STATE OF HAWAII
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Queen Liliuokalani Building
1390 Miller Street, Room 404
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Thursday, January 19, 2023
Bruce Voss, Chairperson
Kaimana Barcarse, Vice Chairperson
Maverick Yasuda, Student Representative
Colonel Michael Minaudo, Military 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
Heidi Armstrong, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Executive Secretary
Lady Garrett, Secretary
I. Call to Order
Board Chairperson Bruce Voss called the Board of Education (“Board”) Special Meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Board Chairperson Voss, Board Vice Chairperson Kaimana Barcarse, and Board Members Bill Arakaki, Shanty Asher, Lynn Fallin, Ken Kuraya, Makana McClellan, Lauren Moriarty, and Kili Namauʻu were present.
II. Discussion Items
A. Presentation on National Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
● Review public feedback from survey on Foundation Statements and Strategic Priorities
● Foundation Statements – Vision, Mission, Core Values
● Strategic Priorities – Goals, Objectives, Benchmarks, Metrics
● Review draft implementation plan template
Board Chairperson Voss called for public testimony.
Cynthia Bartlett, Moms for Liberty Honolulu County, 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 expressed appreciation for the survey and requested that the Board consider how questions are being asked relating to sex education.
Terry George and Alex Harris, Harold KL Castle Foundation (“Castle Foundation”), 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.” George described how Castle Foundation has helped to enhance public education in Hawaii. Harris encouraged the Board to use stronger language in Goal 1.1 to ensure that students who are farthest behind get the most support.
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.)
The meeting recessed at 9:38 a.m. and reconvened at 9:42 a.m.
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 invited Robert Hull, Senior Advisor, NASBE, to facilitate the strategic planning portion of the meeting.
Hull explained that the three objectives for the meeting are to review the results of the public survey, review strategic plan language and determine whether to make any changes, and review components of the implementation.
Hull noted that the Board conducted two surveys. He stated that the initial survey was used to identify the major issues in public education. Hull detailed that the Board then conducted expansive community outreach and held community meetings in all 15 complex areas.
He explained that during the community meetings, many individuals asked that the Board allow the public to review and comment on the strategic plan language once it drafted it. Hull explained that, as a result, the Board decided to conduct a second survey, which allowed the public to provide feedback on the draft strategic plan language. Hull reported that the second survey received almost 5,000 responses, which is notable considering the survey was released on December 19, 2022 and closed on January 13, 2023, so much of the time that it was available was during the winter break and holiday season. Hull stated that second survey respondent demographics closely mirrored those of the first survey, with most of the respondents being parents. He also noted that individuals could choose more than one category, for example a respondent could be both a parent and teacher.
Hull stated that the results include a breakdown of responses by several different categories, including by complex area, gender, and ethnicity. He noted that the responses received were overwhelmingly positive (around 90% in agreement) for the foundational statements, mission, vision, and core values. Hull detailed that the responses to questions about the proposed goals and desired outcomes associated with each of the priorities were also largely positive with 80-90% in agreement with the proposed language. He explained that Question 10 was and open-ended, optional question that allowed respondents to share any additional thoughts. Hull detailed that 1,628 individuals provided a response and that the most common responses were relating to the lack of specificity as to how the goals would be achieved.
Hull noted that he organized responses to Question 10 into two categories, the first category suggested wording changes and the second were a list of consistent themes and recurring items. He stated that the first wording change suggested was that the Board reconsider the use of the word “superior” and explained that many comments suggested the term “exemplary,” which Board members also discussed during previous meetings. Hull stated that the second wording change suggested was removing the word “all” at the beginning of the desired outcomes because it harkens back to federal mandates and is compliance-driven. He noted that the redlined document provided as meeting material shows the removal of the word all from all desired outcomes.
Hull stated that he would not go through the second category of themes and recurring items, but noted that many items are appropriate and may appear in strategies of the implementation plan, but are not necessarily appropriate for goals. He asked the Board to provide comments or questions regarding the survey results.
Board Member Fallin asked if the data will be broken down by real numbers to provide another perspective of how many in each group responded. She commented that out of the 4,994 responses, if business leaders totaled 2.94% then that equals 147 business leaders, and principals at 6.84% totals 341. Board Member Fallin asked whether there is any value breaking down the numbers by stakeholder group and then how they answered each question. She stated that she does not know whether there would be any value in doing this, but that there might be an interest in that information at some point. Hull stated that breaking down the information further might be useful if data showed there was a split between agree and disagree, but in a situation where there are 80-90% approval rates, this kind of breakdown is less useful.
Board Chairperson Voss stated that survey respondents suggested regarding the removal of the word “all” from desired outcomes, but there was public testimony encouraging the Board to strive higher. He noted that there is a tension between these opposing views. Hull stated that the decision to remove the word “all” is the Board’s to make, but that there was an attempt to try to address both views because “all” was removed from the desired outcomes, but not from the goals. He reiterated that this is not something he would suggest personally, but it is something for the Board to consider, given the survey results. Hull stated that he feels that removing all from the desired outcomes dilutes the statements. He noted that the Board held long conversations several months ago regarding specific student groups and emphasized that the students farthest behind must make the most progress.
Hull asked the Board to consider replacing the word “superior” with “exemplary” and asked for feedback.
Board Chairperson Voss noted that “exemplary” is not a commonly used term.
Board Member Kuraya stated that the term “exemplary” strives for what is best and that the word “superior” is touchy. He explained that he feels that “exemplary” is a better word although not commonly used because it describes what the system will strive for.
Board Member McClellan expressed support for the term “exemplary,” which is aligned with the Board’s intent.
Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse expressed support for the term “exemplary” and suggested that another term to consider could be “model.”
Board Member Arakaki expressed support for the term “exemplary” and stated that the Board should explain what the word “exemplary” means to it so everyone has a common understanding.
Board Member Moriarty expressed agreement with Board Member Arakaki that the term “exemplary” needs to be explained and could be used as an example of bad or good. She stated that the Board needs to be clear about what the system is striving for and expressed support for the term “superior,” which holds the Board and others accountable.
Board Chairperson Voss noted that there was no strong objection to the word “exemplary,” so the Board would replace “superior” with “exemplary.”
Board Chairperson Voss asked Board members to provide comments regarding removing the term “all” from the desired outcomes or leaving the language as is.
Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, Department of Education (“Department”) asked if Board members would be willing to revisit and explore the mission and core values because he has some suggestions in those areas which may affect the “all” discussion. Board Chairperson Voss asked Hayashi to share his thoughts. Hayashi suggested removing the phrase “comprehensive systems support” from the mission statement because support is the Department’s responsibility.
Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that he is fine with taking comprehensive system support out of the mission, but stated that he views the language as the Board would be providing support in ways like policy-making and advocacy, in support of the public education system.
Board Member Fallin stated that the key word is “comprehensive,” which shows that the Board is comprehensively looking at everything versus one aspect of the public education system. She stated that the Board is supporting the system comprehensively and that support is not limited to operations.
Board Member Moriarty described her dream is that her role as a Board Member is not just to the Department but to support public education in Hawaii and that someday the mission, vision, and outcomes would not just be focused on the Department, but would include libraries, charter schools, and others. She stated that her long-term vision is for public education to be much more integrated and comprehensive and reflective of the full scope of the constitutional mandate. Board Member Moriarty expressed support to leave the term “comprehensive support system” in the mission, but cautioned that the Board should not infringe on Department operations.
Board Member Arakaki stated that for Department employees, the term “comprehensive system support” may trigger thoughts of the electronic comprehensive student support system known as eCSSS and that the Board may need to use different words to avoid confusion.
Board Chairperson Voss expressed understanding of how the language can be misunderstood, but that he agrees with statements Board members made about the Board’s role. He noted that when the Board selected Hayashi as superintendent, it recognized that there was a need for a comprehensive support system. Board Chairperson Voss asked how the Board can amend the language to avoid misinterpretation. Hull replied that, as a practitioner, comprehensive systems of support is an operational term and reminded the Board that the mission is for the entire state. He explained that the Board is developing a strategic plan for the citizens of the State of Hawaii and suggested removing the word “support.”
Board Chairperson Voss asked for comments on the suggestion to remove “support.”
Board Chairperson Voss stated that if there are no objections, the word “support” would be removed from the mission.
Hayashi referenced the core values and noted that there should be a reference to Mary Kawena Pukui to give credit to her as the author of the ʻÔlelo Noʻeau (Hawaiian proverb). Hull replied that a proper citation would be included.
Board Member Namauʻu stated that HawaiiKidsCAN provided written testimony suggesting the addition of a core value, “Aʻohe pau ka ‘ike i ka hâlau hoʻokahi” (All knowledge is not taught in the same school), which recognizes the larger ecosystem of partnerships. She spoke in support of adding this as a core value.
Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse asked whether the sentiments in this new proposed core values are already captured in the existing core values. He explained that he does not have any objections to including a new core value and noted that this is a very common ‘Ôlelo Noʻeau (Hawaiian proverb), but questioned whether this addition would cause alignment issues.
Board Member Namauʻu expressed support for including the new proposed core value. Hull clarified that he is not an expert in this area and asked whether the new core value should be added at the end of the core values list. Board Chairperson Voss asked that it be added at the end of the list.
Hayashi asked whether there is a need to make a clear connection between the core values and Nâ Hopena A’o (“HÂ”). Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse suggested reaching out to the Office of Hawaiian Education (“OHE”) so they can provide their input on this as well as the reference to Pukui. He also noted that the ‘Ôlelo Noʻeau (Hawaiian proverb) in the core values are not exactly as they appear in Pukui’s book, so the citation may need to clarify if OHE made modifications to the original ‘Ôlelo Noʻeau (Hawaiian proverb).
Board Member Moriarty stated that regarding the appearance of the HÂ concepts in the goals may not be clear for people not directly connected with the Department who may not have been exposed to this and emphasized that this needs to be defined for families who do not know what ‘Ôlelo Noʻeau (Hawaiian proverb) are.
Board Chairperson Voss stated that he is not inclined to add language. Board Member Moriarty expressed agreement.
Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that a footnote along with the Pukui reference is important. Board Chairperson Voss noted that the language should be referenced in the core values or footnotes.
Board Member McClellan asked if it would be appropriate to address comments relating to financial literacy that were raised in the public survey and would likely come up during the legislative session.
Board Chairperson Voss asked whether financial literacy is more appropriate for the strategic plan or implementation plan. Hull noted that the specific goals are broad and looks at what the Board wants for students to be successful, so financial literacy can be one strategy in the implementation plan that the Department will use to ensure students are successful.
Board Chairperson Voss returned to the discussion of the word “all” and whether it should be removed from the desired outcomes.
Board Member Namauʻu stated that the word “all” in the goals is sufficient and repeating it in the desired outcomes is unnecessary.
Board Member Asher expressed support for removing the word “all.”
Board Member Fallin asked for clarification regarding whether Board members were discussing the removal of the word “all” from all of the desired outcomes or just the desired outcomes under Goal 1.1. Board Chairperson Voss replied that he was trying to comprehensively address the term “all” as it relates to all desired outcomes under all goals.
Board Member Fallin stated that the draft implementation plan template notes that meeting the goal is the objective, not meeting the target, therefore “all” in the goals is appropriate. She expressed concern with removing “all” from the desired outcomes in Priority 2, which focuses on students in Goal 1 and Goal 2, but the outcome is focused on measuring progress by teachers, administrators, and staff. Board Member Fallin asked if the goals in Priority 2 would be significantly impacted by the removal of the word “all” because removing the word dilutes the strength of the statement. She suggested keeping “all” in all of the desired outcomes for Priority 2.
Hull expressed agreement that Goal 1 relates to all students, but the outcomes are not directly related to students. Board Chairperson Voss clarified that all teachers in all schools need to be qualified.
Board Member Moriarty stated that the desired outcome is that all students read proficiently and all schools are filled with quality teachers. She emphasized that this needs to be clearly understood from the beginning. Board Member Moriarty stated that her inclination would be to leave “all” in and noted that when reading Priority 2, a sense of what is more or less important to the Board is not clear. She also stated that it is important for strategic guidance from the Board be provided to determine where resources should be deployed. Board Member Moriarty also stated that during previous conversations it was determined that the Board would not make operational decisions, but would set strategic priorities.
Board Member Asher clarified that her support to remove “all” was only for Priority 1. She expressed support for keeping the term “all” in Priority 2 and echoed the concerns shared by Board Member Fallin.
Board Chairperson Voss emphasized that all students must read proficiently and expressed concern with removing the word “all” from that desired outcome. Hull replied that originally the term “all” was included because this is the expectation, but noted that as a former educator, this term can be daunting. He stated that including “all” is a public proclamation that the Board and Department is responsible for each student.
Board Member Kuraya expressed support for leaving the word “all” in and stated that it is beneficial because it makes it is clear that the desired outcomes are for every student.
Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that he would be all in for keeping all in the desired outcomes.
Student Representative Maverick Yasuda expressed support for keeping the word “all” because it is important for each desired outcome. He stated that his opinion was swayed after listening to the Board Member’s arguments and that all desired outcomes are necessary in order to have a successful education system.
Board Member Arakaki expressed appreciation for Student Representative Yasuda’s comments and echoed support of the comments shared by other Board Members.
Board Member Namauʻu stated that and she is fine with keeping the word “all” throughout the plan.
Board Chairperson Voss stated that there was some public testimony that if the outcome is for all, then the metrics and targets are necessarily higher.
Board Chairperson Voss asked for further thoughts and comments on the goals and desired outcomes. Board Member Moriarty addressed survey feedback and whether waiting until third grade for reading literacy and math literacy was waiting too long. She stated that her understanding is that the Department is looking to solve the problem by the third grade, not waiting until third grade.
Board Chairperson Voss stated that there appears to be consensus on retaining the term “all” in the desired outcomes for Priorities 2 and 3, but Board members still need to discuss whether removing “all” in Priority 1 would lead to confusion.
Board Member Moriarty stated that she would like the public school system to be the first choice for all families and that the goals, as currently drafted do not capture the concept that every student would be proficient and continue to grow. She stated that addressing academic growth specifically addresses a big concern that families have about the public school system.
Board Member Moriarty suggested adding to the existing desired outcomes, “all students show continued academic growth,” and asked whether academic growth should be included in desired outcomes or the key performance indicators (“KPI”).
Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse left the meeting at 11:03 a.m.
Board Member Moriarty stated that financial literacy has been brought up in the survey, testimony, and at the legislature and noted that other pathways, such as art and physical education, are not in the strategic plan. She suggested adding language, like “all students will graduate prepared for success in life” to address the importance of social-emotional learning. Board Member Moriarty noted that when the Board states that it wants students to be prepared for life, this includes financial literacy and healthy lifestyles.
Board Chairperson Voss asked whether Board Member Moriarty was referring to the proficiency of a group of students or proficiency of an individual student. Board Member Moriarty replied that her personal goal is that every single student knows that they have achieved individual academic growth. She stated that the Board needs to review group proficiency and that it needs to evaluate median growth to determine whether median growth is increasing.
Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse returned to the meeting at 11:07 a.m.
Board Chairperson Voss asked Hayashi to share his thoughts. Hayashi asked Tammi Oyadomari-Chun, Deputy Superintendent of Strategy, Department of Education to provide comments.
Chun stated that the question is whether growth needs to be in the strategic plan and noted that individual student growth is tracked at the classroom level. She explained that the challenge is having consistent measures and a standardized way to measure and track at the state level. Chun suggested that the Department provide the Board with information on how it tracks student growth for statewide assessments. She explained that if a student is far from proficiency, then the Department focuses on growth and for students that are already proficient, where the commitment is to ensure these students continue to grow.
Chun suggested removing the term “high school” from Goal 1.3 so that opportunities for progressively challenging coursework is not limited to high school.
Board Chairperson Voss noted that the desired outcome under Goal 1.3 was crafted specifically for high school, so he is reluctant to change the language. He asked whether Board members are interested in specifically mentioning academic growth in the strategic plan. Board Member Namauʻu stated that Goal 1.3 is specifically for high school and stated that Board members might want to consider a desired outcome under Goal 1.1.
Chun shared that after speaking with principals, the desired outcomes of Goal 1.3 are too narrow and the Department would be agreeable to broaden the desired outcome. Chun expressed understanding regarding Board Chairperson Voss’ point about the desired outcome being specific to high school.
Board Chairperson Voss asked if Board Member Namauʻu would like to create a desired outcome focusing on growth. Board Member Namauʻu agreed and stated that she would like to have a desired outcome that “all students show academic growth throughout their k-12 experience.”
Board Member Moriarty suggested “all students show continued progress in reading proficiency by the end of the third grade.” Board Chairperson Voss stated that he preferred the language proposed by Board Member Namauʻu.
Chun suggested revising Goal 1.1, Desired Outcome 4 to read “all students perform well academically and show growth irrespective of background and circumstances.” Hull stated that consistent growth is not enough and that it should be adequate growth.
Board Chairperson Voss suggested “all student groups perform well academically and show adequate growth irrespective of background and circumstances.”
Chun expressed concern with the term “adequate growth” and stated that she does not want to lock the Department into something inaccurate. She stated that another term could be “expected growth.”
Board Chairperson Voss suggested “all students show continued academic growth.” Chun replied that language would work for the Department.
Board Member Kuraya stated that the language should not be specific towards one group, but reflect all students. He also stated that the desired outcomes are focused on individual students and not groups.
Board Chairperson Voss explained that the word group is referring to student groups. Hull expressed agreement that the plan should be explicit about student subgroups and noted that the desired outcomes would have associated measures in the implementation plan. He asked whether the Department is planning on reporting on individual students or looking at growth of student groups in its implementation plan.
Board Member Arakaki stated that a lot of schools have high rates of proficiency and are able to look at growth. He explained that complex areas and schools are already looking at growth and adding this language would help support schools. Board Member Arakaki asked whether the Department has feedback from the field regarding whether to measure all students or student groups.
Board Chairperson Voss reiterated that it is important to get this kind of feedback and asked Hayashi how the concept of all measuring all student groups would be received by the people that do the actual work. Hayashi replied that schools are already doing work relating to student growth. He stated that the Board should consider removing the word “equally” from Goal 1.4 because it is redundant.
Board Chairperson Voss noted that the achievement gap is something that the public education system has struggled with consistently and that he is not in favor of removing the word “equally.” He asked if Chun is able to gather the data for growth. Chun replied that the Strive HI Performance System (“Strive HI”) data at the school level may not be as useful at the statewide level because it is limited to tested grades and tested subjects.
Board Chairperson Voss asked if the data can show growth by student groups. Chun confirmed that this data is available.
Board Member Moriarty expressed appreciation for those at the school level and recognized that data may not be available at all levels. She stated that Goal 1.1, Desired Outcome 4 captures the growth idea and measurements at the group level instead of at the school level. She stated that she understands the data is not collected at all levels and is confident that something workable would come out of this conversation.
Board Chairperson Voss stated that the concept is to have growth in Goal 1.1, Desired Outcome 4 and Robert would work on the language.
Board Member Fallin stated that the focus of Goal 1 has been on assessment and how to gauge progress and proficiency. She stated that the kindergarten entry assessment (“KEA”) would not only look at academic readiness, but also social-emotional readiness. Board Member Fallin noted that the remaining desired outcomes shift to academics and asked how the Department would gauge the social-emotional learning (“SEL”) after kindergarten, particularly in middle school.
Hayashi asked Heidi Armstrong, Deputy Superintendent, Department to respond to the question. Armstrong stated that earlier this year Hayashi initiated the panorama SEL survey, but that the Department needs to be careful about how to this data is used. She detailed that the data gives teachers and counselors an idea of how students are feeling during a specific point in time and so they can then use the Hawaii multi-tiered system of support (“HMTSS”) to determine whether more support is needed.
Armstrong stated that the panorama survey was administered this school year because the Department needs to be cognizant about how students are feeling. She explained that the survey results are not always going to be positive.
Board Member Fallin asked if outcomes and other measures of the HMTSS can be shifted and engaged in some manner to put supports in place when more students fall into Tier 1.
Armstrong stated that, currently, there is no way for the Department to capture movement between tiers, but it is looking into this. She stated that the Department needs to analyze whether interventions are working and if adjustments need to be made.
Board Member Fallin stated that SEL is important and would like the Department to consider her comments.
Board Chairperson Voss asked if there were further changes to Goal 1.1, other than including academic growth in Goal 1.1, bullet 4. There was no response from Board members.
Hayashi stated that the Department would like to recommend a change regarding the goals under Priority 2.
Chun asked the Board to consider removing the word “permanent” because the term is used colloquially in the budget, but does not best describe the Board’s intent, which is to have positions filled with qualified teachers and not substitutes. She noted that teacher’s positions are not permanent positions, as used for budget purposes, but rather are temporary positions created by schools year to year. Chun suggested striking the word “permanent” and replacing it with “with qualified hires appointed through the Department’s recruitment process.” Chun emphasized that the Department wants employees hired through the recruitment process instead of as temporary hires.
Board Chairperson Voss asked if the Department is requesting that the term “permanent” be stricken from all goals under Priority 2. Chun stated that the request is to strike the word “permanent” from Goals 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. Board Chairperson Voss stated that the Department understands the Board’s intent or having qualified teachers in every classroom, but that Chun’s suggestion for replacement language could be confusing.
Hull suggested removing “permanent” and not replacing it with anything. Board Chairperson Voss reiterated that the Department understands the Board’s desire to have qualified teachers. Chun confirmed that the Department understands the Board’s intent.
Chun suggested amending Goal 3.3, Desired Outcome 2 so that it reads “all families and staff can easily learn about issues at the school, complex and state levels.”
Board Chairperson Voss expressed understanding of the Department’s concern that families intervene in the decision-making process, but stated that Chun’s suggested language is too watered down. He stated that families and staff should know how processes work in order to have sufficient information to provide input.
Board Member McClellan added that the legislature is looking at potentially changing the composition of the Board because constituents felt that families were not allowed to participate in discussions during the COVID-19 pandemic. She stated that she does not want to water down this language.
Chun expressed agreement that input is important, but that the Department needs to balance the specifics of language written to make sure those responsible for decisions are able to maintain authority with appropriate input from various stakeholders.
Board Member McClellan stated that she would like to have authority and engagement co-exist. She asked if informed decision-making can be tied to feedback processes that inform decision-making and suggested adding “as appropriate.” Board Member McClellan emphasized that to advance students, strong communities need to be built, but that she wants to be cognizant of the Board overstepping its authority.
Board Member Arakaki stated that as issues come up and people bring things to the Board, that needs to be an understand of what the Department is responsible for and that if a person complains about something to the Board, that Board members understand the Department’s process.
Board Chairperson Voss stated that he is not inclined to change this language because there seems to be common understanding of what this desired outcome requires.
Board Member Moriarty asked whether taking advantage of being a statewide system or support for innovation still needs to be addressed or if others feel that is already addressed.
Board Chairperson Voss asked where Board Member Moriarty would like to suggest adding this statewide concept. Board Member Moriarty suggested adding it upfront so that everyone can see the benefits if in efficiencies or innovation and also adding a statewide system to maximize results at the end to identify sharing and best practices in innovation across the system.
Hayashi stated that as the Department takes advantage of being a statewide system and innovation and that work are already included in the existing desired outcome.
Armstrong stated that an example to leverage being one system is coupled with the growth model because although tremendous improvements have been made at schools, some students may not be hitting proficiency. She explained that an opportunity exists to use the data available to highlight best practices. Hayashi reiterated that additional language is unnecessary because the public education system is already using innovation.
Board Chairperson Voss stated that it would be more appropriate for the Department to consider the statewide issue when establishing strategies in the implementation plan. Board Member Moriarty replied that she is in agreement with this being addressed in the implementation plan, but does not want to lose the statewide system aspect.
Board Chairperson Voss stated that he would like the Board to consider taking action at the next Board meeting, possibly as early as February 2, 2023.
Board Member Kuraya left the meeting at 12:06 p.m.
Hull detailed the following modifications to the draft strategic plan that the Board members have come to a consensus on: (1) remove “superior” and replace with “exemplary” in the vision statement; (2) remove “support” from the mission statement; (3) include a citation for the core values; (4) include an additional core value from HawaiiKidsCAN testimony; (5) insert language in Goal 1.1, desired outcome 4 relating to continued growth; and (6) removing the word “permanent” from the desired outcomes under Goals 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.
Board Chairperson Voss confirmed the modifications detailed by Hull were accurate and stated that Board would consider taking action to adopt the strategic plan at the next meeting.
Board Member Kuraya left the meeting at 12:06 p.m.
Hull stated that would like Board members to review the components and structure of the draft implementation plan template, but not look at specific language at this point. He stated that the implementation plan would address the survey responses regarding the need for specifics. Hull reviewed the components of the draft implementation plan. and noted that the implementation plan does not include specific internal work plans.
Hull outlined Figure 1 on Page 2 depicting the structure of the implementation plan and reviewed definitions of key terms, like strategy, KPI, and performance measure. He noted the difference between KPIs and performance measures and provided an example illustrating this difference. Hull stated that chronic absenteeism is a possible KPI that is measured at the end of the year because a student is chronically absent if not in school for more than 15 days in a school year. The goal, however, is to eliminate chronic absenteeism, so throughout the year, the Department could track daily attendance as a performance measure.
Board Member Kuraya returned to the meeting at 12:10 p.m.
Hull described the superintendent’s role, which is to establish strategies to achieve goals. He stated that the Board can provide input on the strategies, which the superintendent can consider. Hull emphasized that the Board and Department each party have responsibilities, but that they work hand in hand.
Hull explained that if the Board adopts the strategic plan at its next meeting, the Board would immediately implement the communication plan. He also stated that this is the one opportunity for the Board and Department to start off on the right foot with a joint voice.
Hull stated that the draft implementation plan template clarified that setting agendas, budgeting, and advocating are the Board’s responsibilities and provided details on how the plan would be revised and when the Board would start looking at the next strategic planning process.
Board Member Asher left the meeting at 12:15 p.m.
Board Chairperson Voss clarified that priorities, goals, and desired outcomes are the first part of the strategic plan and that the implementation plan with strategies and measures are part two and that together they could make up the overall strategic plan. Hull confirmed that the strategic plan is Phase I and the implementation plan will be Phase 2.
Board Chairperson Voss asked the Board Members to provide comments.
Board Member Fallin expressed concern relating to timing.
Board Member McClellan left the meeting at 12:17 p.m.
Board Member Fallin stated that the data reported to the Board are often lagged and that making specific things available at a specific time makes it difficult. She stated that the availability of test scores, timing of the development of academic-financial plans (“AC-FIN Plans”), including the legislative and budgeting process. Board Member Fallin stated that the annual report may be available in August or November, but she wants the data to be as real time as possible.
Hull stated that the committees would look at what data is available and the strategic plan report would be received at least twice and synchronize when the reports are due. He stated that the point is to set the reporting frequency so it is at least twice a year, but it could be more frequent. Board Chairperson Voss stated that the language is intentionally broad to enable committee chairs to develop format and timeliness of the reporting.
Board Member Asher returned to the meeting at 12:18 p.m.
Board Member Arakaki asked for clarification as to whether the document Board members are reviewing is the actual implementation plan or a guide. He asked if the strategies and measures would be in individual Board and Department implementation plans.
Board Chairperson Voss clarified that there was no implementation plan for the previous strategic plan and that it was the Board’s fault for not requiring the previous superintendent to create one. Hull stated that the implementation plan answers how the strategic plan will get done and how to measure success with some goals for the Board and other goals for the Department. He stated that this is the implementation plan, it is not a work plan which is internal.
Board Chairperson Voss stated that it is not the Board’s role to approving the Department's internal work plans, but as the committee does its reviews, then it would want to know more about the work the Department is doing to determine whether the plan is effective. He stated that the Board has to focus on policies and clarified that for some of the goals the Board will take the lead and establish the strategies.
Board Member Fallin left the meeting at 12:25 p.m.
Hayashi stated that the section on authority states that the superintendent establishes strategies, but the Board’s responsibility in the implementation plan is budget and strategies, which is different from the Department’s strategies.
Chun stated that under the section on authority there is some conflict between the superintendent’s authority and Board’s authority and she requested clarification. She expressed her concern that Board members view the implementation plan as a place for everything Board members think is a good idea and that all Board member ideas would be included in the implementation plan. Chun referenced Board member discussions about things like financial literacy, civic education, art, music, and physical education and stated that it is not realistic for all students to excel in all of these areas. Chun stated that clarifying the roles of the Board and the Department is important so there are clear expectations.
Board Member Fallin returned to the meeting at 12:30 p.m.
Board Chairperson Voss asked how additional issues that arise would be accounted for in the strategic plan. Chun stated that the legislature creates mandates that the Department needs to address in addition to the strategic plan. She clarified that her concern is that Board members are offering a lot of ideas and the response is that the idea fits better in the implementation plan and that creates the expectation that all of these ideas would be in the implementation plan. She expressed hope that the Board gives superintendent the latitude to set strategies and that the Board provide input, but not with the expectation that all Board member input is reflected in the implementation plan if the superintendent determines it is not the best strategy available.
Board Chairperson Voss expressed agreement with Chun’s concern and noted that the draft implementation plan template specifically states that the superintendent has authority over strategy, which should address Chun’s concerns. He also stated that the Board is not going to get into wordsmithing strategies.
Chun stated that format-wise, the Department was looking at a separate implementation plan, not one integrated into this template. Board Chairperson Voss stated that the plan was always to have one implementation plan in one place and all part of the strategic plan.
Board Member Fallin stated that with Hull’s assistance, the Board can now create a systematic framework with roles and responsibilities. She stated that the Board should now be able to link the budget to the strategic plan and get data about impact to determine if the Department is making progress. Board Member Fallin stated that it is the Board’s purview to ask about strategies because this is the nature of the decision-making process.
Board Chairperson Voss stated that the Board has an oversight role.
Hayashi asked that the Board look at the language on page 4 regarding budgeting and advocacy and asked whether the Board would limit agenda items to those relating to the strategic plan and other areas which are legislatively mandated. He asked if any areas outside of those specific areas could be considered for Board agendas.
Hull stated that education systems that have really moved the needle are very focused on the strategic plan and anything that does not support the plan becomes secondary. He stated that almost everything would fit under the priorities in some way and things that fit the goals would be the most important.
Hayashi expressed understanding that the Board would focus on strategic plan goals.
Board Chairperson Voss stated that there are an infinite number of things, but the ones that most significantly move progress on the goals are the ones that should be on Board agendas. Hull stated that the Board has limited bandwidth and needs to use that to achieve the strategic plan goals or else there is no point in having a strategic plan.
Board Member Namauʻu stated that one of the sample strategic plans was really focused, which stood out to her. She stated that the last strategic plan came out and nothing happened because there was no implementation plan. Board Member Namauʻu stated that limiting the Board’s agenda to strategic plan goals would keep the Board focused and help students and schools move forward rapidly.
Hull referenced Mississippi’s approach, which was to limit things on the agenda to the strategic plan. He stated that Mississippi has made the greatest advancements over the last 10 years.
Board Member Moriarty stated that she is greatly reassured after reading the materials because she was concerned about the plan being broad and not including specifics. She expressed concern about a broad communications plan that does not contain the eye catching targets that the Board would like. Board Member Moriarty asked if there is some way to indicate priorities and if the Board needs to do that before the Department does a lot of work.
Hull stated that the Board and Department only has one opportunity to get this right and that begins with communicating that this is the strategic plan and what work is going to happen. He suggested Board members to review Maryland’s website, which shows the strategic plan in phase I and phase II and describes the implementation plan as a coming attraction. Hull stated that when communicating completion, it is important to get the messaging right so that it is clear that this is not the end. He also noted that the implementation plan should be broken down by year. He stated that the Board has told the Department what the goals are and the Department is responsible for sequencing its work to figure out how to reach the goals.
Board Member Moriarty stated that it is not so much timing, but that some things are more important than others. She acknowledged that the Department is more knowledgeable about strategies, and referenced an example of Grade 3 literacy as being more important than other goals.
Hull stated that it is not the Board’s role to determine what comes first and second when establishing how to meet the goals of the strategic plan.
Board Member Barcarse left the meeting at 12:53 p.m.
Board Chairperson Voss announced that the strategic plan is scheduled to be approved on February 2, 2023.
Board Chairperson Voss adjourned the meeting at 12:55 p.m.
List of the people who submitted written testimony before the meeting.
|Terry George & Alex Harris|
Harold K.L Castle Foundation
|III. Presentation on NASBE building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning|
|III. Presentation on NASBE building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning|