EXCUSED:
Shanty Asher
Makana McClellan

ALSO PRESENT:
Maverick Yasuda, Student Representative
Colonel Michael Minaudo, Military Representative
Robert Hull, Senior Advisor, National Association of State Boards of Education
Tammi Oyadomari-Chun, Deputy Superintendent of Strategy, Department of Education
Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, Department of Education
Kau‘i Sang, Director, Office of Hawaiian Education, Department of Education
Glenn Nochi, Evaluation Specialist, Accountability Section, Department of Education
Heidi Armstrong, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education
Sherilyn Lau, Evaluation Specialist, Accountability Section, Department of Education
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Executive Secretary

1. Call to Order

1. Discussion Items

1. Presentation on National Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
   • Plan Development Timeline
   • Community Engagement Data
   • Foundation Statements – Vision, Mission, Core Values
   • Strategic Priorities
   • Next Steps

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 stated that she appreciated Board Chairperson Voss’s clarification that NASBE and National School Boards Association (“NSBA”) are distinct organizations and NASBE did not call parents “domestic terrorists,” but asked for a statement from NASBE on the NSBA letter and cautioned against using the terms “social-emotional learning” and “culturally-relevant” in the mission statement.

Danson Honda, member of the public, 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.” He testified on the usefulness of the metrics the Department of Education (“Department”) uses to measure student success, the importance of teaching students financial literacy, and the financial struggles of former students.

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 called on Robert Hull, Senior Advisor, NASBE, to facilitate the strategic planning portion of the meeting.

Hull reviewed the session objectives, which were to:

• Review and reach consensus on Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan structure;
• Reach consensus on Vision and Mission Statements;
• Discuss Core Values in relation to Policies E-2 and E-3;
• Reach consensus on Goals for each Priority Area; and
• Discuss and brainstorm outcomes for each goal.

Strategic direction – by forging a compelling and shared vision, exercising transparent and collaborative leadership, ensuring equitable opportunities and access to high-quality and culturally responsive instruction, and fostering kuleana and personal growth for students, educators, and staff;
Policymaking and oversight – by strengthening and maintaining a policy structure that supports an effective and efficient system of public education, using research-informed and data-based decision making, and continuously monitoring and evaluating the public education system for opportunities to improve student outcomes and operational efficiency and effectiveness;
Systems support –by ensuring that all students are taught by highly effective educators and staff, promoting social-emotional well-being for all students, educators, and staff; and.
Engagement and advocacy – by building, strengthening, and maintaining connections among partners to act in support of success for all learners, and meaningfully engaging stakeholders in decision making.

• Creating a compelling and shared vision that drives educational excellence;
• Strengthening and maintaining a comprehensive policy structure that supports an effective and efficient system of public education through transparent and collaborative leadership;
• Building, strengthening, and maintaining connections among all stakeholders to act in support of success for all learners;
• Ensuring equitable opportunities and access to high-quality, culturally -responsive learning experiences for all students;
• Encouraging and fostering kuleana, personal growth, and social-emotional wellbeing for all students, educators, and staff;
• Ensuring all educators and staff are effective in providing effective, high-quality instruction and monitor student progress; and
• Continuously monitoring and evaluating the public education system for achievement and growth by practicing research-informed and data-based decision making.

• Do they accurately represent what the system stands for?
• Do these values bring the system’s “why” to life?
• Are these values action driven?
• Will these values provide a sense of grounding for the board and Department?

Hull went on to the next objective of the meeting, reaching consensus on goals for each priority. He stated that the Board came to a consensus on priorities at a previous meeting. Hull also stated that the Board members gave tentative agreement to the goals. He stated that the goals are broad because there will be outcomes under each goal.

Hull reviewed the three suggested goals under Priority 1 and asked Board members for their comments.

• Goal 1: All students will have equitable access to a high-quality learning experience resulting in equitable outcomes for all learners.

• Goal 2: All students will learn in a safe, nurturing, and culturally-responsive environment.

• Goal 3: All students will graduate high school prepared for college, career, civic engagement, and community involvement.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that the word “nurturing,” in Priority 1, Goal 2, could have different definitions and asked Hull what the word means in this goal and how it differs from the word “safe.” Hull stated that the word “safe” refers more to physical safety, but “nurturing” speaks to emotional safety and meeting students’ emotional needs. Board Chairperson Voss stated that “nurturing” includes the ability to grow and clarified that Priority 1, Goal 2 focuses on nurturing students’ social-emotional abilities. Hull stated that the next level in the strategic plan framework is outcomes and that one of the suggested outcomes of Priority 1, Goal 2 is that all students are socially-emotionally supported.

Board Member Moriarty stated that three goals are too many because anything included in these goals need to have corresponding outcomes and that there would be more than one outcome for each goal. She stated that if the Board focused on 8-10 outcomes for each priority, then there would be 30-40 outcomes to achieve all three priorities. Board Member Moriarty stated that she thought there would be fewer goals to allow the Board to focus. She stated that if the Board does not narrow the focus at this level, then it would not develop an actionable strategic plan. Board Member Moriarty asked if three goals were too many for each priority and if three goals were appropriate, whether the Board needed to put them in priority order so the Department could implement accordingly. Hull clarified that the goals are not mutually exclusive, but that they are interconnected. He stated that many goals will have the same initiatives and strategies. Hull stated that the implementation plan can put the goals in priority order to describe how the work will be done.

Board Member Moriarty referenced Priority 3, Goal 1, “[a]ll school facilities will be safe, well-maintained, compliant, clean, and attractive to provide a positive and inviting learning environment for students and staff” and stated that she likes the goal, but does not think it is achievable. She stated that she is not sure what “attractive” means and that the use of the term does not speak to a priority. Board Member Moriarty stated that if a school in Kahala wants a garden to make the school attractive and another school has a leaking roof, there is no sense that the roof needs to be fixed before putting in a garden. She stated that the purpose of a strategic plan is to establish what takes priority.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that he respectfully disagreed because all goals work together and are reflective of public input. He stated that being attractive is an important feature of facilities and that during the Board’s strategic plan community meetings he heard a lot of concerns about painting and grounds. Board Chairperson Voss explained that if a school is not attractive, it is disrespectful to students and that we need to make schools attractive to students. He stated that the goals are all tied together and without all the goals the Board will not successfully achieve its priorities.

Military Representative Minaudo stated that there needs to be a baseline of resource allocation to get schools to a minimum level. He stated setting a baseline would not preclude a school from having a garden.

Board Member Fallin asked Board Chairperson Voss about what the term “equity” means to him. Board Chairperson Voss stated that outcomes would never be exactly the same because everyone starts at a different place. He stated that equity is not that we get the same grade or score. Board Chairperson Voss described components of equity, first that we strive to rise the tide for all boats and, second, that we give equity of opportunity to increase readiness while focusing on the gaps.

Board Member Moriarty stated that she is not sure “equity” or “equitable” is used the same way in different goals, so she wanted to get clarification on how others understood the word. She asked whether instead of using the term “equity,” the Board should explain what it means. Board Member Moriarty stated that getting all learners to their full potential means closing the gap and going beyond and suggested using the term “full potential.” She stated that Priority 3, Goal 1 says that all schools should look good. Board Member Moriarty stated that for each goal the Board members need to have a clear understanding of the concept and not just use a word. Board Chairperson Voss stated that “equity” depends on the context.

Hull cautioned against using the term “full potential” because there is the possibility of inherent bias and who is to say how far someone can go. He stated that it is difficult to define “full potential” and there is the danger that someone would say that a student’s full potential is an eighth grade level education. Hull shared NASBE’s definition of an equitable education is one in which all students receive what they need to thrive in school.

Board Member Fallin stated that equitable education gets us closer and more focused and that it should also apply to all regardless of student circumstances. She stated that equity is side by side with high expectations, and that the term high-quality kind of gets there. Hull stated that three months ago, Board members did a deep dive on data and reviewed student characteristics and different outcomes. He stated that it is the Board’s job to fix it.

Military Representative Minaudo caution is that the word “equity” is associated with a hot button word, “inclusion.” He stated that “equity” and “inclusion” have different meanings in the broader context that has connotations of different races, creeds, sexual preferences. Military Representative Minaudo asked whether there was another word to express the same concepts.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that “equity” references different aspects for buildings and financial resources than it does for students. He stated that the Board’s role is to provide the resources in an equitable manner that achieves equitable outcomes.

Board Chairperson Voss asked whether equity should be in the priorities. Hull stated that equity should be in the priorities because those are the Board’s primary responsibilities. He clarified that “equity” is not a divisive term among educators. Hull asked whether there is consensus on moving forward with the three goals of Priority 1 The Board members came to a consensus on the three goals for Priority 1.

Hull moved on to Priority 2 goals.

• Goal 1: All students will be taught by highly-qualified teachers and all schools will led by highly-qualified principals.
• Goal 2: Complex area and state offices will be comprised of highly qualified staff whose work is aligned to support student learning.
• Goal 3: All schools will be fully staffed by competent and caring support staff committed to providing quality services to support students.

Hull stated that metrics are in the implementation plan and that goals are broader, aspirational terms. He stated that the Board can remove the word “caring.” Board Chairperson Voss stated that to a certain degree, Priority 2, Goal 3 is an aspirational and not measurable goal. Hull stated that he believes goals can be more aspirational.

Board Member Namauʻu stated that she likes that Priority 2, Goal 2 referenced the complex and state offices aligning to support student learning because she often hears that there is a disconnect between the different levels of the tri-level system (school, complex area, state office). She stated that this is important to share with the Department as it continues to look at what it does and how it does things and the impact on the students and schools. Board Chairperson Voss stated that he often hears about the lack of support for schools at all levels and asked if the intent is to support schools and student learning or if supporting schools includes supporting student learning. Hull stated that all activities of the organization need to connect back to supporting student learning and that everyone needs to believe and feel that connection. He stated that it is impossible to support student learning, but not support a school, so school support implicitly includes student learning.

Hull moved on to Priority 3 goals.

• Goal 1: All school facilities will be safe, well-maintained, compliant, clean, and attractive to provide a positive and inviting learning environment for students and staff.
• Goal 2: All operational and management processes, including resource allocation, will be implemented in an equitable, transparent, and efficient manner.
• Goal 3: Families, stakeholders, and staff are informed of and engaged in planning and decision-making affecting students in a meaningful and timely manner.

Board Member Fallin stated that she would like to suggest adding that all operational and management processes are “aligned” to Priority 3, Goal 2. She also noted that the word “will” should be removed from Goal 2, in line with her previous comment.

Board Member Moriarty stated that for all goals, the statewide nature of the system has not been explicitly captured and that she was unsure of where this should be captured. She asked whether there is a central place where individuals in the Department can share ideas because that is an example of way to use the statewide nature of the system as an advantage.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that Priority 3, Goal 3, is important because Board members have heard communications concerns repeatedly, but he expressed concern as to how the Board will honor those concerns and achieve this goal. Hull provided some examples of outcomes that could be used to achieve Goal 3 and acknowledged that it is a huge goal, but that the Board has shown good faith that it can do this.

Board Chairperson Voss asked about the enormity of the goals, which would take a lot of time, and asked Hull whether other state plans include goals that are this ambitious and far-reaching. Hull stated that most state boards do not get into operations because this is a local or district responsibility. He stated that most do not have management rights over the department and that most parent engagement is in a district plan. Hull stated that the Board’s dual SEA/LEA responsibilities make this plan huge.

Board Member Namauʻu stated that she often looks at things through a state board lens and she goes into the community and sees things she wants to change in schools, she is reminded that she needs to stay at the state board level. She stated that if the Board has district responsibilities she feels like she has permission to go to schools and ask them why they are doing something a certain way or why things are not happening. Hull clarified that the only place Board members have authority is when they are sitting at the table together, not in schools. He stated that you need to discuss things as a Board member in the table with fellow Board members, not telling schools what to do.

Hayashi stated that Priority 3 is very large in scope, particularly Goal 3. He stated that he is also concerned with how the Department will achieve the Priority 3 Goals because they are large and involve other agencies and partners. Board Chairperson Voss stated that metrics and outcomes are time bound and these goals will take time.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that the Board has come to a consensus on goals for all three priorities. Hull stated that there is one more meeting objective, which is to brainstorm outcomes.

The meeting recessed at 12:42 p.m. and reconvened at 1:34 p.m.

Hull described outcomes as smaller parts of the desired results (goals), which when combined reaches the goal. He explained that the achievement of the combined outcomes should result in achieving the goal. Hull stated that outcomes drive the implementation plan and that the implementation plan describes how to achieve and measure the outcome. He described outcomes as the ingredients of the goal. Hull explained that outcomes should not be a laundry list of items and that the outcome language needs to be more specific than goals, but should not be lengthy. He stated that he prepared some sample outcomes, but that he is not suggesting that these are the right outcomes. Hull went over the sample outcomes for Priority 1, Goal 1 and asked Board members to brainstorm outcomes for Goal 1.

Hull stated that outcomes need to be measurable and asked Chun to share currently existing metrics for each of the priorities. Hull warned against discussing which metrics will be used to measure goals at this point. He stated that when your measure becomes your target, you no longer have a good measure.

Chun presented on currently available performance indicators and explained that that many were presented to Board members in data presentations in September and October. She explained which performance indicators were associated with each priority and goal.

Chun stated that almost all academic measurements are mandated by the federal government. She stated that academic achievement is included in federal accountability, the strategic plan, and the Strive HI Performance System and that state law and federal reporting requires reporting various academic measures. Chun stated that performance indicators are statewide measures and acknowledged that there are performance indicators at school and classroom levels because people at those levels need different kinds of information, but that this information is not necessarily what the Board needs to track statewide progress.

Board Chairperson Voss clarified that the Board is not tying outcomes to data at this meeting.

Board Member Namauʻu asked for an explanation of what “school growth” measures. Chun stated that what is listed are indicators, but they do not tell you how the Department measures the indicators. She detailed that median growth percentile is based on Smarter Balanced Assessment scores, among other standardized assessments. Glenn Nochi, Evaluation Specialist, Accountability Section, Department of Education explained the underlying metrics of the median growth percentile. He stated that the school growth indicator tells you how well schools are doing compared to other schools. Nochi stated that growth is calculated for each student and then rolled up to the school, complex area, or state level, which can then be compared to others.

Board Member Moriarty stated that student success has two components, one is achievement (that all students are high achieving) and the other is growth (that we can see progress). She stated that growth gets at wanting to close learning gaps, but it also gets to rigor. Board Member Moriarty stated that if the education students are provided is not rigorous, students are not continuing to grow. Nochi stated that there are different growth models and that in 2013 Hawaii adopted the student growth percentile model. He noted that it is not a good way to measure statewide growth, which is why it hasn’t been used as a statewide metric, but that it is useful at the complex area level and below because it is a comparison of apples to apples. Nochi stated that the growth model takes into consideration the prior year achievement of similar students, which makes comparisons very easy.

Chun stated that for students performing well on the test, it compares them to students who performed well on the test last year to see who is making progress. Nochi stated that the growth metric is agnostic to proficiency. Chun noted that multiple measures matter and that in a classroom, teachers look at multiple data points. She stated that the challenge is at the state level. Chun stated that achievement scores do not tell you everything, but it tells you some important things. She noted that there are a lot more measures in high school and accelerated coursework, so the Department can use measures beyond test scores to get an idea of progress.

Board Member Moriarty stated that Board members talked about ensuring there are many different ways for students to learn, which implies different ways to demonstrate proficiency and measure rigor of education and achievement. Board Member Moriarty asked whether there are ways other than standardized testing that can measure proficiency, and provided examples like industry certification, military entrance exams, or being accepted to perform in a symphony orchestra. She asked whether the Department has thought about those kinds of measures and if it has systematically collected those measures statewide.

Chun responded that the Department thinks about a lot of measures and that it is not always satisfied with the measures it has. She stated that when creating new measures, we have to weigh the burden of data collection against the data obtained. Chun provided an example of academic achievement along grade levels, which teachers do all the time, but she said that the challenge is taking all of the teacher assessments and aggregating them up into a state measure. She stated that the Department is working on an innovative assessments project to help teachers develop assessments in place of standardized testing, but the challenge for a state organization is the level of rigor (validity and reliability) that allows the Department to collect and report it at a state level. Chun stated that the federal government invited states to consider teacher developed assessments in place of standardized testing, but the scientific rigor, reliability, and validity was very high. She stated that everyone wants teachers to use high-quality assessments in their classrooms, but if teachers did it at the level the federal government requires, there would be less value in the way teachers use these assessments in their classrooms.

Board Member Moriarty asked about the data available for Kaiapuni schools. Chun stated that the Department consistently collects student academic performance using the Kaiapuni Assessment of Education Outcomes (“KĀʻEO”) and other data collection. She noted that it is easier to track data for an entire immersion school, but that when immersion is a program in a school it is harder to differentiate between Kaiapuni students and other students in the same school.

Board Member Kuraya asked about graduation rates, where students are going after high school, and what happens to students that do not graduate and noted that Priority 1, Goal 3 states that all students will graduate. Chun stated that schools currently track students by exit code, which tells them the reason they are no longer attending school. She stated that this was included in the data the Department presented to the Board in October. Chun stated that there are difficulties in tracking students if they just stop showing up or if they tell schools they are enrolling in a school on the continent, but there is no evidence that they did so. She stated that once students exit the system, the Department is not able to track them further. Board Member Kuraya asked whether students who drop out are going into the workforce or alternative education like the Department’s Community School for Adults. Chun stated that the Department’s data systems currently do not allow them to track this, but the number of students that drop out is close to the number of students who enroll in the Community School for Adults.

Board Member Fallin stated that what is missing is a relationship between Priority 2, Goal 1 (highly qualified teachers) and Priority 1, Goal 1 (equitable access to high-quality learning experience). She stated that if we feel that highly qualified teachers will result in improved student outcomes, how do you capture the relationship between the data sets. Chun stated that the research is clear that having an effective teacher makes a big difference for students. Board Member Fallin stated that the indicators the Department uses (teacher positions filled and 5-year teacher retention) do not capture the quality of the teacher. She asked how would the Department get around data silos to get to an actionable metric that can be measured over time in a targeted way. Chun stated that the Department does not currently correlate teacher quality with student achievement, but that it is possible to do. She stated that in the past the Department focused on teacher positions filled because it is a necessary first step, but it is not sufficient to get to the student achievement goal. Chun stated that in a previous iteration of the Educator Evaluation System or EES, the Hawaii State Teachers Association agreed to use the student growth percentile in teacher evaluations. She stated that the student growth percentile was used in teacher evaluations for a few years and then it stopped.

Board Member Fallin stated that she is thinking about Priority 2 and what information would be helpful because investing in educators is an area of high interest and she wants to find ways to validate and support increased investing in that area.

Board Chairperson Voss asked about data for which there is no current performance indicator, for example, more ‘āina-based learning or alternative learning opportunities available to a wider group of students. He asked, if those were outcomes, whether there is data that can be used to create a performance indicator. Chun stated that the Office of Hawaiian Education might be collecting some data, but that she suspects that it would be challenging and the Department would need to institute new data collection. She stated that if this was measured at the school level, it would be easier than measuring whether each student had the opportunity. Chun stated that Hawaii P-20 does not track ‘āina-based learning, but does track work-based learning and that could be something to look at.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that there was one testifier who was very critical of the system for its failure to prepare students for life and asked whether there is data collected 5-10 years post-graduation to see how well schools prepared students for college, career, and civic engagement. Chun clarified that Board Chairperson Voss is asking about post-high school indicators and that what currently available is college enrollment and completion data. She stated that if the Board is looking for workforce or satisfaction data, that would be new data collection that would have to be developed. Chun warned that post-completion surveys usually have a low response rate and the Department does not retain contact information once students graduate. Board Chairperson Voss stated that the Department needs to find out whether graduates were sufficiently prepared. Chun stated that buying something or conducting a survey are possible ways to collect new data, but need to weigh against the administrative burden that puts on people collecting the data, like teachers.

Hull provided Board members with suggestions for outcomes for Priority 1, Goal 1 and asked if they had any suggestions or comments.

• Goal 1: All students will have equitable access to a rigorous, high-quality learning experience resulting in equitable outcomes for all learners.
  • Outcomes
    1. All students are prepared socially, emotionally, and academically for success in kindergarten.
    2. All students are proficient in reading by the end of third grade, and those who are not have the necessary supports to become proficient.
    3. All students are proficient in mathematics by the end of eighth grade, and those who are not have the necessary supports to become proficient.
    4. Academic achievement gaps are eliminated with all student subgroups performing equally well.

Board Member Arakaki stated that one of the outcomes of the successful Arizona reading program that was showcased at the NASBE conference was to have students proficient in reading by the end of third grade, so he believes it would be important to include Priority 1, Goal 1, Outcome 2 (3rd grade literacy).

Hull explained that data shows that students who are not proficient in math by the end of eighth grade are not able to do high school math, which is why he included eighth grade as the point at which to look at math proficiency in Goal 1, Outcome 3 (8th grade math proficiency).

Board Member Moriarty pointed out that Priority 1, Goal 1, Outcome 2 (3rd grade literacy) initially refers to all students and then goes on to reference students who do not get support and asked whether this is a mixed message. Hull clarified that Priority 1, Goal 1, Outcome 2 (3rd grade literacy) does not suggest that the Board retain students if they are not proficient in reading at third grade. He stated that the phrase “and those who are not have the necessary supports to become proficient” clarifies what happens when students are not proficient. Hull stated that the intent of this phrase is to prevent the perception that not being proficient by the end of third grade does not mean that there is no possibility for success. He acknowledged that, philosophically, this might look like waffling, but options need to be clear.

Board Member Moriarty stated that her first priority would be to have all students literate by the end of third grade and that her second priority is to have all students proficient in mathematics by the end of eighth grade. She stated that if Board members must only select three or four outcomes for each goal, the third one she should pick is an outcome relating to achievement gaps and a fourth one would concern students being able to successfully transition at critical points, elementary to middle school and middle to high school. Hull stated if the Board achieved Priority 1, Goal 1, Outcome 2 and Goal 1, Outcome 3 then there would be no achievement gaps, but that the Board must call out achievement gaps because it shows us how and where the public education system is failing students.

Board Member Fallin referenced the NASBE conference and the site visit to a successful Arizona school mentioned by Board Member Arakaki and added that it was a K-8 school that was #1 in Arizona. She stated that the Arizona school started working on literacy as soon as possible, but had a retention policy. Board Member Fallin asked why the Board would wait until third grade to provide supports. Hull stated that supports start as soon as the student starts school, it does not start in third grade. Board Member Fallin stated that she would be open to clarifying in the outcome that supports start as soon as the student starts school.

Hull clarified that attendance is addressed under Goal 2, which covers culture and environment because the number one reason students drop out is because they are not in nurturing environments and do not have adequate supports.

Armstrong asked that the Board members keep child development in mind when they consider an outcome for kindergarteners, like Priority 1, Goal 1, Outcome 1 (kindergarten preparedness). She stated that in early childhood there are developmental spans and not all students will reach the same milestones at the same time. Armstrong stated that this is due to many factors, including their experiences before kindergarten, languages at home, and others. She stated that showing success in kindergarten might not be appropriate given the range of child development at that age.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that pre-kindergarten is outside of the Board’s jurisdiction, which Armstrong confirmed. Board Member Namauʻu added that once there is a KEA, she hopes the Department can find a way to identify, support and track any students who are identified as needing supports. She stated that if the Department can do this, then the Board and Department can achieve the third grade literacy outcome. Armstrong stated that the Department uses the Multi-Tiered System of Support so it can place students in the appropriate tier once they are identified and they can start getting appropriate supports.

Board Member Fallin stated that because students enter kindergarten with very different experiences, it is even more important that they receive support as soon as possible. She stated that she would like to add language to Priority 1, Goal 1, Outcome 1 (kindergarten preparedness) clarifying that students will get necessary supports. She also asked whether children are required to attend kindergarten; Armstrong replied that it is.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that Goal 1, Outcomes 2, 3, and 4 are easy to assess, but that students need an education that challenges them and prepares them for their life after high school. He asked whether the Department collects information on student perception regarding these kinds of things. Chun stated that the Department conducts a School Quality Survey (“SQS”), which asks students to share their perceptions of their schools. She noted that there are issues regarding the number of students that participate in the surveys, but that there are ways to track this.

Sherilyn Lau, Evaluation Specialist, Accountability Section, Department of Education, stated that the Department can look at adding questions to its Panorama survey and SQS, but that there are no questions that get specifically to those issues. Chun stated a student’s zip code or background characteristics should not limit achievement. She stated that everyone wants to see all students achieving at high levels. Chun stated that students only receive special education services if they have an academic disadvantage. She stated that if a student is performing at grade level, they are not eligible for special education services.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that there is a need for urgent attention learning loss, achievement gaps, and challenges with certain student subgroups, including English Learners, Pacific Islanders, and Native Hawaiians. He stated that the Board selected Hayashi because it did not think that the system had time to wait for a superintendent unfamiliar with the Department to get up to speed. Board Chairperson Voss stated that while literacy and math proficiency are important outcomes, the Board’s top priority should be to reach the students who did not have the same opportunities as other students during the pandemic and who have not been learning for the last two years. He stated that this plan needs to put the onus on the Department and schools to reach these students before they are lost.

Board Member Kuraya noted that schools currently test students entering kindergarten. Chun confirmed this statement and added that schools have their own processes for assessing kindergarteners, but that will change shortly because the Board approved a KEA for English medium schools. Board Member Kuraya stated that once the Department has data from this assessment, they will be able to identify which students need specific supports and will have the necessary services in place.

Hull stated that the Board wanted an early learning outcome, which is why he suggested Priority 1, Goal 1, Outcome 1, (kindergarten readiness), so he will work on rewording it. He reminded the Board that even if it does not have authority over pre-kindergarten, it has the power to convene, so the Board should think about how to work with other agencies that have authority over this area.

Hull shared suggested outcomes for Priority 1, Goal 2:

• Goal 2: All students will learn in a safe, nurturing, and culturally-responsive environment. 
  • Outcomes
    • All students are socially and emotionally supported.
    • All students attend school on a regular basis.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse suggested that an outcome for Goal 2, that students have greater access to ‘āina-based learning.

Hull stated that before the next meeting he will send a revised draft of the outcomes to Board Members sometime next week and will ask that they provide him with comments that he will use to further revise the documents before bringing them back to the Board on December 15, 2022.

Hull shared suggested outcomes for Priority 1, Goal 3:

• Goal 3: All students will graduate high school prepared for college, career, civic engagement, and community involvement.
  • Outcomes
    • All students enter high school on track to meet the college and career readiness standard by the end of 10th grade, and are engaged socially, emotionally, and academically to succeed in progressively challenging and advanced level coursework aligned to college and career pathways.
    • All students graduate from high school college and career ready, and with an individualized plan to succeed in college, career, and life.
    • All students graduate from high school prepared for civic engagement and community involvement.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that Priority 1, Goal 3 is one of the most difficult goals and asked Hayashi for his thoughts. Hayashi stated that high schools require students to complete personal transition plans and that this may be the appropriate vehicle to address some of the Priority 1, Goal 3 outcomes. He stated it is important to set an expectation that students are prepared when they graduate from high school. Hayashi stated that schools are working to help students have a sense of the career they are interested in and whether they plan to go into higher education or into the workforce. He stated that he sees Priority 1, Goal 3 as setting the expectation that our students will be prepared when they graduate from high school. Board Chairperson Voss stated that the outcome should be that all students have some sense of the direction they want to go into at the time they graduate and asked Hayashi to help articulate that in an outcome. Hayashi suggested that a possible outcome would be that “all students will have direction and plan for their postsecondary endeavors.” He stated that he will take a look at this and come back with a suggestion.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated there is an ʻōlelo noʻeau, that in doing, one learns. He would propose rewording a couple of outcomes or incorporating the concept of getting students involved and getting them practical experience so they are learning versus learning about things. Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse suggested that all students have access to early college opportunities, hands-on work experience, or military preparation so they know whether they want to pursue a specific path.

Board Member Kuraya noted that the practical experience that Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse described is important, but it starts at the elementary school level. He stated that the Board should look at schools together in a complex (a high school together with its middle and elementary school feeders) and that there should be a complex goal that focuses on how to bring the students together and as a complex so there is a complete pathway as students transition from elementary to middle and middle to high schools. Board Member Kuraya stated that students should have experiences in elementary and middle school so that when they reach high school they have a pretty good idea of the pathway they want to pursue.

Board Member Fallin stated that Priority 1, Goal 3 needs to include an outcome relating to practical, real life skills, which are particularly important for students in more challenging communities.

Board Member Moriarty stated that she would have taken out “community involvement” as part of civic engagement, but that the language is fine as is. She stated that elected officials have also told her about the importance of financial literacy and that she believes that it is important for students to graduate financially literate because financial literacy is essential for success. Board Member Moriarty stated that it makes sense to involve students in community events and ensure they are civically engaged and that this can be measured. She shared that she was not sure how to reword Priority 1, Goal 3, Outcome 1, but that she liked the outcomes suggested by Board Chairperson Voss, Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse, and Board Members Arakaki and Kuraya.

Board Chairperson Voss raised the importance of practical training. Hayashi added that students who are interested in a specific career can get together and focus on a common area.

Board Member Kuraya left the meeting at 3:00 p.m.

Board Member Arakaki stated that elementary and middle schools are already working on exploratory career programs.

Hull shared suggested outcomes for Priority 2 and asked Board members for suggestions and comments.

• Goal 1: All students will be taught by highly qualified teachers and all schools will be led by highly qualified principals.
  • Outcomes
    1. All teacher and principal positions are filled with permanent hires.
    2. All teachers and principals are highly qualified or receive the necessary supports to become highly qualified.
    3. Recruitment and hiring procedures are succinct, efficient, and user-friendly.
    4. Retention, mentoring, and personnel support systems are research-informed, robust, comprehensive, and effective.

• Goal 2: Complex area and state offices will be comprised of highly qualified staff whose work is aligned to support student learning.
  • Outcomes
    1. All complex area and state office staff are highly qualified or receive the necessary supports to become highly qualified.

• Goal 3: All schools will be fully staffed by competent and caring support staff committed to providing quality services to support students.
  • Outcomes
    1. All school support staff positions are filled with permanent hires.
    2. Recruitment and hiring procedures are succinct, efficient, and user-friendly.
    3. Retention, mentoring, and personnel support systems are research-informed, robust, comprehensive, and effective.

Board Member Kuraya returned to the meeting at 3:04 p.m.

Board Member Moriarty stated that it is easy to see whether there is a permanent hire in every position. She stated that the communication plan does not come afterwards, but should be developed simultaneously while the Board is developing the strategic plan. Board Chairperson Voss stated the outcomes are fine, but that there is a serious and immediate challenge with principals and vice principals. He asked Hayashi to provide more detail on this challenge.

Hayashi stated that there is a shortage of sitting principals and vice principals, especially on the neighbor islands. He stated that, additionally, the Department’s Leadership Institute identified a large number of principals eligible for retirement next year and over the next five years, so this is an area of great concern. Hayashi stated that the Department is looking at how it can encourage teachers and counselors who demonstrate leadership skills to seek vice principal and principal level positions.

Board Chairperson Voss mentioned compensation, particularly for support positions. Hull stated that at a previous meeting, Board members discussed a goal about the Board advocating for adequate funding and that it was the Board’s decision to take that out as a goal. Hull stated that it is appropriate for the Board to advocate for adequate funding, but that it is more appropriate to place this in the implementation plan. He stated that the Board should not select an outcome that it cannot move the needle on with relative surety.

Hayashi stated that the Department is working on career ladders in high-need staff positions and that the Board and Department are engaged in collective bargaining with Bargaining Units 5 and 6, but that staff members in other are negotiated through the Department of Human Resource Development and that the Department is not involved in those negotiations.

Board Member Fallin stated that she is thinking about the connections between the goals of Priority 1 and Priority 2, specifically as it relates to using data to target the communities with large numbers of struggling student populations and who have teacher recruitment and retention issues. She stated that not all schools have recruitment or retention problems, but some communities do. Board Member Fallin asked how Board members could take the data and begin to target communities with the greatest challenges, both with students and teacher recruitment and retention, instead of working in all communities when some do not need it.

Hull noted that the issues have to do with recruitment, retention, and onboarding across many different kinds of positions.

Board Member Kuraya stated that during the Board’s strategic plan community meetings in Maili, his group had vice principals who were temporarily assigned as principals and they discussed trying to get people to stay, to get them certified and into positions permanently. He stated that schools need to provide opportunities for teachers and support staff to advance and that the Department needs to look at alternative ways of providing certification.

Hayashi noted that there is an issue with getting 12-month teachers to move to a 10-month vice principal position because a 10-month vice principal position is not desirable.

Hull provided suggested outcomes for Priority 3 and asked Board members for suggestions and comments.

• Goal 1: All school facilities will be safe, well-maintained, compliant, clean, and attractive to provide a positive and inviting learning environment for students and staff. 
  • Outcomes
    1. All school facilities are TItle IX and ADA compliant.

Board Member Fallin stated that communication, like timely feedback loops and informing people of the status of things, are important because in the absence of information, people get creative.

Hull provided suggested outcomes for Priority 3, Goal 2 and asked Board members for comments and suggestions.

• Goal 2: All operational and management processes will be implemented in an equitable, transparent, and efficient manner.
  • Outcomes
    1. All Board of Education policies align with the goals and outcomes contained within the strategic plan. 
    2. All Board of Education practices and procedures foster efficient operation, streamline processes, enhance planning, and facilitate decision making.
    3. All Department of Education programs, human resources, and finances are structured to accomplish the goals and outcomes contained within the strategic plan.
    4. All Department of Education practices and procedures foster efficient operation, streamline processes, eliminate redundancies, and facilitate effective management. 
    5. All data systems are aligned to meet and measure the goals and outcomes contained within the strategic plan with appropriate metrics. 
    6. Capital improvement program line items are aligned with the intent of Board Policy 301-10, Equitable Allocation of Facilities Resources. and Capital Improvement Project line items

Hull stated that Priority 3, Goal 2, Outcome 2 (Board practices and procedures) will help clarify how the Board operates and can be combined with Priority 3, Goal 2, Outcome 1 (policy audit). Hull stated that the Department would then need to do the same thing that the Board is doing with its policies, practices, and procedures.

Board Member Moriarty asked if Priority 3, Goal 2, Outcomes 1 and 2 also cover organizational structure, for example the two additional deputies. Hull stated that the organizational structure is captured under Priority 3, Goal 2, Outcomes 3, but the outcome can be reworded to make that more explicit.

Board Member Fallin asked where the Board should address system alignment. Hull stated that this would be best addressed in Priority 3, Goal 2.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that a common question is where all the money goes. He stated the Department has increased the amount of information it makes publicly available, but people still do not have a good understanding. Board Chairperson Voss stated that the Department needs to figure out a way to educate the public on how financial decisions are made, who spends the money, and where it is spent because, in addition to transparency, it also helps to convince the legislature to give the Department more money. Hull stated that this is a common issue for all boards.

Hull provided some suggested outcomes for Priority 3, Goal 3.

• Goal 3: Families, stakeholders, and staff are informed of and engaged in planning and decision-making affecting students in a meaningful and timely manner.
  • Outcomes
    1. All School Community Councils have full membership, meet regularly, and are engaged with their respective school principal. 
    2. All families, stakeholders, and staff can easily learn about and participate in decision-making processes at the school, complex area, and state levels.
    3. All families, stakeholders, and staff can easily understand and effectively use a process that will assist with the timely resolution of disputes.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that communications work very well when something bad happens because the coconut wireless explodes. He stated that cross-posting on social media platforms makes it easier for people to get the information and then share it with others. Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse provided ideas like engaging students to help the Board with social media. He noted that there is no one answer to the issue of communications and engagement, but that it would help to put information on as many platforms as possible.

Board Member Namauʻu stated that she would be very interested in talking about community schools as an opportunity for the Department to be able to interact and engage with community, family, students, and staff. Board Member Namau‘u stated that it entails having a community navigator that is from the community, knows the school, and can act as a bridge between the two. She stated that she talked to people doing the work and that it is in the early stages in places like the Kohala complex, but is housed under a non-profit. Board Member Namau‘u stated that the Board can communicate through social media, but community schools are a solution.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that the Kohala model has been working for years, that community schools are not an “or,” but an “and” and should be used in addition to social media. He stated that the Board needs to use social media now and that community schools are a wonderful concept, but they take time to develop and require resources.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that the formal process for community schools takes long, but that some elements can be introduced to set a foundation. Board Member Namauʻu stated that if schools start to implement community schools, they might see something come to fruition. She stated that community schools can address issues with disadvantaged student populations and if the school supports the family, then the child will come to school.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that regardless of what you call it, the Board and Department need to help struggling student groups.

Board Member Fallin stated that the Board and Department need to develop trust and that cannot be done in the middle of a crisis, like a pandemic. She described three buckets of communication challenges, day-to-day, complaints, and crisis. Board Member Fallin stated that from a systems perspective the Board needs to have a plan and process in place that everyone can understand and use and which it can monitor and gauge effectiveness. She also stated that the Board needs to be clear with its expectations so families and schools know what to expect. Hull stated that a lot of what Board Member Fallin commented on is encompassed in Priority 3, Goal 3, Outcome 3.

Military Representative Minaudo asked that the Board keep co-curricular activities in mind. Board Member Kuraya noted that when Hayashi was the principal at Waipahu High School he brought the complex together and that is another way to look at a community, as a complex. Hayashi stated that if Board members are interested in community schools, the Board should receive a presentation on what community schools are and what they offer. He stated that the School Community Council (“SCC”) plays a role in providing input and voice for the major stakeholder groups and that the voice of the community and trust are paramount.

Board Member Moriarty stated that “stakeholders” could mean everyone, so she is unsure of how achievable Priority 3, Goal 3, Outcomes 2 and 3 are. She stated that she wants to get a better understanding of what the Board wants to do, what it wants to communicate, and for what purpose. Hull suggested deleting the word “stakeholders” so there could be focus on families and staff; the Board could always add “stakeholders” later.

Board Member Arakaki agreed that previous generations focused on open houses and performances, and potlucks to get people to attend events, but that we need to do things we did before and also do new things like social media. He stated that on Kauai it is easier to do things together because it is a small island. Board Member Arakaki asked how the Department knows what models it has to build on and how it and the Board get students involved.

Hayashi asked for clarification on Priority 3, Goal 3, Outcome 2 and “decision-making” because as a former principal he could engage the school community and individuals to get input, but ultimately he made the decision as the principal. Hull clarified that families and staff need to be involved the decision-making process and not making the decision itself. Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that language should be added to Priority 3, Goal 3, Outcome 2 to clarify that it is talking about informing the decision-making process and not an active role in making the decision itself.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that with communication, some things work and some do not and asked whether there is a process where principals and complex area superintendents can share what works and what does not. Hayashi stated that through the Leadership Institute there are two statewide convenings and that principals in a complex get together at least monthly. Board Chairperson Voss asked if an electronic platform is available. Hayashi said that he would work with the executive director of the Leadership Institute to see if there is a way to do that.

Hull stated that he would send draft documents out to Board Members for comments before the December 15, 2022 meeting.

1. Adjournment

List of the people who submitted written testimony before the meeting

NAME	Organization	Agenda Item
Cheri Nakamura	Hui For Excellence (“HEE”)	II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Cindy Pang		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Veronica Simao		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Jeanne Iwashita		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Russ Grocki		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Lesa Cisneros		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Susa Pcola-Davis		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Cathy Tarasewicz		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Cathy Collado		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Rose Davis		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Linda Yuen		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Naomi Edwards		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Jill Owen		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning
Becky Quezada		II. Presentation on Nation Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning