Queen Liliuokalani Building
1390 Miller Street, Room 404
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Thursday, December 15, 2022

Bruce Voss, Chairperson
Kaimana Barcarse, Vice Chairperson
Bill Arakaki
Lynn Fallin
Ken Kuraya
Makana McClellan
Lauren Moriarty
Kili Namauʻu

Shanty Asher

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
Curt Otaguro, Deputy Superintendent of Operations, Department of Education
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Executive Secretary

I. Call to Order

Board Chairperson Bruce Voss called the Board of Education (“Board”) Special Meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. Board Chairperson Voss, Board Vice Chairperson Kaimana Barcarse, and Board Members Bill Arakaki, Lynn Fallin, Ken Kuraya, Makana McClellan, Lauren Moriarty, and Kili Namau‘u were present.

II. Discussion Items

Board Chairperson Voss called for public testimony. No one testified at this time.

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 Board is releasing a second survey to ask the public for input. He stated that he used Board member comments at the December 1, 2022 meeting, to revise the foundation statements, goals, and outcomes and sent them out for Board member comment. Hull stated that the foundation statements, goals and outcomes were then further revised to incorporate those comments. He noted that he did not include all Board member comments and that the purpose of today’s meeting is to make alterations to each section and get consensus that the proposed version is what the Board wants to release for public comment. He stated that for each area the Board is asking the public whether they agree or disagree and any revisions based on the public survey will be shared at the next meeting in January.

Hull asked the Board to review the proposed vision, “The State of Hawaii Board of Education envisions a superior statewide system of public schools where students are engaged in an inspiring, personalized, and culturally responsive education that fosters creative and critical thinkers prepared for college and career success and community and civic engagement.”

Hull stated that some changes were made to the vision based on discussions to include clarification that the Board envisions a superior system of public schools. He emphasized that college was called out instead of including it in the term post-secondary.

Hull stated that he reads silence as agreement and encouraged the Board to provide comments.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that his silence regarding the vision is his expression of full support.

Hull asked the Board to review the proposed mission, “The State of Hawaii Board of Education leads the public education system through strategic direction, transparent policymaking, effective oversight, comprehensive systems support, meaningful engagement, and vigorous advocacy.”

Hull stated that the modifier for advocacy was changed to vigorous. Board Member Moriarty stated that the mission statement captures the mission of the Board and expressed concern that the word “student” is not included. She also noted that she could not figure out how to include the word “student” without detracting from the strength of the statement and expressed trust that the Board will keep students in mind.

Hull clarified that the vision relates to students, but the mission is related and focused on what the Board needs to do to achieve its vision. Board Member Moriarty replied that that reading both the vision and mission together covers everything.

Student Representative Maverick Yasuda asked if adding “for the collective good of the students” at the end of the statement will make the mission statement clear for those who may not understand the purpose of the mission statement.

Board Chairperson expressed understanding for Student Representative Yasuda’s comment including the power of parallel structure because vigorous advocacy is clearly for the students. He invited the Board to provide comments on the proposed suggestion.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse emphasized that the Board is here for students who represent the end goal and foundation, but the mission statement is also for the entire system working on behalf of students. He stated that the Board’s actions for the students will speak louder than the mission.

Board Member Arakaki stated that as the Board continues its journey and revisits the foundation, it will have more discussions. He stated that Board members understand the purpose and need to sustain the intent of the mission. Board Chairperson Voss emphasized that it is not what the Board says but rather what the Board will do.

Board Chairperson Voss expressed support for the mission statement to remain as is.

Hull asked the Board to review the proposed values, “The State of Hawaii Board of Education believes in a public education system that is accountable to itself, to the students and families it serves, and to the communities that support and depend on public schools. We value:
Hull stated that the Office of Hawaiian Education (“OHE”) worked on the values to incorporate the concepts of Board Policy E-3, entitled “Nâ Hopena Aʻo (HÂ).” He asked the Board to comment relating to the structure of basing the values on Nâ Hopena Aʻo (HÂ) and whether this proposal accomplishes what the Board wanted.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse asked to move the ‘Ôlelo Hawaiʻi (Hawaiian language) to the beginning because this follows the structure of ‘Ôlelo Noʻeau (Hawaiian Proverbs) by Mary Kawena Pukui. Board Chairperson Voss stated that the format is that the literal translation follows the ‘Ôlelo Noʻeau (Hawaiian Proverbs), which Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse confirmed.

Board Member Namauʻu expressed support for the values which shows the uniqueness of Hawaii and includes all important values. She noted that the values are not necessarily HÂ concepts because they are Hawaiian proverbs. Board Member Namauʻu also expressed support for Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse’s formatting suggestion to mirror ‘Ôlelo Noʻeau (Hawaiian Proverbs).

Board Member Moriarty stated that the values visually and content-wise captures what she hoped would be captured. She expressed support for the lead in sentence about accountability and responsibility, which explains values in the Hawaiian context. Board Member Moriarty commented that “citizens of Hawaii” might be missing in the phrase: “that is accountable to itself, to the students and families it serves, and to the communities that support and depend on public schools.” She emphasized that public education is important to everyone and suggested adding “and the citizens of Hawaii” to the end of the sentence.

Board Chairperson Voss echoed comments from Board Member Namauʻu and expressed appreciation for OHE’s work. He stated that OHE chose words that were able to capture concisely the comments made by Board members during the December 1, 2022 meeting.

Hull asked for clarification on the suggestion made by Board Member Moriarty to add language to the introductory sentence. Board Chairperson Voss stated that he is not inclined to make the statement longer than it already is, but will consider the suggestion after receiving public input from the survey. Board Member Moriarty expressed agreement that waiting to receive public comments from the survey makes sense. Hull stated that given the Board members’ statements, there is support for the values with the suggested formatting revision.

Hull asked the Board to review the proposed goals and outcomes for Priority 1, high-quality learning for all, Goal 1.1, “All students experience rigorous, high-quality learning that results in equitable outcomes for all learners.
Desired Outcomes
Hull outlined Goal 1.1. and stated that he suggested some changes to the goals and multiple changes to the desired outcomes. He stated that the desired outcomes are not ranked by priority because the outcomes are all equal and the Department will prioritize them in the implementation plan. Hull stated that there is sequencing logic, but not priority order.

Board Chairperson Voss asked the Board to share any comments on desired outcomes.

Board Member Fallin asked whether the transition from high school to college is not included as a critical point in Desired Outcome 1.1.5. Hull replied that this is an excellent question and that most failures happen at transition points. He explained that transition is very important, but asked what targets or metrics will the Board use if it includes the transition to career or college. Board Member Fallin stated that one metric could be around students going to higher education and still being enrolled one year later. She expressed concern about the post-high school transition although she is not sure about the work the Department would need to do to track this. Board Member Fallin stated that higher education may be a gap and needs to be worked on.

Hayashi stated that Board Member Fallin’s suggestion regarding a post-secondary transition could also be captured somewhere in Goal 1.3, “All students graduate high school prepared for college and career success and community and civic engagement.” Board Chairperson Voss stated that the implicit statement reflects that if all students are prepared then transition will happen successfully. Board Member Moriarty stated that Desired Outcome 1.3.1 states that the students shall have a plan, but a lot of high school students put little thought into their plans for transition. She stated that a similar suggestion can be related to preparation for life. Board Member Moriarty also stated that during the actual transition, the sphere of influence is on the student and preparing all students is a solid goal for this strategic plan.

Board Member Arakaki stated that Desired Outcome 1.1.1 relates to early learning, 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 relates to reading and math, 1.1.4 relates to all student groups, and 1.1.5 relates to transitions. He asked how does the Department ensure that it is collecting the right data and referenced partnerships with community colleges that help students to assist students with transition. Board Member Arakaki emphasized that a lot of things are happening at the school level during the transition years.

Hull explained that Desired Outcome 1.1.3 addresses the comments from Board Member Fallin relating to transition and this area is where the discussion lives. Board Member Fallin expressed agreement and understanding regarding Desired Outcome 1.1.3.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that regarding Desired Outcome 1.1.4, an administrator or teacher would look at the language and say that is impossible, so how does the Board and Department reconcile the aspirational language with reality. Hull explained that the language reflects what is desired. He stated that there are huge challenges and during the implementation planning the Department would develop metrics and work on closing the gaps shown by these metrics. Hull stated that the implementation plan would show what has to be accomplished each year to reach the desired outcomes.

Hull stated that Board members commented about whether to specifically include language referencing students that receive special education services and English learners. He noted that there are different expectations for some students that receive special education services, but that it is different for English learners and there should not be any lowered expectations for English learners.

Board Member Kuraya stated that it is fine as long as the desired outcome explains what the Board is working toward and noted that success depends on the Department’s work. He emphasized that the goal and desired outcomes are the end product and is not the working plan to get there.

Military Representative Michael Minaudo stated that the desired outcomes could be a way to drive resources to achieve the goal. He stated that the resources being applied reflect how the teachers can achieve those goals. Board Chairperson Voss stated that every statement begins with “all” so keeping 1.1.4 with a consistent structure makes sense.

Hull asked the Board to review proposed Goal 1.2, “All students learn in a safe, nurturing, and culturally responsive environment. Desired Outcomes
1.2.1. All students desire to and attend school regularly.
1.2.2. All students demonstrate positive behaviors at school.
1.2.3. All students experience a Nâ Hopena Aʻo (HÂ) environment for learning.”

Hull shared the comments from Board members and explained that the term “safe” is not referring to buildings, but rather about the emotional safety of students. He also shared that building safety is covered in Priority 3.

Board Member Fallin asked about 1.2.3 and the use of the term Nâ Hopena Aʻo including how this term is incorporated throughout the document and whether that is a reference to the values. She also asked where the context is provided for the use of this term. Board Chairperson Voss stated that HÂ is a Board policy. Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse confirmed that HÂ is in Board policy and that the values are aligned. He emphasized that OHE is doing a great job of including HÂ in school settings and that the language is fine as is.

Board Member Namauʻu expressed agreement with Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse and added that the language does not have to be explicit because it is a driving policy. She also stated that OHE is doing an excellent job in conveying concepts. Hull stated that the implementation plan will include more on strategies and that is where the clarification would live.

Board Chairperson Voss asked about the need to improve mental health support for students and where that would fit under Goal 1.2. Hull replied that mental health support lives in Desired Outcomes 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, which demonstrate that these supports are in place.

Board Chairperson Voss noted that there appears to be consensus on the outcomes of Goal 1.2.

Hull asked the Board to review Goal 1.3, “All students graduate high school prepared for college and career success and community and civic engagement. Desired Outcomes
1.3.1. All students graduate high school with a personal plan for their future.
Board Member Moriarty stated that there is something missing, but she is struggling with how to describe it. She stated that regarding Desired Outcome 1.3.3, she would like students to graduate with an academic background and skills, but struggled with how to differentiate that from the overall goal. Board Member Moriarty asked what it would look like if the desired outcomes are different from the overall goal because each student has different post-high school goals. She emphasized that students need skills to succeed in life, which is not very different from outcome 1.3.1. Board Member Moriarty cautioned that the Board is not setting the bar high enough for high school students, but that she is not suggesting a change at this time. Hull asked whether there is a need to delineate another desired outcome based on Board Member Moriarty’s comment on Goal 1.3.

Board Member Moriarty stated that any child that graduates from the public school system should be able to do anything and not feel confined to a specific subset.

Board Member McClellan expressed opinions other parents have shared with her that Desired Outcomes 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 are marginalizing because all students do not need progressively challenging and advanced-level coursework. She expressed support for Desired Outcome 1.3.2, but is not sure that community, civic engagement, and college speaks to the goal. Board Chairperson Voss stated that for him Desired Outcome 1.3.3 was different because it starts with entering into high school with an academic background and skills, so it speaks to the basic need for elementary schools to provide students with a strong academic foundation. Hull confirmed that Board Chairperson Voss was reading this portion correctly. He addressed Board Member McClellan’s comment and noted that advanced and challenging does not refer to advanced placement courses, for instance, if a student is at ninth grade math level then the same student can successfully take tenth grade math without remediation. Hull distinguished between advanced courses and advancing and expressed understanding of the concerns raised by Board Member McClellan. Board Member McClellan acknowledged Hull’s statement that advancing means something very different from “advanced-level.”

Military Representative Minaudo noted that the sequencing of the desired outcomes may need to be changed to reflect Desired Outcome 1.3.2 as the first, followed by all students entering as the second desired outcome, and all students graduating as the last desired outcome.

Hull asked if the Board would be interested in an additional desired outcome focusing on community and civic engagement. Board Member Moriarty expressed support for Hull’s recommendation. Board Chairperson Voss asked whether part of the challenge is that individuals will look at the words “community” and “civic engagement” and envision different things. Hull expressed agreement and stated that it would not specifically relate to tasks, but instead describe providing experiences around community service, which could be incorporated into Desired Outcomes 1.1.3 and 1.1.2. Board Member Moriarty expressed her strong support for this and stated that community engagement and civic engagement are very different concepts.

Board Member Arakaki stated that the desired outcomes and goals are related to academic success, but the community talked a lot about life skills and the Department is working on social-emotional learning. He asked how the Board can incorporate looking at the whole child.

Board Chairperson Voss asked Hayashi for his input. Hayashi stated that if the desired outcomes of Goal 1.3 are left as is, the implementation plan can address those areas, which include civic engagement.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that Hayashi’s comments express the importance of students having a plan and asked whether Desired Outcome 1.3.1 captures what is necessary. He asked if it is Hayashi’s opinion is that the plan should be developed early in the student’s high school experience. Hayashi stated that the earlier in their high school career students have experiences, the more they can contribute to their plan.

Student Representative Yasuda expressed agreement with comments from Board Member Arakaki on support of social emotional learning covered in Goal 1.2. He also expressed support for Desired Outcome 1.3.3 because it does not force students to pick the most difficult course, but provides an opportunity and progressive system so that all doors would be open for all students.

Board Member Moriarty stated that a question was raised about how much guidance the Board is providing and how much will be left to the Department’s discretion in the implementation plan. She stated that the way it is being constructed leaves full freedom to the Department to choose a mode to achieve these priorities. Board Member Moriarty stated that the Board and Department needs to have robust discussions or it seems that the Board has not said what is more important than others. She also stated that the Board is giving the Department a huge amount of discretion in determining what to do first, which is essentially strategic direction. Board Member Moriarty stated that this is not bad, but stated that the Board and Department need to have an iterative and closely collaborative process to make clear what is a priority or not.

Board Chairperson Voss asked Hull to provide clarification on the schedule to develop the implementation plan. Hull stated that both the Board and Department would have an implementation plan. He explained that the Board implementation plan would clarify what the Board would do and that the Department’s development of the implementation plan would be iterative because the Board needs to approve the implementation plan. Hull stated it is not the Board’s role to get involved in operations.

Board Member Fallin stated that the fidelity of implementing the strategic plan is critical and Hull has explained the Board’s role in ensuring this fidelity. She provided an example of her experience in public health where a budget proposal and program plans linked to the strategic plan. Board Member Fallin stated that the public health structure was really detailed and that she was not sure if the Board’s plan would be that detailed, but the fidelity would relate to the policy level and Board decisions.

Hull stated that the power of the strategic plan is that when the Board meets, the agenda shows a direct link to the strategic plan for each agenda item. He emphasized that if an agenda item does not tie directly to the strategic plan, it detracts from the strategic plan. Hull suggested that unless an agenda item was statutorily required, it was not going on the agenda if it is not directly tied to the strategic plan; this would ensure fidelity. Hull stated that the Board can go back to the strategic plan and make changes and that there should be an annual opportunity for the Board to review the plan.

Board Member Namauʻu stated that civic engagement is critical and expressed support for comments about Desired Outcome 1.3.4 to focus on civic engagement. She stated that the Board would not have enough time today to flesh out further an additional outcome and asked to consider whether the additional outcome can be tied in going forward.

Hayashi asked Chun to explain how the Department has been envisioning the Department implementation plan. Chun stated that schools are operating and planning for next school year. She stated that at its general business meeting this afternoon, the Board would review a budget with improvements recommending alignment with the emerging strategic plan. Chun also stated that there would be sequencing issues and plan priorities, but the timeline is driven in part by the superintendent’s evaluation for the Department. Chun explained that the Department would provide a draft of the implementation plan in spring and have it approved by May 2023. She expressed hope that when the Board approves the implementation plan, the Board would be serving in its policy role and not just delaying setting priorities. Chun also stated that the Board is moving a lot to the implementation plan and noted that there would need to be future discussions about choices going forward and possibly putting some things aside.

Board Member Fallin expressed agreement that the Board’s role is policy, but where policy intersects with implementation is the fidelity of the plan. She stated that when the Department provides proposals the Board would need to make decisions around dollars and how many students are served. Board Member Fallin stated that being a state board without local counterparts with the responsibility for approving budgets, it is important for the Board to think about how information is organized in order to fulfill its role and expectations.

Chun stated that the Department is looking to align more processes and data collecting around the strategic plan and anticipates that in the future a budget request would align to strategic priorities and goals.

Board Member Kuraya left the meeting at 10:26 a.m.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that the desired outcomes would be time bound and the Board would not dictate priority, but that the Board needs to ensure that priorities are set. Chun stated that in terms of sequencing to make sure the Board is comfortable that it is in alignment with its priorities, the Department expects to talk about what would happen in the first couple of years. She stated there are some things in the biennium budget request where asking for resources that would advance the plan and would use that to determine how to sequence and what is newly started versus what is scaled up. Chun stated there would be regular reports. Board Member Moriarty acknowledged that it gave her some level of comfort.

Hull stated that the Goal 3 changes suggested by Board members are to reorder the desired outcomes under Goal 1.3 and maybe add a 1.3.4 regarding community and civic engagement. He asked for consensus on this.

Board Member Kuraya returned to the meeting at 10:31 a.m.

Board Member McClellan stated that one of the struggles as a Board is that the schools that do well are in communities that are involved with partnerships and community investment. She is underscoring community engagement and it is the responsibility of schools to teach students and the Board and Department needs to ensure they understand community and civic engagement. Board Member McClellan agreed with Hull’s stated plan to move forward.

Hull asked whether there is a desire for a Desired Outcome 1.3.4 or expansion of Desired Outcome 1.3.2 to include civic and community opportunities. He asked whether this detracts from career. Board Member Kuraya stated that community and civic engagement should be specifically called out in Desired Outcome 1.3.1. He stated that this would describe all of the things that are important for a student graduating. Board Chairperson Voss stated that this would incorporate the civic and community engagement in the personal plan and asked Board members for comments on where to include civic and community engagement preparation.

Board Member Moriarty stated that these are all possibilities.

Board Chairperson Voss asked for clarification as to whether a civic and community engagement outcome would focus on engagement during school or after school. Hull stated that the goal is for students to be prepared for civic engagement after high school.

Board Chairperson Voss asked Board Member McClellan what she wants to see students doing as a result of a civic and community engagement outcome. Board Member McClellan stated that she wants students to be exposed to these kinds of opportunities, similar to career pathways. She noted that community and civic engagement are very different and students need exposure to both.

Military Representative Minaudo asked Hayashi whether this is an area that needs significant changes and resources to achieve this desired outcome. Hayashi stated that for community and civic engagement, students should graduate with the sense of responsibility to give back. Hayashi stated that resources are crucial if schools need to provide opportunities. Hayashi asked whether community and civic opportunities can be added to Desired Outcome 1.3.2. Board Member McClellan stated that she is amenable to add it to Desired Outcome 1.3.2 and does not need to have it as a separate outcome.

Board Member Namauʻu stated that community engagement can be added to Desired Outcome 1.3.2 because it is a better fit there and that civic engagement needs to be separate. She stated that community is really important, particularly in rural areas.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that service is a keyword since the Board is looking for civic responsibility and community service. He suggested including a noun that connotes that something is being done that helps the community.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse suggested an amendment to Desired Outcome 1.3.2 so that it clarifies that all students engage in a variety of career, community, and career opportunities, to make the statement action-oriented.

Military Representative Minaudo asked Board members to share ideas on what outcomes articulate successful civic and community engagement. Board Member Moriarty stated that every 18-year-old should know how to vote as an informed voter and described students who are able to present and support legislation.

Board Chairperson Voss asked Board Member Namauʻu to detail the “do” part for community schools. Board Member Namauʻu stated that students would demonstrate success with the opportunity for people to get involved and give back and help their communities. She stated that they do something fun and take pride in organizing and fulfilling a need. Board Member Namauʻu stated that when people get engaged, it is magical and people have pride in the school and community and have confidence in themselves and choose to lead further. She stated that in the ʻAha Pûnana Leo program, it is amazing to see young parents take on committees and create an event in the community. Board Member Namauʻu said that parents want to help and be a part of the school, but schools do not give them opportunities to participate and give back.

Vice Chairperson Barcarse left the meeting at 10:52 a.m.

Board Member Fallin agreed that community and civic engagement are extremely important, but stated that she is not sure where it should be incorporated. She stated that she is comfortable, in the interest of time, with acknowledging that Desired Outcome 1.2.2 should be modified include community and civic engagement. She said that the Board would have opportunities after the public survey to review this.

Hull proposed that the wording would remain as is, with two changes, expanding the wording of Desired Outcome 1.3.2 and reordering the outcomes.

The meeting recessed at 10:55 a.m. and reconvened at 11:05 a.m.

Hull asked the Board to review the proposed Priority 2: high-quality educator workforce in all schools.

“Goal 2.1: All students are taught by effective teachers who are committed to quality teaching and learning for all.
Desired Outcomes Goal 2.2: All schools are fully staffed by effective support staff who are committed to providing quality services to support students.
Desired Outcomes
Goal 2.3: All schools are led by effective school administrators who are committed to supporting all staff and students.
Desired Outcomes
Goal 2.4: Complex area and state offices are comprised of effective staff whose work is aligned to support student learning.
Desired Outcomes
Hull stated that he altered the goals for this priority based on Board member comments and noted that the four desired outcomes are sequenced. He stated each desired outcome related to administrators, teachers, support staff, and state and complex area staff. Hull pointed out the parallel language in the desired outcomes and noted that comments on one may apply to all others because of the parallel structure.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that he likes the way it was restructured, which is easy to follow and track successes.

Board Member Moriarty expressed support for the structure and succinctness and stated that this has evolved from the beginning when the focus was clear on teachers and administrators. She stated that this change was largely based on conversations at Board strategic plan community meetings and did not recommend any changes. Board Member Moriarty noted that these desired outcomes do not provide direction to the Department regarding what to focus on first and just asks them to fix the Department’s entire workforce.

Board Member Arakaki expressed appreciation for the voices shared through the Board’s community engagement process in the strategic plan process.

Board Member Kuraya stated the goals could be re-sequenced so Goal 2.3 is Goal 2.1 because the administrator is the one hiring teachers and staff and is the one that determines who is going to be a part of the school personnel. He noted that if there is an effective leader, that leader would find effective teachers and support staff. Board Chairperson Voss asked if that was consistent with Board Member Moriarty’s thought that the recruitment and retention of administrators is a looming problem.

Hull stated that the goals are listed in this specific sequence because it expands outward from the classroom. He detailed that it starts with the classroom and students, teachers, support staff, then moves to administrators, complex area, and then state office. He explained that this is based on the expanding community concept, which starts with students. Board Chairperson Voss asked whether this influences Board Member Kuraya’s thoughts. Board Member Kuraya stated that he is fine with the expanding community concept explanation and current sequencing.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that the desired outcomes use general terms like “effective” and asked Hayashi whether this provides enough guidance for the Department to develop an implementation plan. Hayashi stated that he would look at current data and based on that information would identify areas.

Hull noted that he changed a few words to stay away from using terms used by the federal government or evaluations, for example, high-quality teachers and effective educators, to avoid confusion with other usage.

Hull asked the Board to review the proposed Priority 3: effective and efficient operations at all levels, Goal 3.1, “All school facilities are safe, well-maintained, compliant with all laws and regulations, clean, and attractive to provide a positive and inviting learning environment for students and staff.
Desired Outcomes
3.1.1. All school facilities meet Title IX and ADA requirements.
3.1.2. Systems to address school facility needs are responsive and able to meet all needs effectively, efficiently, and quickly.”

Hull stated that there was a lot of discussion about the wording of Desired Outcome 3.1.2, so instead of focusing on facilities, the outcome focuses on the systems that address the needs. He stated that focusing on systems and processes is intentional.

Board Member Moriarty expressed support for the language of Goal 3.1 and the desired outcomes.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that facilities are an enormous problem and asked if the aspirational language captures the enormity of the problem and the need for immediate change and action. Hull stated that it depends if one of the systems is a complete triage of the problems, but that comes in at the implementation plan level. Hull reminded Board members that facilities were one of the primary comments shared at Board strategic plan community meetings.

Board Member Kuraya stated that the Department understands the need behind Desired Outcomes 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 and the most important thing is that the outcomes capture what is necessary to ensure the concerns are met in a timely manner. He also stated that if the Board focuses on systems it would better know if the work was done.

Board Chairperson Voss asked Board Member Fallin whether the language addresses both long-term system changes and short-term issues like maintenance of effort funding compliance to adequately capture long-term system change needs. Board Member Fallin replied that each word in Goal 3.1 reflects the scope and as the Department develops its implementation plan, it would have to look closely at one level, for long- and short-term concerns. She stated that she is fine with the language, but that the implementation plan would be key and expressed confidence in Curt Otaguro, Deputy Superintendent of Operations.

Board Member McClellan noted that a concern shared frequently is relating to communication about facilities and she would like to add something to Desired Outcome 3.1.2 about timely and proactive communications.

Hayashi emphasized that Otaguro is leveraging his experience with finance as the State of Hawaii’s former comptroller and that he is taking steps to move forward with more effective and efficient systems.

Hull asked the Board to review Goal 3.2, “All operational and management processes are aligned and implemented in an equitable, transparent, and efficient manner.
Desired Outcomes
Hull stated that regarding Desired Outcome 3.2.1, the Board and Department outcomes are paralleled and all processes, practices, and policies would align. He stated that Desired Outcome 3.2.4 was slightly modified because there was a lot of discussion about developing new data systems.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that he likes what is here, but would suggest adding “effective” after transparent in Goal 3.2.

Board Member Moriarty stated that what is not fully developed is leveraging the fact that Hawaii is a statewide system. She stated that the system has moved from a centralized to a more decentralized system and it needs to take advantage of being a statewide system. Board Member Moriarty suggested that being a statewide system may not need to be captured at all, but the outcomes do not say that the Board is collecting best practices and sharing them. She stated that the word “efficient” could show the next level is taking something effective and bringing it to a system-wide level in a systematic fashion.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that there is a desire to develop better metrics or ones that are more meaningful and asked whether this falls under Desired Outcome 3.2.4. Hull confirmed this was the intent. Board Chairperson Voss stated that schools and complex areas share ideas and asked if this concept is something that can live in a desired outcome. Hull stated that this could, but his only hesitation is to ask whether this is the Board’s role and that if the Board’s role is policy, then this is a function of the Department and not the Board. Hull stated that this may be encroaching on the Department’s role and asked whether this is the best way to leverage its role.

Board Member Arakaki stated that the Department should be the proponent of practices in schools and that the Board focuses on policies to support the schools. Board Member Arakaki stated that Board members may want to see a specific program and curriculum, but that infringes on the innovation and creativity and resources of the schools and Board members need to be mindful of the Board’s role and focus.

Board Member Fallin stated that she is pleased with Desired Outcome 3.2.4 and that it is an important statement to make. She asked whether “and reporting” should be added because information should be shared. Hull stated that it is his understanding and thought that reporting would be captured in the implementation plan.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that the Board’s role is policy and that reporting is a part of the implementation plan, but the question is whether as a matter of policy, do we want the appropriate data reported to the Board. He stated that he shared Board Member Fallin’s concern. Hull distinguished between reporting to the Board and reporting to the public. Hull stated that there should be at least an annual report reporting on what progress should be made and he added that the Board also has a reporting role.

Hull asked the Board to review proposed Goal 3.3, “Families and staff are informed of and engaged in planning and decision-making processes affecting students in a meaningful and timely manner.
Desired Outcomes
Hull reiterated that during the Board’s strategic plan community meetings, stakeholders shared their difficulties with resolving disputes with the Department and asked for comments.

Board Member Fallin acknowledged that she has been concerned about schools providing timely and meaningful information to parents whose children are not doing well in school and asked for clarification. She noted that Desired Outcome 3.3.2 includes this kind of communication and that while attending the NASBE conference, she noted that schools made it a point to reach out to families and engage them. Board Chairperson Voss clarified that Board Member Fallin is asking whether families are timely informed about student performance. Board Member Fallin asked for clarification that this kind of communication is included in Desired Outcome 3.3.2 and that she wants to make sure that this piece is included somewhere in the implementation plan.

Board Chairperson Voss asked for any further thoughts on Goal 3.3.

Hayashi asked the deputy superintendents to share any thoughts on Goal 3.3.

Heidi Armstrong, Deputy Superintendent shared that Goal 3.3, does not clearly infer that timely and meaningful information to parents on how students are doing in schools should take place and suggested a language change to incorporate this concept.

Board Member Fallin stated that if it is not clear and if some feel it is in there and others do not, then it should be modified for clarity. She noted for record and that it can be done in the future and that if this language is going out to the public for feedback, it is important to be clear about this.

Chun stated that Desired Outcome 3.3.2 is designed to focus on family communication on how a child is doing in school, that would be clearer, because right now it focuses on participating in school level or policy level type decision-making. She stated that communication with families on how their children are doing is one of the most important kinds of communication that schools have with families.

Board Member Moriarty stated that she has no objection to this focus, but that she read this outcome differently and would add in the Department and Board. She stated that the feedback from the Board’s strategic plan community meetings was that people did not know how to engage with the Department and Board when it makes policy decisions. Board Member Moriarty stated that she is not opposed to a focus on communication on academic progress for your child, but that this outcome was focused on general decision-making. Board Chairperson Voss stated that Chun’s concern is that this could usurp or infringe on a principal or complex area superintendent’s decision making authority.

Board Member Kuraya echoed Board Chairperson Voss’s comment and noted that the Board is not trying to overstep a principal's ability to make decisions.

Board Member McClellan asked whether considering the term feedback instead of decisions would be more appropriate.

Hull stated that it is important for families to be able to provide feedback, but not necessarily make decisions. He also noted that communication about academics is not something that arose anywhere in the Board’s community engagement.

Hull stated that it is not decision-making, but participating, engagement, or involvement and looking at how families are engaged. Hull stated the most effective principals are those that have the pulse of their community.

Hayashi shared his concern about involvement in the decision-making process and that parents can participate through School Community Councils and would prefer feedback over decision-making. Hayashi stated that this gives them the opportunity to provide feedback as a part of the process, but not making a decision.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that all families and staff can easily provide feedback. Board Member McClellan stated that she liked feedback and participation and agrees with everyone’s sentiment. Board Member McClellan said family feedback is a critical part of the decision-making process and that the Board must honor family feedback as a part of the decision-making process, but that decisions are made separately.

Board Member Moriarty suggested amending the language of Desired Outcome 3.3.2 to include, “can learn about and provide input related to issues at the school, complex, and state levels.” Board Member Moriarty clarified that the suggestion removes the word decision-making and substitutes “input” for “feedback” because feedback implies reacting to something, but the community also has great ideas.

Board Chairperson Voss asked whether the word “issues” captures everything. Hull stated that he can work on a rewrite of this language based on the comments provided.

Board Member Moriarty asked, from a bigger perspective, what Hayashi’s reaction is to everything we looked at today.

Hayashi stated that the structure of the foundation statements encapsulates and incorporates who the Department is and what it wants for students. He stated that the priorities are organized so that structure lends itself well to the current academic plan. He stated that the goals and outcomes are focused on the areas that are important to the state and public education system. Hayashi stated that they raised concerns regarding Goal 3.3 and that he is looking forward to seeing what the community says and working on the implementation plan. Hayashi thanked the Board and Robert for the work on the strategic plan.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that inherent in the plan is that it honors community, Board, and Department input and asked Hayashi whether it is too much. Hayashi stated that it captures the many needs the Department has and that as it designs its implementation plan and looks in the coming weeks and months in implementing this, the Department would its best to meet these goals. Hayashi stated that it is a lot, but the Department would do the best it can to deliver on what it needs to do for students.

Board Member Fallin stated that she understands that after this discussion, the intended focus of Desired Outcome 3.3.3 on planning and concerns and that the issue of engaging families on academics did not come up, but it is key. Board Member Fallin stated that this is a missing piece in communication and when you have meaningful and timely communication, it impacts some of these other outcomes. Board Member Fallin stated that after this next round of community engagement we need to ask a question to get input on this.

Hayashi shared that while committed to the effort, the enormity of the Department and challenges moving forward, understand the urgency, but ask for the Board’s understanding that would move as quickly as can, but moving a large Department takes at least a year. Board Chairperson Voss stated that redesigning a plan while it is in flight is hard and the Board recognizes the enormity of the task.

Board Member Kuraya referred to Desired Outcome 3.2.4 regarding systems and data and asked whether it should have parallel language so it says “all.” Board Chairperson Voss added the same comment regarding Desired Outcome 3.1.2.

Chun added that if the Board is going to change Desired Outcome 3.2.4 regarding the data systems, it should consider adding words to align with strategic plan goals and outcomes regarding state and federal requirements. She stated that the Department needs to report on metrics beyond what is contained in the strategic plan.

Board Chairperson Voss clarified that Chun is talking about compliance requirements and transactional data that are not well aligned with the strategic plan. Otaguro stated that systems are processes as well as technical systems, so there are business processes the Board wants the Department to look at. He stated that the challenge would be the integration of systems with each other and that these are old systems that do not integrate with others. He stated that using the word “all” has impacts beyond the strategic plan.

Board Member Namauʻu asked whether the values should be referred to as core values. Hull stated that our values are adequate and are paralleled with mission and vision and that core values imply there are other values, but that the language is fine either way.

Hull stated that the next steps is to make the edits discussed at the meeting today and prepare the survey to be released early next week and close on January 15. He stated that the survey results and any revisions to the foundation statements, goals, and outcomes would be presented to the Board at its January 19, 2023 meeting. He stated that the Board could have another review in February or could adopt it earlier.

III. Adjournment

Board Chairperson Voss adjourned the meeting at 12:14 p.m.