STATE OF HAWAII
BOARD OF EDUCATION
SPECIAL MEETING

MINUTES

Queen Liliuokalani Building

1390 Miller Street, Room 404
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Thursday, October 20, 2022


PRESENT:
Bruce Voss, Chairperson
Bill Arakaki
Shanty Asher
Lynn Fallin
Ken Kuraya
Makana McClellan
Lauren Moriarty
Kili Namauʻu


EXCUSED:
Kaimana Barcarse, Vice Chairperson


ALSO PRESENT:
Maverick Yasuda, Student Representative
Robert Hull, Senior Advisor, National Association of State Boards of Education
Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, Department of Education
Tammi Oyadomari-Chun, Deputy Superintendent of Strategy, Department of Education
Stephen Schatz, Executive Director, Hawai‘i P-20
Heidi Armstrong, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Executive Secretary
Lady Garrett, Secretary


  1. Call to Order


Board Chairperson Bruce Voss called the Board of Education (“Board”) Special Meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Board Chairperson Voss and Board Members Bill Arakaki, Lynn Fallin, Lauren Moriarty, and Kili Namau‘u were present.


  1. Discussion Items


Board Chairperson Voss called for public testimony.


Cheri Nakamura, HEʻE Coalition, testified on agenda item II.A, entitled “Presentation on National Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning.” She highlighted that transparency is critical, stated that the strategic plan should point to areas of need and identify Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (“SBAC”) trends to help explore root causes of issues, including those that impact certain student subgroups.


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


Board Chairperson Voss asked to suspend parliamentary procedures for this portion of the meeting. There were no objections, and the Board suspended parliamentary procedures.


Board Chairperson Voss updated the Board on the strategic plan community engagement process. He shared that the Board is holding a community meeting in each of the 15 complex areas. He stated that the Board held six meetings already and that the next meeting is scheduled for October 21, 2022 at the Ewa Makai Middle School cafeteria at 5:00 p.m.


Board Chairperson Voss emphasized that the meetings are well attended and Board Members enjoyed spending time with stakeholders. He shared the number of participants at community meetings so far, Maui College with 70 participants; Castle High School with 44 participants; Mililani Middle School with 50 participants; Kailua High School with 59 participants; Chiefess Kamakahelei Middle school with 42 participants, and Maili Elementary with 60 participants.


Board Chairperson Voss announced that information on the remaining community meetings is publicly posted on the Board’s website. He also shared that the first part of the Board’s community engagement included a survey administered by NASBE, which closed on October 11, 2022. Board Chairperson Voss invited Robert Hull, Senior Advisor, NASBE, to provide an update.


Board Member Ken Kuraya joined the meeting at 8:07 a.m.


Hull stated that the Board’s community engagement survey closed on October 11, 2022. He stated that the Board received approximately 8,000 responses with 76% of the responses from parents or guardians, 25% from teachers, 10% from students, 10% from other school staff, 300 business leaders, and 57 elected officials. Hull also explained that individuals could self-identify in more than one category and the that results will be shared in conjunction with data collected through the Board community meeting process. He also noted that 72% of the respondents identified as female.


Board Chairperson Voss stated that Hull did a lot of work to ensure the survey was user friendly and noted that media partners shared the information with the public so the information was broadcast far and wide.


Board Member Shanty Asher joined the meeting at 8:11 a.m.


Board Chairperson Voss called on Hull to facilitate the strategic planning portion of the meeting.


Hull stated that the Board will need to focus time on the vision and mission. He explained that the session objectives include the following: to examine sample language to revise and refine the Board’s vision and mission statements, to review briefly national student learning data for context and consistency with state-specific data, and to review state-level student learning data to inform and guide developing strategic plan goals, objectives, and measures.


Hull reminded the Board that the strategic priorities previously agreed upon include: (1) High-Quality Learning for All; (2) High-Quality Educator Workforce in All Schools; and, (3) Effective and Efficient operations at all levels. He reiterated that the vision statement focuses on the future and the ultimate destination of the strategic plan whereas the mission statement focuses on the work an organization needs to do. Hull stated that neither are complex statements and that they should be simple, aspirational, inspirational, and actionable.


Hull asked the Board to review the vision and mission statements from other organizations and reminded the Board that its current vision statement is “Hawaii’s students are educated, healthy, and joyful lifelong learners who contribute positively to our community and global society.” Board members discussed the vision statement, which included:


Board Member Makana McClellan joined the meeting at 8:23 a.m.

Hull asked Board members to pair up to review example vision statements from other organizations to identify words, phrases, or concepts that resonate with them.


Board Member Arakaki expressed support for the concept of “Rooted in Our Strengths,” especially the phrase “engaged in a culturally and linguistically responsive education system.” He also stated that he is trying to distinguish vision related statements from mission related statements.


Board Student Representative Maverick Yasuda expressed support for the phrase, “the state department of education supports a culture of innovation, excellence, and equity to ensure a bright future for all students,” which is collective and inclusive. He also highlighted concepts, like deriving strength from diversity, which is relevant because of Hawaii’s diverse population and the phrase “envision personalized educational pathways,” since not all students learn in the same ways. Board Student Representative Yasuda also expressed support for the concept of fostering creative and critical thinkers who believe in their abilities to positively influence the state and world beyond.


Board Chairperson Voss expressed appreciation for the excellent summary provided by Board Student Representative Yasuda. He emphasized that some of the statements were surprising and expressed support for the concept of aiming to ensure equity for each student in a safe and healthy learning environment. Board Chairperson Voss expressed support for other concepts, including describing an excellent statewide system, including “each or all students” in all statements to encompass high needs students, lifelong learners, partnerships with the community as outlined in item 11. He also highlighted the importance of creating an inspiring learning experience and to engage students with vigor.


Board Member Moriarty expressed support for the concepts of strength from diversity, equity of opportunity, ways to address civic engagement and civic contribution, self-reliance, preparation for life expectations, and setting expectations high with the use of the word excellence. She noted that a strong cultural concept was missing from the sample statements and that some of the vision statements were too long.


Board Member Fallin expressed support for including the concept of culture because the Board cannot do its work without it.


Board Member Moriarty stated that the group did not discuss the concept of students believing that they are capable of making contributions with, not only knowledge and skills, but confidence.


Hull asked whether Board members thought anything was missing from the example vision statements or support for anything in the current vision statement.


Board Member Moriarty expressed support for the current vision statement on joyful, lifelong learners because this paints a vivid image and allows individuals to imagine themselves in the statement.


Hull stated that the vision statement should be aspirational but cautioned that the vision statement should not be a slogan. He explained that the vision statement should be short but meaningful and informs others about the Board’s direction.


Board Member Asher suggested including the word confident in the vision statement.


Hull explained that a lot of the comments shared by the Board describes an end product, but the Board should think about a vision for students or the system.


Hayashi shared that the vision statement should speak to the uniqueness of Hawaii and embracing cultural values.


Board Member Moriarty stated that none of the vision statements addressed the three previously agreed upon priority areas.


Hull reminded the Board to consider system values and how each person can help to bring the strategic plan to life for each student. He also asked the Board to review example mission statements from other organizations.


Board Member McClellan expressed support for two items, 6 and 11. She explained that item 6 does not place everything into workforce readiness and item 11 provides a description relating to transparent leadership.


Board Member Kuraya expressed support for the structure of item 14 and noted that different aspects can be refined for the needs of Hawaii. He emphasized that there will always be problems and more discussion will need to take place when the Board creates goals.


Board Chairperson Voss expressed support for item 6 and reiterated that the strategic plan will be a multi-pronged effort to include a sense of purpose. He emphasized that culture responsibility is a key piece of the mission statement and everyone’s responsibility. Board Chairperson Voss also expressed support for items 8 and 9 relating to collaboration and partnerships so students can make successful transitions to areas outside of the Department of Education (“Department”).

Board Member Fallin expressed support for items 6 and 11 for the various reasons previously shared by other Board Members. She stated that item 11 underscored the leadership concept and equity by looking at efficient and effective operations with the use of data.


Board Member Namau‘u expressed support for the use of bullet points which are clear and highlights specific information.


Board Member Moriarty expressed support for item 20 which details a systems level approach to support learning and build connections, but noted that setting policies and procedures that ensure accountability was missing.


Hull encouraged the Board Members to share any additional comments because the Board would use these comments to begin drafting language.


Board Member Fallin stated that the Department will need to operationalize and develop a work plan.


Board Member Arakaki stated that certain themes are developing and will provide stakeholders with information about the concept and ideas. He asked for clarification of how the Board can begin to wordsmith the themes into the language. Hull replied that when developing the goals, the Board will be able to identify where there will be action.

The meeting recessed at 9:09 a.m. and reconvened at 9:14 a.m.


Hull invited the Board Members to provide any additional comments via email to Alison Kunishige, Board Executive Director.


Board Member Kuraya entered the meeting at 9:16 a.m.


Hull outlined the National Assessment of Educational Progress (“NAEP”) reading proficiency data and shared that new data will be released on Monday. He explained that the comparison chart shows a slight decrease in 2017 to 2019 from 37% to 35% for Grade 4; however, Hawaii performed at 34% which was not much different from 32% in 2017. Hull outlined the NAEP reading scores for Grade 8, which also showed a slight decrease in 2017 to 2019 from 36% to 34%, whereas Hawaii performed at 29% in 2019 which was not significantly different from 2017 at 30%.


Hull outlined the NAEP reading scores disaggregated by race and ethnicity, students eligible for free and reduced lunch, English Learners, students with disabilities, and math proficiency. He stated that the data shows a significant decrease in 9-year old reading and math scores. Hull explained that the most significant decreases are affecting students with the greatest needs, but that it is important to look at every student subgroup.


Hull asked that the Board members consider including in the strategic plan areas that show promise or areas of concern.


Hayashi outlined the Strive HI performance system data, which reflects the overall past school year results. He emphasized that schools saw academic gains and encouraging growth, which is a testament to the hard work of the educators who are counteracting the effects of student learning loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Hayashi stated that all schools have been able to implement and develop programs to support their students and that full academic recovery is estimated to take more than three years. He stated that the Department is working to fulfill the Board’s request for data from the previous meeting relating to enrollment and demographics, focus on workforce and the economy, and understanding the role each stakeholder plays in the process.


Tammi Chun, Deputy Superintendent of Strategy acknowledged that the Department prepared a lot of data for the Board and stated that the Department will focus on statewide data and comparing against complex areas or specific student subgroup characteristics.


Chun highlighted the Strive HI performance system data results and explained that the Department started with the postsecondary outcomes. She stated that academic progress statewide shows the proficiency levels of each complex area by student race and ethnicity. Chun stated that the data shows the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on college enrollment with the largest decline among Native Hawaiians, from 44% of the Class of 2019 enrolling in college to 34% of the Class of 2021. She noted that from an equity point of view there should be consistency across all the subgroups, but that this is not the case.


Stephen Schatz, Hawaii P-20, Executive Director outlined the postsecondary education and training outcomes data. He stated that the proportion of students who go to two year versus four year colleges has flipped. Schatz noted that the college-going rate increased. He outlined the postsecondary education and training trends of the last 10 to 12 years, which do not just represent University of Hawaii attendees.


Schatz emphasized that the data shows that Native Hawaiian student college-going rates declined 10 percentage points and noted that college completion rates increased by 5.2 percentage points.


Board Member Namau‘u asked whether the data indicates why Native Hawaiian student college-going rates have dropped. Schatz replied that the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect all groups equally and had a more negative effect on communities that were already struggling.


Board Member Fallin asked for clarification on slides 16 and 17 regarding the percentage of the graduating class and asked Schatz has a breakdown of the different types of degrees for the 33.1% of those earning a degree and certificate. Schatz replied that data is available but he needs to check with his staff before promising this information.


Board Member Fallin asked if this information can be broken down by graduating class and complex areas. Schatz confirmed that the data is available.


Board Member McClellan expressed concern about the Native Hawaiian postsecondary enrollment data and asked if there is data to show where these students are going. Schatz replied that this is an area where there is a data gap since there is no statewide data that follows students who graduate then enter the workforce or military.


Board Member McClellan asked if this data includes trade schools. Schatz confirmed that the data is inclusive of trade schools.


Board Member Namau‘u stated that there are two a data gaps, early education and students who enter the workforce or military. She asked if this data could be captured through social security numbers.


Chun replied that social security numbers are used for employment and wage purposes, so it might be possible to track this data. She stated that in the Board and Department had preliminary discussions, but nothing significant resulted.


Board Member Moriarty echoed questions on disaggregating data between trade schools and other certificates. She stated that the Department is charged with preparing students to succeed in the world and asked why some student subgroups are not doing as well as others. Board Member Moriarty also asked what kind of data has the Department and P-20 collected regarding why being Native Hawaiian or economically disadvantaged students are affected more negatively than others. She noted that the data does not include what factors lead to success and military collection rates and citizenship traits need to be defined and measured. Schatz replied that education is not just a tool for financial benefit, but also allows students to be engaged in their communities.


Board Member Arakaki asked if there is data that identifies what has been working. Schatz replied that there are higher rates of students ready for early college and more high school students come into college with credits.


Chun stated that work has been ongoing for a long time and more discussions relating to students being prepared for college and high schools will take place as the standards are more aligned with college expectations.


Board Chairperson Voss asked why college-going rates increased during the pandemic when there were more job opportunities. Schatz replied that work is ongoing that is trying to figure out this information, but challenge is that the system is not sure where everyone is going.


Board Member Asher expressed concern regarding what the data is saying, but expressed appreciation for the honest data. She asked whether the decline to 30% in Pacific Islanders getting postsecondary education and training is because the students migrated away from Hawaii. Board Member Asher expressed interest in the data relating to students who succeeded and what interventions their schools used. She also asked what happens to the rest of the students since the data does not capture the students who end up in the juvenile system and emphasized that building pipelines will help retain students in Hawaii.


Schatz shared the Hawaii Data eXchange Partnership (www.hawaiidxp.org), which provides data across five state agencies and aims to improve education and workforce outcomes.


Board Student Representative Yasuda asked if there is data on the identification of subgroups of the student populations since the programs for the Nanakuli-Waianae area relate to both ethnicity and financial situations.


Board Member McClellan expressed support for data collection relating to Native Hawaiian students but noted that as a Board Member she serves all students. She emphasized that it is problematic that Native Hawaiians being the largest constituent has the worst outcomes. Board Member McClellan asked how does the Board create policies and strategies to change and improve the outcomes for these students.


Chun stated that college-going rates are the culmination of student experiences as a priority in strategic work. She outlined the overall student achievement data and progress on the statewide assessment. Chun explained that Hawaii’s 2022 NAEP data will be available Monday. She also stated that SBAC data supplements information including universal screeners for formative instruction with important variations by schools and overall state progress.


Chun outlined the 2021-2022 SBAC results administered by Hawaii and 12 other states for English and math. She explained that 52% performed at the same level as the highest performing states which shows that Hawaii is in a good position relative to other states.


Chun outlined the data on students who are proficient based on state assessments including the SBAC, Kaiapuni Assessment of Education Outcomes, and Alternative Assessment also known as the HSA-Alt. She explained that there was a dip as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic year and the gap is still present. Chun explained that the bigger gaps were found in mathematics and noted that there are national similarities. She emphasized that as the Board focuses on strategic goals as it relates to proficiency the research shows that there should be a minimum of 3 years to recover from the learning loss which resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic.


Board Chairperson Voss noted that even though the data is not where it needs to be this clearly shows the hard work of teachers and principals.


Board Member Arakaki asked if every state takes the SBAC. Chun replied that every state sets state standard assessments and explained that about 12 states administer the SBAC and other states use other assessments from various vendors.


Board Member Fallin asked if the Department will provide information on Title I schools that are performing well. Chun replied that the Department will provide that information at an upcoming meeting.


Board Member Fallin asked if the Kindergarten entry assessment (“KEA”) data research is included and encouraged the Department to track this information. Chun replied that KEA results will be tracked and in the past Hawaii P-20 looked at preschool participation rates for students.


Board Member Namau‘u emphasized that Grade 3 showed the largest proficiency drop and seemed to be the most impacted because these students were in the first grade during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. She asked if the students will continue to be monitored and more efforts be put towards these students.


Heidi Armstrong, Deputy Superintendent replied that the four strategies of the Hawaii Multi-Tiered System of Support include data decision making which will track the progress and provide a report because every school is unique. She stated that there are varied reasons for why students are not thriving and there are larger community issues that need to be addressed to help the communities thrive and students succeed in school. Armstrong emphasized that it is important to address what other partners need to get involved to support the system.


Board Student Representative Yasuda asked what percentage of schools meet ELA and math proficiency requirements. Chun replied that 39% of schools meet requirements.


Board Member Kuraya noted that the Department also has a longitudinal data system to track information.


Board Member Moriarty asked for input on why improvements were made this year because the Board needs to understand and dig deeper into what is happening. She stated that the data points recognize that the schools who stayed open were more successful. Board Member Moriarty asked what factors contribute to student achievement and the impact on student achievement to determine what should be collected because of research that is emerging. Chun replied that the Department is working with the Center for Assessment to review the extent to which schools were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.


Armstrong stated that there are areas for each complex which show certain programs are having larger impacts, but the Department is trying to provide statewide data at this time.


Board Member Moriarty clarified that she is not requesting this information but would like to gain insights before deciding what policies and needs should be focused on.


Board Chairperson Voss asked if anything was a surprise either positive or negative. Chun expressed surprise to see the SBAC results across the states were down since a number of states are typically high performers on NAEP. She expressed concern that the gap was not closing, which represents many things because the system wants students to demonstrate proficiency.


Board Chairperson Voss expressed appreciation for proficiency increases at the elementary school level and asked what can be done for these students to raise the scores even higher. Armstrong replied there are professional development opportunities and curriculum resources are available and teachers are comfortable in these areas.


Board Chairperson Voss stated that at elementary schools the data review teams provide students with individualized work and the Department should look at providing these kinds of supports for high needs students. Armstrong replied that schools are providing appropriate interventions for all students.


Board Member Asher noted that schools should use the data collected during the registration process for proactive communication with parents to gain community support. She emphasized that the Department needs adequate funding and resources to provide services to schools.

Board Member Kuraya left the meeting at 11:29 a.m.


Armstrong stated that the Department is collecting data that will provide information based on what is being collected, including an appropriate analysis to allow best practices to continue.


Board Member Fallin stated that this is a work in progress and encouraged the Department to do further analysis.

Board Member Kuraya returned to the meeting at 11:34 a.m.


Armstrong stated that it will be critical to close the achievement gap and noted that the practices must be used in the right setting. She noted that English Learner students are not proficient in English but are required to take a test in English. Armstrong stated that all students are screened if they score a 5 or below so schools can provide additional support. She shared that an English Learner student’s target is to be proficient in English in five years and explained that the Department is partnering with Kapiolani Community College to support teachers that teach English Learners.


Armstrong stated that the Kula Kaiapuni program will help to address the high demand for this type of education setting and Career and Technical Education (“CTE”) programs in post-secondary education lead to high demand careers. She noted that CTE faces difficulties in finding qualified teachers and it is crucial to provide a pathway for these students. Armstrong also shared that some schools offer other engaging programs such as Advanced Placement.

The meeting recessed at 12:02 p.m. and reconvened at 12:10 p.m.


Chun outlined the readiness indicators for students in high school as they progress to graduation and explained that the on-time Grade 9 to 10 promotion rate is largely based on credits, but is also driven by attendance and grades earned. She explained that fewer students promoted to the 10th grade on time is a key indicator ensure schools can keep students on-track.


Hayashi stated that the Department talked a lot about performance and outcomes and emphasized that it is encouraging that our students are moving forward positively. He expressed support for the commitment of our educators to address the needs of our students and noted that Nā Hopena Aʻo (HĀ) provides a sense of belonging for our students and staff.


Board Member Namau‘u asked why Alternative Education and Community Schools for Adults are not collecting data. Chun replied that the data for these areas are located on a separate platform. Board Member Namau‘u asked if this information will be shared at a later time. Chun replied that discussions are taking place on how to track this data and more discussions overall on adult education.


Board Member Kuraya emphasized that throughout all avenues from the state office, complex areas and schools, during community meetings stakeholders are sharing that communication needs improvement.

Board Chairperson Voss called for public testimony.


Susan Pcola-Davis, PTSA Highlands Inter-Pearl City High School, testified on agenda item II.A, entitled “Presentation on National Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning.” She stated that the high rates of chronic absenteeism in 2021-2022 was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, that the Department needs to be sure that Hawaii is prepared to transition to online learning, and emphasized that it is important to recognize teachers and caregivers.


Hull stated that the data is beneficial and asked the Board to consider what data should rise to the level of the strategic plan.


Board Member Arakaki stated that the strategic plan needs to have a specific goal or objectives for each student subgroup.


Board Member Namau‘u stated that equity needs to be addressed to help the underperforming student subgroups. Hull asked whether she is referring to equity of opportunity. Board Member Namau‘u confirmed that equity of opportunities is what she is referring to.


Board Chairperson Voss stated that the problems for some high needs students are so severe that learning loss needs to be a separate priority in the plan. He expressed support for learning loss to be addressed separately and near the top since it requires attention, resources, and focus as a separate top priority.


Hull expressed support for the comments by Board Chairperson Voss relating to learning loss and lack of learning.


Board Student Representative Yasuda expressed support for equitable priorities that include all students in one general category, whether it be educational or to earn a college credit to gain opportunities.


Board Member Moriarty stated that the idea to capture excellence in the plan is to raise the bar for everyone. She emphasized that this is only fair for the rest of the students and in order to be able to accomplish what is needed for high needs groups.


Hull stated that Board members still need to flesh out the data that it will need to do its work.


Board Member Fallin asked how the data should be organized so that the use of data is relevant and meaningful. She stated that in order for the strategic plan to be useful, there needs to be an understanding of how goals and objectives all connect.


Board Member McClellan stated that the hospitality industry is an area looking to fill immediate workforce needs. Hayashi replied that the Department identified a team to work on strategies for an innovative workforce.


Hull explained that he would like to suggest vision and mission language at the next meeting so Board members can start working toward consensus.


Board Member Namau‘u stated that there are two distinct pathways for Kula Kaiapuni students and the Department needs to be clear that children can get an education in two different mediums both Hawaiian and English. Hull stated that the two pathways need to be recognized as an opportunity for students.


Hull reiterated that if any Board Members have additional comments to send an email to Kunishige. He also cautioned that the Board cannot move forward until the community engagement portion has concluded.


Board Chairperson Voss expressed appreciation to the Department for the data analysis especially the staff who worked to put the presentation together for the strategic plan. He noted that the Board is not establishing priorities but needs to reflect and communicate about what is important relating to the data.

  1. Adjournment


Board Chairperson Voss adjourned the meeting at 1:02 p.m.


List of the people who submitted written testimony before the meeting

Name
Organization
Agenda Item
Cheri NakamuraHE’E Coalition, DirectorII.A. Presentation on NASBE building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning: Vision and Mission; Student Achievement Data - national perspective; Student Achievement Data - state specific current and trend data; Strategic Plan format; Next Steps