairperson Payne clarified that the committee amended her recommendation by removing references to an attached agency and inserting language regarding the support of legislation that improves processes and funding for facilities.

ACTION: Motion to amend the Board policy positions adopted at its September 19, 2020 general business meeting to: (1) include the statement: “The Board supports proposed legislation that improves processes and resources for the construction and maintenance of school facilities” under its Department of Education Policy Positions and (2) insert the underlined language into the third bulleted statement in the Board’s General Policy Positions as follows: “The Board does not support proposed legislation that: Requires the Board to assume management responsibilities over employees other than the Superintendent of Education and the State Librarian (or heads of other agencies over which the Board has governance authority) rather than remain focused on its constitutional responsibility of policymaking.” (Finance and Infrastructure Committee/no second required). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

The Board took this agenda item after agenda item VI.L, entitled “Board Action on 10-year Department of Education Strategic Plan, The Power and Promise of Education,” and agenda item VI.K., entitled “Board Action on amendments to Hawaii’s consolidated state plan for the Every Student Succeeds Act (“ESSA”) regarding methodology to identify schools with the lowest-performing subgroups for “Additional Targeted Support and Improvement” (“A-TSI”) and subgroups identified for “Targeted Support and Improvement-Consistently Underperforming” (“TSI-CU”).

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board would need to take action on a designation of Board members to an investigative committee concerning the nomination of four Hawaii State Public Charter School Commission (“Commission”) members. She stated that the investigative committee will present its nominations at the Board’s March 5, 2020 meeting, and the Board will take action on the nominations at its subsequent meeting on April 16, 2020.

Board Chairperson Payne recommended that the Board assign two to four Board members to the investigative committee tasked with nominating recommended individuals to serve as members on the Commission for the Board to consider for appointment and designate the Board member that will serve as the chairperson of the investigative committee. She asked the Commission to provide the Board with information regarding its specific areas of needs and the kinds of qualifications Commission members would need to possess to fill knowledge gaps.

ACTION: Motion to 1) establish an investigative committee (a permitted interaction group pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 92-2.5(b)(1)) tasked with nominating recommended individuals to serve as members on the State Public Charter School Commission for the Board to consider for appointment and 2) designate Board Chairperson Catherine Payne, Board Vice Chairperson Brian De Lima, and Board Member Kili Namauʻu to serve on the investigative committee, with Board Chairperson Payne serving as chairperson (Uemura/Voss). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

The Board took this agenda item before agenda item VI.K, entitled “Board Action on designation of Board members to an investigative committee (a permitted interaction group pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 92-2.5(b)(1)) concerning nomination of individuals to serve as members of the State Public Charter School Commission.”

Board Chairperson Payne stated that she reviewed the Department’s 2030 Promise Plan through the lens of her experience as a teacher and principal. She highlighted that she was impressed with the specificity and further highlighted that the 2030 Promise Plan would be helpful at the school-level and would help schools move forward. She expressed appreciation for the Department’s work and highlighted that Souza’s earlier testimony detailed how the 2030 Promise Plan would serve as a helpful tool for CASs.

Christina Kishimoto, Superintendent, highlighted that the Department collaborated with many individuals, internally and externally, to develop its 2030 Promise Plan and emphasized the importance of community engagement. She detailed that the Department started to develop its document in January 2019. The Department envisioned a 10-year action plan that would emphasize equity and excellence. The Department focused on discussing ideas that could transform after it released its vision plan and had conversations regarding powerful practices that engage students and affect how students learn. She stated that the Department focused on a vision of public education and the power and promise of public education. The Department reviewed how to measure student success and discussed what an empowerment framework would look like. She detailed that the Department also reviewed how to empower schools and ensure that complex areas provide schools with support. The Department discussed the concept of portfolios of highly impactful school models. She detailed that schools do not have to look the same but need to meet expectations and find ways in which to be impactful. Kishimoto highlighted the Department’s commitment to modernization and further detailed discussions that occurred as the Department prepared to engage communities in its concept of promises to students.

Kishimoto highlighted that 83 stakeholder engagement groups provided feedback and 2,782 individuals participated in formalized engagement groups, including business leaders, public sector leaders, community partners, parents, and students. She detailed that the Department divided engagement and feedback into three phases. The second phase consisted of public surveys and discussions regarding metrics and provided the Department with 752 additional pieces of feedback. Kishimoto detailed that the Department partnered with Hawaii Community Foundation for an annual event where the Department articulated its vision to business and industry leaders and asked for support. She stated that CASs and principals met periodically throughout this process and made efforts to include parents, teachers, and staff members.

Kishimoto stated that there are several significant shifts in the 2030 Promise Plan. She stated that the first shift is decentralization of curriculum decisions and noted that school design would drive curriculum decisions. Kishimoto detailed the Department’s focus on transformational ideas for learning through classroom approaches, such as 'Âina-based instruction, student voice, connection with industry, project-based designs, and the infusion of the values of Hopena A'o (“H”). Kishimoto detailed that the second shift focuses on a diverse portfolio of successful school models within complex areas. She noted that complex areas are reviewing choice, access, and design options. Another shift is in regards to Hawaii’s broader goals, such as its green growth initiative, which is based on the United Nations 17 sustainability goals. Kishimoto highlighted that the business industry adopted a change framework that focuses on several areas, including community, economy, health and wellness, arts and culture, natural environment, government and civics, and education. The change framework focuses on preparing students across the state to be leaders in all sectors. Kishimoto stated that another shift in its 2030 Promise Plan is reflected in its modernization approach to operations and systems to support tri-level empowerment. She noted that leaders are implementing tri-level thinking regarding implications and what it means to deliver on promises.

Kishimoto stated that the 2020-2021 school year would include planning and setting up systems for successful implementation. The Department will help complex areas to redesign strategic plans and these strategic plans would drive and support school-level plans. Kishimoto noted that schools are submitting academic and financial plans and aligning these plans with the Department’s five promises. The Department is also developing community partnerships to advance the 2030 Promise Plan.

Kishimoto reviewed the Department’s five promises and noted that each promise has a definition. She stated that the first promise is entitled “Hawaiʻi” and promises that students will be educated within a public school system that is grounded in HÂ, empowers a multilingual society, and honors Hawaiʻi’s local and global contribution. Kishimoto detailed that there are five high-leverage strategies within each promise. Complexes and schools will build these strategies into strategic plans. There are strategic opportunities under each high-leverage strategy. These opportunities serve as a highly encouraged menu of options across the tri-level and provide community partners and leaders with opportunities to explore how to make strategic decisions and incorporate these decisions into overall offerings.

Kishimoto reviewed accountability measures. She stated that the Department identified Strive Hawaii measures and further expanded on accountability through its community engagement work. She noted that the Department incorporated three new measures into its 2030 Promise Plan, revised two measures, incorporated additional data, and incorporated additional opportunities for data-based decision making. She highlighted that the Department divided its measures in order to be able to tell a story in terms of academic performance, college and career readiness, and learning environments.

Kishimoto detailed that the academic performance metric previously reported third grade literacy. The Department expanded the third-grade literacy metric to include the percentage of third graders demonstrating reading of “at or near” or “above” grade-level expectation on the statewide assessment; the percentage of fourth graders who were below grade level at the end of third grade, and caught up to their grade-level peers in grade four; and the percentage of eighth graders demonstrating reading of “at or near” or “above” grade-level expectation on the statewide assessment. She stated that the expansion helps to track transitions and aligns with the literacy grant the Department received from the U.S. Department of Education. Kishimoto reviewed college, career, and community readiness indicators. The Department revised and expanded measures beyond career technical education (“CTE”) concentrators to include academic courses of study aligned with industry. She noted that students who entered career academies were not always captured under CTE indicators. The Department revised its indicator to include both groups of students. Kishimoto stated that the Department’s new indicators include college access and community readiness. The college access indicator includes the percentage of students who earned college credit, advanced placement credit, participated in an internship, or obtained industry certification. She detailed that the community readiness indicator reflects instructional approaches the Department has been supporting and encouraging. Kishimoto stated that the Department added an indicator for community engagement under its learning environment category. This indicator captures data beyond classroom instruction.

Kishimoto stated that the Department left the 14 previous indicators in place for the 2020-2021 school year and would begin collecting data on the new indicators during the 2021-2022 school year. She highlighted that the new indicators would help the Department review ways in which to support civic engagement. The Department plans to spend the next four to six months developing clear definitions, metrics, and baselines, and ensuring that schools are ready to collect data.

Kishimoto reviewed the 2030 Promise Plan’s guidance regarding change management approaches. She detailed that the Department plans to establish five advisory committees. The advisory committees will review the Department’s data dashboard, additional measures beyond the 17 indicators in the 2030 Promise Plan, and subgroup data. She stated that the committees will review the quality of education and challenges and determine suggestions for resolutions, such as changes in legislative approaches. Kishimoto asked Board members to consider serving on an advisory committee. Kishimoto reviewed communication. She stated that the Department’s next steps include a vision tour comprised of three phases. She stated that the Department is organizing a small team of external partners to present on the five promises on each of the islands. She invited Board members to join these public conversations. Kishimoto stated that the second phase consists of complex area sessions and rollout of the 2030 Promise Plan. The third phase consists of ambassador teams presenting on the 2030 Promise Plan within schools. Kishimoto detailed grants for which the Department applied for, the Department’s vision and focus, and the Department’s communication of its message. She emphasized the importance of continuing community engagement through its various advisory committees.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that while he is supportive of the 2030 Promise Plan, he could not take action because of when Board members received materials. He stated that there was not enough time for Board members nor the public to review the 2030 Promise Plan. He expressed appreciation for the Department’s work but noted that the Board has a responsibility to thoroughly review important documents. He stated that the Board should spend as much time reviewing the 2030 Promise Plan as it spent reviewing data during its data retreat. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that he would like the Department to review the concerns and comments testifiers expressed in their written and oral testimony. He emphasized the importance of the Board engaging with and allowing those who are responsible for implementation to share their thoughts.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima expressed concern regarding the family engagement indicator. He stated that the Department should expand the metric beyond a school climate survey. He noted that schools provide parents with opportunities to sign-in and review how their student is performing in his or classroom in terms of homework, assignments, and grades. He stated that the percentage of parents who take advantage of this opportunity should be readily available. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima suggested that the Department include parent involvement as part of the metric. He stated that there might be other ways in which to collect family engagement data.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima expressed concern regarding inclusion rate goal increases. He detailed Stetson initiatives and noted that initially 30 schools were interested in participating in Stetson training. The goal was to train staff who would train additional staff and schools each year. He asked about the outcome of this plan. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima asked if the Department’s inclusion goals are fair or whether these goals should be higher or lower. He stated that it is important for the Board to engage in these kinds of discussions and have sufficient time to learn more about the content of the 2030 Promise Plan. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima noted that the 2030 Promise Plan would guide the public school system for the next ten years and highlighted that the Department spent months drafting it. He stated that the Board should spend more than one hour studying and digesting it. He emphasized the importance of inviting stakeholders to participate in the discussion. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that he would like more time to vet the plan, become informed of the details of the plan, and discuss strategic measures. He stated that Board members should engage in discussions regarding whether the Department should report on data points every three years or annually. He stated that it is unclear how often the Department plans to report on certain metrics, such as chronic absenteeism, and emphasized the importance of receiving annual reports on specific measures. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima suggested that the Board defer action today and defer discussion to the Student Achievement Committee. He suggested that the Board should plan a data retreat for Board members to spend an entire day discussing the details of the 2030 Promise Plan.

Board Member Voss agreed with Board Vice Chairperson De Lima. He expressed appreciation for the Department’s work, empowerment of schools, and inclusion of CASs. Board Member Voss expressed concern regarding student success indicators. He noted that members of the public would review indicators to determine whether the Department is making meaningful progress and the Board would review indicators to determine whether Kishimoto is making enough progress to achieve the goals of the plan. He stated that he is unsure whether members of the public and Board members could review indicators to determine progress in the plan’s current form.

Board Member Voss stated that the Department included many indicators from the previous Board and Department Joint Strategic Plan (“Strategic Plan”). He noted that the Board was unsure about many of the indicators at the time of adoption. He detailed family engagement, school climate, and the repair and maintenance backlog measures, and noted that these were not particularly good indicators measured by these metrics. He stated that he would like further discussion on all of the measures. Board Member Voss agreed with Board Vice Chairperson De Lima that there needed to be additional discussion regarding whether the 2030 Promise Plan should have annual targets for some segments and three-year targets for others. He noted that there should be discussion regarding interim targets and detailed that interim targets could assure members of the public that the Department is striving in the interim to make aggressive progress. Board Member Voss expressed concern that the Department’s targets might be too ambitious and aggressive. He stated that many targets from the Strategic Plan were not achieved. He stated that it is important to have realistic and obtainable metrics so that members of the public do not view targets as aspirational goals that the Department will be unable to achieve. He noted that the Department’s goals, targets, and percentages may be correct but stated that he would like to hear from stakeholders on whether these goals are realistic.

Board Member Uemura stated that he has concerns regarding whether the 2030 Promise plan is realistic. He stated that the Department would need to develop an operating plan and a financial plan that would show how the Department plans to implement the 2030 Promise Plan and achieve its goals. He stated that the Department did not provide the Board with information regarding operations nor finances so he is unsure of whether the 2030 Promise Plan is realistic. He stated that he supports deferring action in order to engage in further discussion.

Kishimoto clarified that the Department engaged in discussions with stakeholders and others in order to develop metrics. She detailed discussions regarding metrics, progress, and ongoing conversation. She stated that the Department plans to develop annual progress reports and set annual progress points. She described conversations with complexes regarding challenges and opportunities and highlighted complex-based decisions.

Board Member Cox stated that she is in support of having further discussion at a retreat and noted that she would like to hear more from CASs. She agreed that Board members have not had enough time to review the 2030 Promise Plan and stated that she would like to defer action so that the Board could engage in further discussion. Board Member Cox stated that she would like to know more about processes and what is occurring at the school-level, which is why she would like to hear from principals and CASs.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima moved to: 1) Defer action on the 2030 Promise Plan to the Student Achievement Committee; and 2) Direct the Board Office to establish the date and invite CASs and stakeholders. Board Member Cox seconded.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that it would be more efficient for the full Board to continue its discussions regarding the 2030 Promise Plan rather than deferring action to the Student Achievement Committee. She noted that the full Board meets more regularly than the Student Achievement Committee.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima agreed with Board Chairperson Payne. He suggested that the Board hold a special meeting. He noted that what is important is to have stakeholders present and participate in free-flowing discussion. He stated that he would like the Department to include its staff who could answer questions and provide detailed information regarding inclusion, technology, the repair and maintenance backlog, and so forth.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima withdrew his motion.
Board Chairperson Payne suggested that Board members provide their questions and concerns regarding the 2030 Promise Plan to the Board’s Executive Director.

ACTION: Motion to defer action on the 2030 Promise Plan (De Lima/Uemura). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that Kishimoto previously provided Board members with an update regarding amendments to Hawaii’s consolidated state plan for the Every Student Succeeds Act (“ESSA”). Kishimoto previously informed the Board that the federal government required the Department to make amendments and stated that the Department would return in the future to provide further updates.

Rodney Luke, Assistant Superintendent, Office of Strategy, Innovation, and Performance, introduced Glenn Nochi, Ph.D., Accountability Section, Office of Strategy, Innovation, and Performance. Luke reviewed amendments to Hawaii’s consolidated state plan for ESSA regarding the methodology to identify schools with the lowest-performing subgroups for Additional Targeted Support and Improvement” (“A-TSI”) and subgroups identified for Targeted Support and Improvement-Consistently Underperforming” (“TSI-CU”). Luke stated that the U.S. Department of Education approved Hawaii’s amendments on October 25, 2019. He detailed the history of ESSA and explained that former President Barack Obama signed ESSA into law in December of 2015. ESSA replaced the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (“NCLB”). ESSA modified NCLB but did not eliminate all of its provisions. Luke detailed that the Board accepted Hawaii’s consolidated state plan for ESSA on September 5, 2017, and noted that both Governor Ige and Kishimoto approved and signed the plan. He stated that the federal government requested that the Department review its methodology for identifying under-performing subgroups after fully approving Hawaii’s ESSA plan. Luke stated that the Department previously informed the Board that it would present on amendments, what the changes entail, implications for schools, and how the Department continues to provide support.

Nochi detailed that one of the key purposes under ESSA is for states to identify underperforming schools and subgroups. He explained that there are three categories of identification. The first is the Comprehensive Support and Improvement (“CSI”) designation. He detailed that the CSI designation includes the lowest performing bottom five percent of schools, including high schools with low graduation rates. He noted that CSI designations include schools as a whole. ESSA also requires A-TSI and TSI-CU designations. TSI-CU designations include consistently underperforming subgroups. Nochi noted that consistently underperforming subgroups are eligible to become additionally targeted and receive an escalation of support and services. He stated that the methodology and amendments focuses on the TSI portion of identification. Nochi detailed that Hawaii has ten subgroups, including three high-needs subgroups, including students with disabilities, English learners, and students who are economically disadvantaged, and seven major race and/or ethnicity categories, including Asian (excluding Filipino), Filipino, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and White.

Nochi reviewed details of the amendment and how Hawaii is proposing to identify additionally targeted support improvement schools and subgroups. He stated that identification is a two-step process. The first step is for the Department to identify consistently underperforming subgroups. The Department plans to review all subgroups statewide across the ten different subgroup types using a minimum N-size. Nochi detailed that consistently is defined as two consecutive years and underperforming is defined as the bottom ten percent. He explained that the Department identifies schools and subgroups as TSI-CU if the subgroup performs at the bottom ten percent of the school for two consecutive years. He detailed that the Department identifies A-TSI subgroups every three years. Subgroups are identified as A-TSI if they are equal to or below the highest CSI score. He explained that the U.S. Department of Education asked the Department to amend its methodology and criteria for A-TSI identification. Originally the Department proposed identifying subgroups as A-TSI if they were equal to or below the lowest CSI score. He stated that the Department addressed the U.S. Department of Education’s concerns and resubmitted its plan.

Nochi reviewed Fall 2019 results and explained that the Department reports on actual schools. He detailed that reports include identified schools and subgroups. He stated that eight of the current identified schools and subgroups may again be in the bottom ten percent by the end of the school year, which would mean that these schools and subgroups might fall under the TSI-CU or A-TSI designation. Nochi reviewed 24 other schools and lowest performing subgroups and noted that the Department had 35 schools that were identified as lowest performing in the 2018-2019 school year. He explained that the Department might designate these schools as TSI-CU or A-TSI if any of the same subgroups within these schools are lowest performing during the 2019-2020 school year.

Luke reviewed the Department’s continued commitment and support and explained that the Department has a two-prong approach. He detailed direct support and technical assistance and noted that the Department provides schools designated as CSI with opportunities, including additional positions and funding. He reviewed human and financial resources and noted that the Deputy Superintendent monitors this component. He detailed that the Deputy Superintendent visits schools to monitor implementation plans. Luke reviewed technical assistance and detailed that the Department provides ongoing supports, consistently meets with principals, and conducts school visits. He stated that the Department engages in complex area school improvement team meetings and detailed that the team is comprised of CASs, educational officers, academic officers, resource teachers, and so forth. He highlighted that many state offices are involved in meetings to provide necessary support. Luke stated that the Department also partners with external partners, such as the Department of Health and the Department of Transportation.

Luke reviewed support for A-TSI and TSI-CU designated schools and subgroups. He stated that these schools receive similar direct support and assistance as CSI designated schools. He stated that the Department empowers CASs and provides oversight of implementation. He stated that CASs need to know that they are not in isolation and noted that the Department tries to implement a kindergarten through twelfth grade approach and view issues through a kindergarten through twelfth grade pipeline, especially if schools are identified as underperforming due to low graduation rates. He stated that the Department does not wait for students to enter high school for schools to be designated as CSI and reviews data as students move through the pipeline.

Luke reviewed school development and implementation components. He stated that implementation is driven by data and comprehensive needs assessments. School review data, identify successes and challenges, design and draft plans to address students, and submit these plans to CASs for approval and monitoring.
Luke stated that the Department continues to provide support, training, and resources around ESSA. Ongoing conversations include the recent amendments and the effects on schools and students. He stated that there is no one-size-fits-all approach and support and training are dependent upon school communities. He highlighted that the Department takes many factors into consideration to determine necessary supports and is committed to providing all students with equitable access to learning opportunities and experiences.

Board Member Voss stated that the most fundamental change in the ESSA plan is the Department’s broadening scope of schools and subgroups designated as A-TSI. He asked how many additional subgroups or schools might be encompassed under the new methodology. Luke stated that the Department currently identifies and designates eight schools as in need of additional support but 32 schools might be identified and designated as A-TSI by the end of the school year.

Board Member Voss stated that he understands the Department is assisting with the development of plans for schools to address needs.

Board Member Voss asked about additional funds for schools with a TSI-designation. Luke explained that complex areas and CASs have opportunities to apply for additional funding based on the needs of their schools. The Department provided each complex area with an additional $100,000 this past year based on need. He stated that some complex areas accepted this funding while others did not because needs are dependent on different conditions and circumstances.

Board Member Voss asked if additional funds are available for schools if the Department identifies and designates 32 additional schools as A-TSI or TSI-CU. Phyllis Unebasami, Deputy Superintendent, highlighted that Kishimoto emphasizes school empowerment and detailed complex area and school-level decisions in terms of funding. She explained that schools and complexes receive Title I funds and Title IIA funds and detailed increased amounts of resources.

Unebasami highlighted that complex areas maintain the discretion to plan accordingly for their portfolio of schools. She stated that there is a specific portion related to high need areas in complex areas’ annual performance agreements regarding deliverables, including TSI and CSI schools. She stated that some complexes might not have any identified or designated schools but still review subgroups. Unebasami detailed that complex areas consistently track who the vulnerable learners are in different areas, what kinds of resources from different Title programs or general education funds could be used to support these groups, and how resources are supporting school-level work.

Board Member Voss asked if the Department plans to re-allocate existing funds for TSI schools or review other sources of funding. Unebasami explained that the Department allocates a certain amount of funds for TSI schools. Kishimoto stated that ESSA requires the Department to aside five percent of its funds so five percent would be allocated between more schools. Each school would receive less funds if the number of designated schools increase so the Department would need to determine how to best leverage its funds.

Kishimoto stated that the Department would need to review other funding sources and determine if it could increase the amount of funds it allocates for each complex area. She stated that the Department would need to make decisions once it determines how many additional schools are designated as TSI at the end of the school year. The Department might need to set aside more than five percent of funds moving forward or make other decisions.

Board Chairperson Payne asked about the Department’s literacy grant and whether it could use literacy grant funds to address these issues. Kishimoto explained that the Department would review all of its funds, how to leverage its funds, and align its budget with intervention and improvement plans. She stated that law mandates the Department to leverage funds. Nochi added that the Department conducts an exit process at the start of each new cycle of identification so schools have the opportunity to exit and no longer fall under the designation.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima asked if the Department allocates funds to specific subgroups, such as students who receive special education services or English learner services. Luke stated that the Department’s plan includes addressing specific subgroups.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima asked whether the Department historically allocated funds to schools for disadvantaged students or set aside funds for underperforming subgroups.

Luke stated that he believes historically the Department allocated funds for subgroups in general. He stated that the Department currently identifies specific underperforming subgroups and plans focus on subgroups. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima asked if the Department is required to distribute an equal amount of funds to schools. Luke confirmed that the Department is not required to distribute funds equally. He explained that the Department works with complex areas to determine needs and allocations.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima emphasized the importance of the Department implementing intensive interventions in elementary schools and assisting students at an early age rather than distributing funds equally across schools. Luke explained CSI and TSI designations and noted that the Department’s broader focus is in regards to the kindergarten through twelfth grade pipeline. He stated that the Department is focusing on how to help students build skills and experiences in elementary school and continue growth in middle school and high school.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that the 2030 Promise Plan focuses on intervention in high schools and different types of interventions in middle schools. He stated that he appreciates the 2030 Promise Plan’s inclusion of third grade proficiency. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima suggested that the Department review supports and interventions in elementary schools and whether to provide elementary schools with additional resources.

Board Member Cox explained that the Department is required to provide federal funds to the lowest performing schools and subgroups. She agreed with Board Vice Chairperson De Lima’s comments regarding third grade proficiency but noted that schools are required to test language arts and math and report graduation rates in order to receive federal funds. She stated that she assumes plans include strategies for teaching reading and math and emphasized the importance of qualified teachers. Board Member Cox asked if plans are dependent upon issues, such as low graduation rates or low performance on math tests, and asked about strategies. Luke stated that the Department is reviewing math, math content, teaching strategies, and ensuring teachers have appropriate skills. He stated that ESSA provides schools with opportunities to submit waivers and detailed that the Department recently submitted a waiver in regards to innovative assessments.

Board Member Cox commented that the number of lowest performing subgroups has increased. Nochi explained that the U.S. Department of Education allows two ways in which states are able to identify and designate underperforming schools and subgroups. He detailed that some states use the bottom one percent of schools and subgroups that underperform two years in a row to determine designations. It is more common for states to determine designations using the bottom five percent of schools. He stated that the Department opted to be more rigorous and use ten percent for both years.

ACTION: Motion to approve amendments to Hawaii’s consolidated state plan for ESSA regarding methodology to identify schools with the lowest-performing subgroups for A-TSI and subgroups identified for TSI-CU as shown in Attachment B to the Department’s February 20, 2020 memorandum (Voss/De Lima). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.


VII. Adjournment

Board Chairperson Payne adjourned the meeting at 3:26 p.m.