STATE OF HAWAII
BOARD OF EDUCATION
SPECIAL MEETING

MINUTES

Queen Liliuokalani Building
1390 Miller Street, Room 404
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Thursday, April 6, 2023

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

EXCUSED:
Shanty Asher
Makana McClellan

ALSO PRESENT:
Maverick Yasuda, Student Representative
Colonel Michael Minaudo, Military Representative
Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, Department of Education
Tammi Oyadomari-Chun, Deputy Superintendent of Strategy, Department of Education
Heidi Armstrong, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Executive Secretary
Lady Garrett, Secretary


I. Call to Order

Board Chairperson Bruce Voss called the Board of Education (“Board”) Special Meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Board Chairperson Voss, Board Vice Chairperson Kaimana Barcarse, and Board Members Bill Arakaki, Lynn Fallin, Ken Kuraya, Lauren Moriarty, and Kili Namauʻu were present.


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

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

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.)


III. Executive Session
This portion of the meeting was closed under Section 92-4 and Section 92-5(a)(3), Hawaii Revised Statutes.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that the Board would need to move into executive session to deliberate concerning the authority of persons designated by the Board to conduct labor negotiations with the Hawaii State Teachers Association (“HSTA”).

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse moved to enter into executive session to deliberate concerning the authority of persons designated by the Board to conduct labor negotiations with the HSTA. Board Member Arakaki seconded.

Board Chairperson Voss asked if there were any objections to the motion. No Board member raised objections, and the motion carried through unanimous consent from all members present (Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse and Board Members Arakaki, Fallin, Kuraya, Moriarty, and Namauʻu).

ACTION: Motion to enter into executive session to deliberate concerning the authority of persons designated by the Board to conduct labor negotiations with the Hawaii State Teachers Association (Barcarse/Arakaki). The motion carried through unanimous consent from all members present.

The Board recessed at 1:35 p.m. and reconvened at 2:29 p.m.


IV. Action Items

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse moved to authorize Board Member Arakaki, in his role as the Board’s representative in successor bargaining with the Hawaii State Teachers Association, to take certain positions on behalf of the Board during the course of successor bargaining as advised by Board members in executive session. Board Member Kuraya seconded.

Board Chairperson Voss recused himself from the vote.

Board Chairperson Voss called for a roll call vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye (Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse and Board Members Arakaki, Fallin, Kuraya, Moriarty, and Namauʻu).

ACTION: Motion to authorize Board Member Arakaki, in his role as the Board’s representative in successor bargaining with the Hawaii State Teachers Association, to take certain positions on behalf of the Board during the course of successor bargaining as advised by Board members in executive session (Barcarse/Kuraya). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.


V. Public Testimony on Board Agenda Items

Board Chairperson Voss called for public testimony.

Cheri Nakamura, HEʻE Coalition, testified on agenda item VI.A, entitled “Update on Hawaii Public Education 2023-2029 Strategic Plan (Phase II), Implementation Plan: Summary of feedback on draft.” She stated that her written testimony outlines why the Department of Education’s (“Department”) implementation plan is unsatisfactory, including the failure to explore root causes, provide strategies, or an analysis of the strategies. Nakamura expressed concern that not enough authentic feedback was incorporated from principals, teachers, and staff, emphasized that it is up to the Department to define necessary and timely supports, and urged the Board to insist on an effective implementation plan.

Susan Pcola-Davis, member of the public, testified on agenda item VI.A, entitled “Update on Hawaii Public Education 2023-2029 Strategic Plan (Phase II), Implementation Plan: Summary of feedback on draft.” She expressed appreciation for the information on the results of the survey relating to the implementation plan, stated that having 3,000 responses to the open-ended questions is significant, and that April 20 is two weeks away, which does not leave a lot of time for the Department to make revisions.


VI. Discussion Items

Board Chairperson Voss called on Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, and Tammi Oyadomari-Chun, Deputy Superintendent of Strategy, to provide an update on the second phase of the Hawaii Public Education 2023-2029 Strategic Plan.

Hayashi shared that Chun has engaged the field and has spent a considerable amount of time gathering feedback, so she would provide the update to the Board on the feedback gathered by the Department.

Chun reported that the Department would be providing information on the feedback process, summarized feedback, and description of how feedback would be incorporated into the next steps. She stated that in the process of developing the draft strategies and measures, the Department worked with different stakeholder groups which included students, teachers, principals, Department leadership, and summaries from the Board community meetings and Board surveys held earlier in the process.

Chun stated that the Department posted draft strategies, key performance indicators (“KPI”), and performance measure information online in an executive summary and held meetings with different stakeholders. She stated that the stakeholders included charter schools, the Special Education Advisory Council, the Assessment Technical Advisory Committee, HSTA, Hawaii Government Employees Association, and that the Department anticipates meeting with United Public Workers in the next week. Chun explained that the Department received feedback on the executive summary via an online form which is part of a toolkit. She noted that the Department changed the process and asked schools, complex areas and state offices to provide in-person opportunities to solicit feedback. Chun noted that the primary survey period ended last week and approximately 300 meetings have been held since spring break. She reported that the Department has received just under 4,000 responses with 75% of the respondents being teachers and 17% of the respondents being school support staff. She emphasized that schools made an extraordinary effort to let school staff know about this opportunity and make time for participation and 257 schools have had meetings. Chun shared that respondents were asked about their level of support for each priority area, KPIs, strategies, and what types of changes would be needed to support strategies for priority areas. She stated that generally there was a lot of support for the draft with at least two-thirds supporting the draft implementation plan as is, 85% supporting minor changes, and 2-3% not supporting the draft at all.

Chun noted that when the Department reviewed the open-ended responses, it found that even if respondents provided similar responses regarding the types of changes desired, there were differences in the intensity of support (minor or major changes, or did not support at all), so the types of changes did not correlate with the intensity of the support. She summarized the types of changes mentioned in the survey and noted that some were similar to comments made at previous Board meetings. Chun stated that the Department would incorporate revisions into the draft implementation plan it is preparing for April 20, which would allow for the Department to make revisions before the draft is brought to the Board for approval on May 4, 2023. She addressed questions about the level of detail of the implementation plan and stated that the level of detail provided in the toolkit draft is the level of detail of strategies that will be included in the April 20, 2023 presentation. She noted that the Department is not looking to describe specific actions and actions will be described further in a work plan and then schools will describe further actions in academic plans. Chun also stated that the Department worked off of the draft implementation plan template presented to the Board on February 2, 2023 and anticipates inserting strategies and indicators and to address components in the structure that honors the components the Board intended to include in the implementation plan but organizing the structure of the implementation plan in a different way.

Board Member Fallin asked for a summary on what the April 20, 2023 presentation from the Department would look like. Chun replied that the Department would bring forth a narrative description; strategies; KPIs that measure priorities; high quality learning; high quality workforce; and effective and efficient systems, and strategies for each goal. She explained that strategies will look similar to the draft posted as part of the toolkit and would also include additional sections describing the reporting to the Board on frequency, agenda setting with committee chairpersons for committee reviews of progress and a communication plan. Chun stated that the communication plan includes what the Board came to a consensus on, with some additional communication plans. She stated that the Department does not intend to describe the programs included and how strategies would unfold and will only name the strategy.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that basically the general message from the survey results was that people are supportive, but want more details. He stated that the implementation plan does not describe what the Department plans to do and asked what use are the strategies in the implementation plan if this is unclear. Chun replied that the strategies will have specific actions behind them, such as looking at standards-based curriculum and strategies that have K-12 alignment with supports for when students transition. She also stated that the Department did not think that the level of detail was appropriate for the strategic plan and there are a lot of actions the Department has planned and has in motion already. Chun noted that providing this level of detail would result in a lengthy document, and the Department would need more time to produce something similar to what Board Chairperson Voss is describing and to obtain more agreement among different participants about more specific actions.

Board Member Fallin stated that she would like to see evidence of a logical and connected framework between the different elements of the strategic plan (goals, priorities, outcomes, and strategies). She stated that she is unclear on what actions would be taken to implement strategies and to measure performance resulting from these actions.

Chun stated that it is a system of 258 schools and the approach is that every school will operate under a common framework, but the schools will take different actions or need different resources depending on current status and context and that the Department is looking for the plan to set a common framework and not be specific on all the actions that every school would take. She stated that the Department would provide the Board committees with information relating to different initiatives and the plans in more detail and measures to speak to the question of what’s going on, monitoring progress as opposed to putting it all into the implementation plan.

Board Member Fallin stated that when the Department reports on the strategic plan to the Board, she would like to be comfortable knowing that the Board has the evidence it needs to determine whether progress was made. She expressed understanding of the Board’s policy role and Department’s implementation role, but noted that the KPIs are part of a strategic plan in which the Department and Board share accountability. She asked the Department to outline what is missing.

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

Chun stated that what is not in the toolkit are the parts that surround the draft implementation plan, like the relationship with the academic plan. She clarified that more descriptions of what happens would be in the April 20 draft and that she believes that reports to committees are the place where types of items to bring to the Board will be, describing the status, progress and plans, as opposed to putting all of the detail in the implementation plan.

Board Member Fallin stated that she is looking for a system and framework for impact. She shared an example of math and how all the pieces would fit together to help everyone understand how the accountability or impact framework would work.

Hayashi stated that the Department as a system is accountable to the KPI data points and therefore included in the strategic plan. In the tri-level system (complex, school, and state) approach, the complex area plan looks at data and schools have academic plans and that there is a level of accountability. Schools analyze data, data is aggregated to the complex area level and then up to the KPIs at the state level. He asked whether this is what Board Member Fallin is referring to. Board Member Fallin replied that she would like an understanding of the expectations of each level without line item details. She stated that maybe the Department could consider an example in an appendix to show flow.

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

Heidi Armstrong, Deputy Superintendent stated that the level of detail that Board Member Fallin is looking for would be in the school’s academic plan. She gave an example under the strategy around standards-based curriculum and instruction and assessment within grade levels and between levels. Armstrong stated that in the school plan, the school would adopt, refine, or explore a guaranteed and viable curriculum that ensures smooth transitions from one grade to another. She detailed that the measures schools put into the plan would be priority outcomes for each grade articulated, assessment measures and whether there are formative measures throughout the year and expected outcomes for grade levels. Armstrong also stated that assessment measures at the end of the year can show the school whether the outcomes were met or to identify the areas of needs or challenges for specific grade levels that would then inform their strategies moving forward. She clarified that supplemental resources would be identified to address the needs of individual schools, but not at a statewide level, because the needs and the structures at each school are different.

Hayashi stated that regarding monitoring and accountability, the Department would work with schools and associated complex areas to monitor that progress is being made.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that the Board established desired outcomes based on public input. He stated that the Board received a lot of feedback on academic proficiency, so one of the desired outcomes focuses on reading proficiently by Grade 3 and another on math proficiency by Grade 8. Board Chairperson Voss emphasized the need to do things differently and better in the classroom, because based on the public input these strategies do not indicate that the Department is going to do anything different. Board Chairperson Voss asked where in these strategies does it show that schools are going to do something different or better to achieve ambitious results.

Hayashi stated that the Department works to empower the schools and their communities while trying to address challenges that each school and complex faces with the support from state and complex area levels in working together with schools and principals at the schools. He cautioned that if the Board is looking to implement strategies uniformly across all schools, this would run contrary to schools being able to address their unique needs. Hayashi expressed understanding of the need to provide support for students to reach goals relating to literacy and math and asked if there is an expectation from the Board that changes would be uniform across all schools.

Board Chairperson Voss clarified that the Board does not expect changes to be uniform across all schools. Hayashi stated that the strategies the schools utilize are best made at the closest level of implementation and impact and monitored by the complex areas. Board Chairperson Voss stated that Hayashi provided a great answer, but that is not the question he asked.

Board Member Namauʻu stated that she does not expect every school to do exactly the same thing, but the state level of the Department needs to support schools. She emphasized that the Board is looking for change and some KPIs reflect what is already being done, but unless the Department initiates change, the system would generate the same results. Board Member Namauʻu requested more information on the kinds of changes the Department is planning to make and how it would implement changes in schools and how it would track whether the changes are making an impact. She stated that she is not sure if schools are capable of analyzing the data and focusing on the changes necessary. Board Member Namauʻu asked if there are individuals at the state level that can provide outreach to every school. She emphasized that she would like schools to identify needs and receive support to assist students.

Hayashi stated the Department has four statewide strategies (healthy habits, healthy schools; effective academic practices; action-oriented data decision-making; responsive capacity building) to focus on and priorities have been identified with K-12 alignment to scaffold from kindergarten and beyond. He stated that resources at both the complex area and state levels have been put in place. Hayashi explained that the Department is working to address secondary mathematics differently to move students forward. He stated that looking at how the Department identifies those practices that have been particularly successful and also bringing in additional strategies that will move math forward. Hayashi described how the Department is working with vulnerable students experiencing challenges and what to do differently to engage them in school. He stated that the Department is focusing on the middle school levels because data has shown that this is an area that needs work. Hayashi stated that those are four of the seven priorities that the Department will be delving into deeper to impact the KPIs.

Armstrong asked if the Board is looking for how the Department initiatives are being described in the statewide strategies. Board Member Namauʻu replied that she wants an understanding of what kinds of changes would help schools and students. She noted that the Department has identified struggling student populations, but the Department now needs to provide information on how it would help these student populations.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that the Board is looking for leadership in the implementation plan since schools know what their communities. He stated that schools need help with resources, need to give communities confidence that what is happening is different, and that this would show why there is a need for statewide support. Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse also noted that he would like to know how this information would be provided to the community so that the public can see themselves as part of the plan.

Hayashi clarified that it is not the responsibility of each school to move collective efforts forward and that there is accountability at the complex and state levels to ensure supports are in place at all levels. Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse pointed out that what is missing are descriptions of the types of supports, the direction from Department leadership, and an explanation of how the Department would share this information so that it is clear and understood by everyone.

Board Member Moriarty expressed appreciation for the work the Department did to gather responses, but noted that everyone needs to see themselves in the vision, not just the schools. She noted that this is not a school-only initiative, but that systems are important. Board Member Moriarty noted that it is important for the Department to focus on causes, for example, whether it is selecting the incorrect curriculum or if there is a lack of teacher training. She noted that these are examples of statewide problems that the Department needs to address at the state level.

Board Member Moriarty stated that the research and support needed for the implementation plan is not a school-based issue, but that rather it is a system-based issue. She noted that because it is a system-based issue, it needs to addressed at the state leadership level. Board Member Moriarty asked, from a state leadership level, what would change for things like curriculum, teacher preparation, and data flows. Board Member Moriarty stated that the Board has not reviewed data about the four statewide strategies that these strategies do not give her a lot of confidence that results would be different if the Department continued using these strategies. She stated that the Department needs to clarify what would change under this implementation plan. Board Member Moriarty clarified that setting priorities and providing leadership does not mean that everyone needs to do the same thing.

Board Member Arakaki stated that the Department needs to describe the changes or areas where it needs to make changes that would have a big impact so that the Board can see the direction the schools would be moving in.

Board Member Kuraya asked what needs to be done or what actions would need to be taken for the Department and Board to achieve the strategic plan goals.

Board Chairperson Voss asked Board Student Representative Maverick Yasuda to provide feedback on what he would like to see in the plan. Board Student Representative Yasuda stated that it is important to be able to understand what the end goals and the key steps to get to the end goals. He stated that what the Board and Department are working toward would positively affect the students as a whole and the noted that the most important thing to ask is who does the implementation plan prioritize.

Board Member Fallin stated that the March 23, 2023 memorandum cites feedback on KPIs, performance measures, strategies, but the Board needs more clarity. She stated that the Department makes general statements but she does not see the denominator for expectations around impact and processes for schools to make decisions.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that terms like scaffolding should not be included because the plan needs to provide the public with confidence that the Department would make changes.

Board Member Arakaki asked for clarification on what the Department would presented to the Board on April 20. Chun stated that the Department is having challenges working within the parameters and the timeline the Board provided. She stated that the Department would need to complete meeting materials by next Wednesday, but she needs to review how to reorganize the information. Hayashi stated that the Department did not foresee the level of specificity the Board is requesting and that he needs to determine how to move this forward.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that the Board plans on reviewing the strategic plan every year and is looking for direction that is effective, creates positive change; strategies restating what exists is not what the Board is asking for.

Board Member Kuraya stated that he is looking for action and a timeline for those actions. He explained that he is not looking for a plan where every year is mapped out because this is something that evolves over time, but there has to be some kind of action that explains the changes the Department would make. Board Member Kuraya stated that the performance measures would track whether the Board would achieve its desired outcomes.

Board Member Fallin stated that the implementation plan needs to include a plan of action or an articulation of continuous improvement process and how at all levels in the Department’s tri-level system, the roles and responsibilities are structured around impact. She stated that the Board is not asking that all schools do the same thing, but when Department leadership has authority, it also has responsibility for maximizing impact. Board Member Fallin stated that the same student groups continue to be challenged and the Department is missing a statewide systematic process, so ensuring all schools have common expectations is not unreasonable. She noted that the Department does not need to list programs, but rather describe what continuous improvement looks like as a system.

Board Chairperson Voss stated that this discussion was important and that if the Department believes it would be impractical to meet the agreed upon deadlines then the Board would consider changes to get the desired product.

VII. Adjournment

Board Chairperson Voss adjourned the meeting at 3:51 p.m.

List of the people who submitted written testimony before the meeting

NAME
Organization
Agenda Item
David Miyashiro
HawaiiKidsCAN
VI.A. Update on Hawaii Public Education 2023-2029 Strategic Plan (Phase II), Implementation Plan: Summary of feedback on draft
Cheri Nakamura
HE’E Coalition
VI.A. Update on Hawaii Public Education 2023-2029 Strategic Plan (Phase II), Implementation Plan: Summary of feedback on draft
Susan Pcola-DavisVI.A. Update on Hawaii Public Education 2023-2029 Strategic Plan (Phase II), Implementation Plan: Summary of feedback on draft