STATE OF HAWAII
BOARD OF EDUCATION
SPECIAL MEETING

MINUTES

Queen Liliuokalani Building
1390 Miller Street, Room 404
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Thursday, June 20, 2019

PRESENT:
Catherine Payne, Chairperson
Brian De Lima, Esq., Vice Chairperson
Patricia Bergin
Margaret Cox
Nolan Kawano
Kili Namauʻu
Kenneth Uemura
Bruce Voss, Esq.

EXCUSED:
Dwight Takeno
Captain Lyn Hammer (military representative)
David Texeira (student representative)

ALSO PRESENT:
Christina Kishimoto, Superintendent
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Board Private Secretary
Irina Dana, Secretary

I. Call to Order

The Board of Education (“Board”) Special Meeting was called to order by Board Chairperson Catherine Payne at 9:32 a.m.


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

Board Chairperson Payne called for public testimony. There was no public testimony at this time.


III. Action Items
Board Chairperson Payne reviewed her proposal for the Board’s strategic priority setting process. She stated that the purpose of the proposal is to formalize a thoughtful and transparent process for the Board’s annual strategic priority setting.

Board Chairperson Payne detailed that the Board would establish an investigative committee tasked with gathering and analyzing the information necessary to develop annual strategic priorities and developing proposed Board and committee strategic priorities for consideration. The proposed general timeline would start in November with the establishment of the investigative committee and end in May with the adoption of strategic priorities for the next school year. Board Chairperson Payne noted that the proposed process allows time and a more formal structure.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the proposed process includes a few elements to ensure that the Board has the information and relationships to set its strategic priorities thoughtfully. The proposed process acknowledges the Legislature and Governor as co-policymakers for public education and ensures that the Board has input from the Legislature and Governor before setting strategic priorities each year. She detailed that the process includes a self-evaluation and reflection component, is inclusive of attached agencies, and is connected to the superintendent evaluation process.

Board Vice Chairperson Brian De Lima highlighted the importance including the Legislature in the drafting of the Board’s priorities. He noted that the Legislature has expressed concern regarding the transparency of the Department of Education’s (“Department”) budget and the overall state of public education in Hawaii. He stated that the Board and Department have made efforts to educate the Legislature, but challenges remain.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima commented that the Board would not be able to achieve its objectives if the Legislature does not provide the Board with resources. He emphasized the importance of zero-based budgeting. He noted that the Department must be able to show how schools and complexes spend funds and whether resources are sufficient to meet needs. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima expressed concern that the proposed strategic priority setting process does not include the Department’s budget process.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima expressed concern over student achievement and commented that many students struggle. He noted that the Department is focusing on empowering schools to meet the needs of students and stated that he supports school-based decision-making. He expressed concern that schools might not have sufficient resources to meet the needs of students. Schools might experience difficulty implementing intensive interventions or hiring counselors due to a lack of funds. He stated that the Board’s strategic priority setting process needs to align to the Department’s budget process and emphasized the importance of the Board focusing on how to meet the challenges he described.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima highlighted that the Department is identifying weaknesses, implementing improvements, providing professional development, and ensuring change. He stated that he does not agree with Board Chairperson Payne’s timeline because the timeline needs to align with the Department’s timeline to submit its budget and the legislative timeline.

Board Chairperson Payne confirmed that the Board could include alignment with the Department’s budget process in its strategic priority setting process.

Board Member Bruce Voss agreed that the Board must seek input and support from the Legislature and Governor because resources are important. However, schools need to guide the Board’s strategic priority setting process. He stated that the Board should not seek guidance from the Legislature at the expense of schools.

Board Member Voss agreed that the Board must align its strategic priority setting process with the Department’s budget process and the legislative timeline. He stated that the alignment is important because the Board might need to amend its priorities during legislative session.

Board Member Margaret Cox stated that the Board needs to set its priorities prior to meeting with legislators to be able to advocate for education effectively and noted that priorities need to align with schools’ needs. Board Member Cox stated that the Legislature is interested in how the Department spends funding to meet the needs of schools. She stated that the Board must be clear on its expectations of schools prior to receiving input from the Legislature.

Board Member Nolan Kawano expressed concern that the Board’s priority setting process appears to value the Legislature’s and Governor’s input over stakeholder input. He proposed that the Department meet with stakeholder groups to discuss the educational system innovatively rather than the investigative committee providing stakeholder groups with sets of questions. He noted that discussions with stakeholder groups might result in more successful educational outcomes than feedback from legislators.

Board Chairperson Payne explained that the list of questions is part of the stakeholder feedback component of the proposed strategic priority setting process. Board Member Kawano stated that he prefers open dialogue to survey questions. He stated that stakeholder groups might raise various concerns and issues in conversation and emphasized the importance of dialogue.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board should consider expanding its community meetings to have additional opportunities to engage in dialogue with various stakeholder groups. Board Member Kawano explained that the purpose of dialogue with stakeholder groups is for the Department to gather feedback to improve education rather than to discuss Board policies. He stated that Board Members should not be part of the discussion.

Board Member Kili Namauʻu emphasized the importance of Board members being involved in dialogue with stakeholder groups. She stated that it is important for Board members to listen to concerns of schools, stakeholders, and communities and to understand what is occurring in schools.

Board Member Kenneth Uemura asked about the purpose of the Board implementing a strategic priority setting process. Board Chairperson Payne explained that the Board does not have a formalized process for setting its priorities. She noted that the Board would implement the process at the end of the next school year, but she wanted Board members to begin discussing the process sooner. She stated that the Board could defer action on the process and noted that it is important for Board members to voice their concerns and share ideas regarding the process.

Board Member Uemura stated that the Board’s priorities should align with the Superintendent’s priorities and support the new strategic plan. He noted that the strategic priority setting process should include alignment with the Superintendent’s priorities because the Superintendent’s priorities drive the strategic plan and show the Board how the Department plans to budget and operate. Christina Kishimoto, Superintendent, stated that it appears as though the Board’s strategic priority setting process ensures that there is a formal process in place for the Board to set its priorities year to year and align its priorities with the Department’s various priorities. Board Member Uemura detailed the purpose of the Superintendent’s priorities and noted that the Superintendent’s priorities support the Board. He stated that the Department is responsible for implementation, budgeting, and resources. He noted that the Board would not be able implement its priorities if the Department does not implement the Superintendent’s priorities.

Board Member Patricia Bergin emphasized that the Board needs to include stakeholder groups in its strategic priority setting process and highlighted Kishimoto’s inclusion of student voice. She emphasized the importance of alignment at the Legislature and stated that it is the Board’s responsibility to support Kishimoto.

Board Member Uemura stated that the strategic priority setting process assumes that the Department completed its new strategic plan and received input from stakeholders. He stated that it is important to understand how the Department plans to reach its goals.

Board Member Voss emphasized the importance of stakeholder feedback driving the Board’s priorities and expressed concerns over the lack of attendance at community meetings. He stated that the Board must find ways engage stakeholders and receive feedback. He agreed with Board Member Namauʻu about Board members needing to visit schools and be involved in discussions with community members. He stated that the Board should include creative ways to seek feedback in its strategic priority setting process.

Board Member Kawano detailed that stakeholder groups include all groups that have an interest in public education, including community groups, nonprofits, and other groups. Board Chairperson Payne agreed that the Board needed to define the term “stakeholders” clearly.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima expressed concern over the proposed timeline of the strategic priority setting process. He stated that the timeline needs to align with the adoption of the new strategic plan, and the Board has not yet taken action on the new strategic plan. He noted that the Board would need to collect data regarding academic performance, school-level issues and challenges, recruitment, and other issues prior to receiving input from the Legislature on its priorities. He stated that it would not be helpful for the Board to approach the Legislature for input without data. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima described the importance of the Board and Department understanding data in order to reduce the achievement gap and assist students who are struggling. He stated that the Board should review the proposed timeline in order to include students who are struggling in its priorities and advocate for resources at the Legislature.

Board Member Kawano stated that the investigative committee should focus on student populations who need additional assistance and resources and emphasized the importance of the Board defining and clarifying the focus of the investigative committee.

Kishimoto acknowledged the Board’s concerns regarding the achievement gap and students who are struggling. She stated that a data retreat might provide an appropriate venue for Board members to raise concerns, discuss issues, define a focus, and collect data. She stated that committee groups could focus on gaps and the Department could provide committee groups with specific data. Kishimoto stated that the Department includes layers of stakeholder feedback throughout the development of the Superintendent’s priorities and the new strategic plan. Kishimoto noted that the Department is reviewing the financial and academic plans of schools and could come back to the Board to discuss particular school-level needs, challenges, and data.
Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board could include these different elements and components in its strategic priority setting process and suggested that Board members continue this discussion in a future meeting.

ACTION: Motion to defer the adoption of the Board’s strategic priority setting process to a later meeting with a revised proposal that considers and incorporates the Board’s discussion (De Lima/Cox). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

Board Chairperson Payne reviewed the superintendent evaluation system process for the 2019-2020 school year and the superintendent job description. She stated that Board members and Kishimoto suggested several substantive changes to the evaluation system to simplify the process.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the changes include the Board extracting the stakeholder feedback component and making it part of the strategic priority setting process; removing the quarterly-check-ins; changing the mid-year formative assessment to a less intense mid-year review without ratings that still allows for a discussion on progress; changing the description of the rating scale to simplify how the Board determines ratings; and removing the leadership development and action plans element, which provide little practical value.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the other suggested changes include the Board adding qualitative language to the indicators under Professional Standard 2, entitled “Operations, Resource and Personnel Management,” to allow the Board to more easily evaluate and rate the Superintendent’s performance on this standard; changing Professional Standard 5 from “ethical leadership to “equity advocacy” and shifting the standard’s focus to the Superintendent’s efforts to promote equity, diversity, and civil rights; making small changes to the Superintendent Priorities section to reemphasize the importance of specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-based (“SMART”) criteria; removing the Board Support Office’s tasks requiring it to create summary documents of Board members’ evaluation ratings and comments; and other non-substantive, technical changes for the purpose of clarity and consistency.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that there are no suggested changes to the superintendent job description.

Board Member Kawano asked about the purpose of a “highly effective” rating. He explained that he did not see why Board members should determine between “effective” versus “highly effective” ratings if Kishimoto is on a contract. Board Chairperson Payne explained that the Board incorporated these ratings into its evaluation system after reviewing evaluations for executives from other state departments. Kishimoto noted that the Board determined that the rating of “highly effective” versus “effective” would serve as the distinction for performance pay when she first came into her role. She noted that the Board has not discussed performance pay since that initial conversation. She stated that the Board would need to determine how to incorporate a distinction for the purpose of performance pay if it removes the rating of “highly effective.”

Board Member Voss stated that he understands the context behind the two ratings, but noted that it might not serve a purpose. He stated that he understands why the Board opted to remove the formal mid-year review, but noted that he wants to ensure that Board members are still committed to a robust mid-year discussion. He noted that mid-year reviews are standard across the country. Board Member Voss commented that the rating scale includes “stated expectations.” He noted that it is not clear whose expectations the Superintendent must meet and where these expectations are stated. Board Member Uemura explained that the standards and priorities state the expectations.

Board Member Uemura suggested that the Board simplify its components and process. He stated that the memorandum states, “The evaluation also serves to create an opportunity for the Board and Superintendent to periodically reexamine their roles.” He suggested that the Board amend “periodically” to state “annually.” Board Member Uemura stated that SMART criteria should be more specific. He stated that the Board should rate the Superintendent on whether she exceeds, meets, partially meets, or does not meet expectations rather than on effectiveness. He stated that the Board should define its expectations and simplify its rating system.

Board Chairperson Payne explained that the rating scale for the Superintendent aligns with the rating scale for teachers and principals. Board Member Uemura asked about the importance of alignment. Board Chairperson Payne stated that it is up to the Board whether it chooses to continue to align the rating scales. Board Member Uemura stated that it would be less confusing for Board members if the Board were to simplify its ratings.

Board Member Uemura stated that the Board maintains discretion in deciding how important any particular element is when establishing its ratings. The Board can determine that any particular standard or priority is more important than the others are or that the Superintendent’s priorities are much more important than the professional standards. He stated that he does not agree with this discretion and noted that the Board should determine and list the importance of different elements from highest to lowest importance. He stated that the Board should remove this paragraph entirely if it believes that it should weigh all elements equally.

Board Chairperson Payne asked whether the importance of various standards would change from year to year. Board Member Uemura stated that the Board should establish importance ahead of time to cause less confusion for Kishimoto and Board members during the evaluation process.

Board Member Uemura asked how Board members would measure whether the Superintendent is meeting standards and priorities. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima noted that it is difficult to measure broad categories. He explained that measurements are subjective. Board Chairperson Payne explained that the SMART criteria would apply to the Superintendent’s priorities, but standards are ongoing.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima expressed concern over the Board extracting the stakeholder feedback component and process and contemplating it as a piece of a separate, formal process for Board strategic priority setting. He stated that this important component helps Kishimoto, and it might send the wrong message to the community if the Board extracts it.

Board Member Voss stated that there is a level of subjectivity to evaluations, and it is important for the Board to move in the right direction. He stated that he does not want the Board to become overly process-oriented and emphasized the importance of the Board being able to evaluate results. He stated that the Boardmust be clear and ensure that standards and priorities are measureable if it extracts the term “results” out of the rating scale characteristics. He stated that it is subjective whether the Board believes that Kishimoto is achieving results and making progress on the new strategic plan.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board’s priorities and the Superintendent’s priorities include measurable results. Board Member Voss emphasized that the evaluation process needs to align with various components.

Kishimoto stated that the proposed changes clearly define the Board’s expectations and stated that she agrees with the alignment of ratings, characteristics description, and expectations. She stated that the ratings clearly define the outcomes that the Board is seeking.

Kishimoto stated that the proposed change clarifies that the Board does not weigh stakeholder feedback as part of the evaluation. She noted that the Board and Department would continue to collect and consider stakeholder feedback as part of a 360-degree feedback process.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that the Board should clarify that the Board would include stakeholder feedback as part of the evaluation process, but the feedback would not be evaluative.

Board Member Voss stated that the Board should include some of the language stricken in the proposal back and clarify that the stakeholder feedback component is part of a 360-degree feedback process rather than evaluative.

Board Chairperson Payne asked about Board member’s thoughts regarding the rating scale.

Board Member Kili Namauʻu stated that the rating scale should be consistent with rating scales for other employees within the Department. She expressed concern that the stakeholder feedback component might be confusing for stakeholder groups. Board Chairperson Payne suggested that the Board could leave the stakeholder feedback component as is but change the word “evaluation” to “feedback.”

Board Member Bergin stated that the Board must be clear in its criteria for performance incentives because the Board indicated that it would provide performance pay for “highly effective” performance in the past. Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board did not include the outcome of highly effective performance in the evaluation document but noted that it could clarify this in a different document.

Board Member Uemura asked about Kishimoto’s contract. Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board could make a note in the evaluation document that performance pay is included in the Superintendent’s contract.

Board Member Uemura stated that the Board receives the results of stakeholder feedback after it completes the evaluation. He noted that the Board would need to receive stakeholder feedback earlier if it includes 360-degree feedback as part of the evaluation process. Board Chairperson Payne explained that the Board receives stakeholder feedback when it does due to the timeline and mechanics.

Kishimoto explained that the purpose of the 360-degree feedback process is for her to feel empowered to self-reflect and provide the Board with her analysis. She stated that it is no longer a 360-degree feedback process if she provides the feedback to the Board for discussion.

Board Member Uemura stated that the Board should not include the 360-degree feedback as part of the evaluation process because the Board does not use it to evaluate the Superintendent. He stated that including the feedback as part of the evaluation implies that the Board weighs it as part of the evaluation.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that Kishimoto previously provided the Board with the summary of the results of the stakeholder feedback. He stated that the Board should be able to review the feedback even if it does not consider it as part of the evaluation ratings. Board Member Uemura stated that Kishimoto needs to continue to collect stakeholder feedback and self-reflect, but the Board should not include any mention of stakeholder feedback in the evaluation document because it receives the results close to or after the evaluation and does not discuss it. He reiterated that including the stakeholder feedback component implies that the Board weighs it when it considers the Superintendent’s ratings.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that it is important for the Board to understand how community groups feel about Kishimoto’s performance and to understand that Kishimoto is open to feedback and responds appropriately to stakeholder groups. He stated that the Board should include it because it is an important component.

Board Member Kawano stated that the Board should not include stakeholder feedback in the evaluation document if it does not plan to weigh the feedback in the evaluation. He stated that stakeholder groups should be able to evaluate the Superintendent similarly to the Board if the Board includes them in the process rather than responding to predetermined questions. He stated that the questions that Kishimoto designs do not align with the evaluation. Board Chairperson Payne noted that it is no longer a 360-degree feedback process if the Board provides stakeholders with the evaluation document. She stated that the purpose of the 360-degree feedback process is for Kishimoto to receive feedback from the individuals with whom she works and reflect.

Board Member Kawano emphasized the importance of feedback and stated that the Board does not need to include stakeholders in the evaluation process. However, the Board needs to provide stakeholders with the evaluation document if it were to include them otherwise the responses to questions are not helpful for the Board to review as part of the evaluation process.

Board Chairperson Payne explained that it might be difficult for the Board to collect evaluations from multiple stakeholder groups. Furthermore, Board members have access to private, confidential information that stakeholder groups do not. She stated that the evaluation document is public, and members of the public are welcome to provide testimony on Kishimoto’s evaluation.

Board Member Kawano stated that the Board should extract the stakeholder feedback component entirely if it does not make sense to provide stakeholder groups with the evaluation document to fill out.

Board Member Cox stated that the Board should not weigh the stakeholder feedback component, but it could mention the 360-degree feedback process as a footnote in the document.

Board Member Voss stated that it is important for the Board to consider stakeholder feedback regardless of whether the Board includes the component as part of the evaluation process. Board Chairperson Payne clarified that Kishimoto shared stakeholder feedback in the past, but the Board did not consider it when it considered ratings.

Board Member Voss stated that the Board had always considered stakeholder feedback as part of Kishimoto’s evaluation. Board Member Uemura clarified that the Board never discussed stakeholder feedback when it determined the ratings because the Board had not yet reviewed stakeholder feedback. He stated that it does not make sense to include the feedback component if it is not part of the evaluation process. He noted that Kishimoto could continue sharing stakeholder feedback as she has in the past.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that extracting the stakeholder feedback component confuses the public because the Board has received information regarding the feedback from Kishimoto in the past and would continue to receive that information. He stated that he agrees with the Board proceeding in the same fashion as the Board always has by receiving the feedback but not considering it as part of the evaluation process.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board consider public testimony related to the Superintendent’s evaluation.

ACTION: Motion to defer action on the Superintendent evaluation system process for the 2019-2020 School Year and the Superintendent job description to a later meeting with a revised proposal that considers and incorporates the Board’s discussion and Superintendent Kishimoto’s comments (De Lima/Uemura). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

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

Board Chairperson Payne reviewed the Board and Department strategic priorities for the 2019-2020 school year. She stated that the deferral from the June 6, 2019 general business meeting was problematic because the Board was unable to provide guidance to Kishimoto to draft her Superintendent Priorities. While this was unfortunate, it provided the Board with the opportunity to review the three main elements of its strategic priority setting for the year together. Board Chairperson Payne stated that it is important for the Board to see how the Board’s priorities connect to the proposed student-focused promises and might serve as a bridge to the new Board and Department joint strategic plan. Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board would need to determine how to include valid qualitative assessments to balance its current reliance on quantitative measures. The Board also needs to be clear about its focus, as the Board’s priorities determine how the Board approaches communications with legislators and constituencies in schools and the community.

Board Member Kawano stated that the Board should not adopt its priorities with the essence of the five promises because the Board has not yet approved the five promises. He expressed concern over one of the promises indicating that the Board and Department would mitigate disempowering differences because this conflicts with zero-tolerance. He stated that mitigation and elimination have two separate meanings.

Kishimoto stated that the Department is engaging communities in discussions regarding the five promises. She explained that the Board is able to engage in conversation regarding the five promises by adopting the third option in Board Chairperson Payne’s memorandum. Kishimoto stated that the Board’s priorities do not directly correlate with the five promises. The Board’s priorities align with conversation regarding the five promises, the current strategic plan, the Governor’s Blueprint for Education, and the Board’s goals from the previous year.

Board Member Kawano stated that Board Chairperson Payne’s memorandum from the June 6, 2019 general business meeting indicated that the Board’s priorities correlated with the five promises. He stated that purposeful alignment is problematic because the Board has not approved the five promises. He stated that the Board should not base its priorities on the five promises.

Kishimoto suggested that the Board make a distinction between its priorities and the five promises. She emphasized the importance of alignment and common language and explained that the five promises include language from the Board’s previous work.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima agreed that it does not make sense to adopt the Board priorities with the essence of the five promises when the Board has not approved the promises. He suggested that the Board amend the third option in Board Chairperson Payne’s memorandum to remove the statement regarding the promises.

Board Member Voss stated that it might make sense to leave the third option as is because the Board would adopt the promises in the future. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima explained that the Board does not want to indicate that it already adopted the five promises. He stated that the statements in the Board’s priorities are broad and require action and implementation.

Board Member Voss noted that adopting any of the options listed in the memorandum does not mean the Board is adopting the heading that describes the option.

ACTION: Motion to adopt the Board and Department strategic priorities for the 2019-2020 school year as listed under Option 3 in Exhibit A attached to Board Chairperson Payne’s memorandum dated June 20, 2019 (Voss/Cox). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

Board Chairperson Payne reviewed the standing committee strategic priorities for the 2019-2020 school year. She stated that each standing committee, except the Audit Committee, has two committee strategic priorities for a total of six committee strategic priorities for the 2019-2020 school year. Each priority derives from Board members’ ideas, is related to at least one of the Board’s 2019-2020 Strategic Priorities, is worded to be more focused on the objective rather than how to measure its achievement, and has SMART indicators to assess achievement of the priority.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that committees could address issues and schedule presentations outside of the topics and issues of the committee strategic priorities seek to address. She explained that these priorities describe the goals to which the Board is committing, at a minimum, for the 2019-2020 school year.

Board Member Uemura suggested that the Board switch the first and second Finance and Infrastructure Committee (“FIC”) strategic priorities.

Board Member Voss agreed that the first FIC strategic priority should reference a transparent, accessible, and credible budgeting process, while the second FIC strategic priority should direct the Department to complete repair and maintenance (“R&M”) projects. He stated that the Legislature and the public have expressed concern over the Department’s expenditures rather than the Department’s budgeting process. Board Member Voss suggested that the Board emphasize ensuring credible information from the Department regarding expenditures from administrative, school, and complex levels in its priorities.

Board Member Uemura stated that the establishment of credibility indicates that FIC would prioritize how the Department spends funding. He stated that he agrees with the current language because it indicates that FIC would review multiple components of the budgeting process, including expenditures, accountability, and zero-based budgeting. He noted that it is currently difficult for the Department to provide the data that FIC needs because the Department has not yet modernized its technology systems to be able to create different kinds of reports. He stated that the intent of the language in the FIC priorities is clear.

Board Member Voss stated that the process is important, but the public is unaware of how the Department expends funding. He stated that he understands privacy concerns, but it is important for the public to be able to review this information. Board Member Voss stated that schools post budget priorities on websites but do not post year-end expenditures. Board Member Voss emphasized the importance of FIC understanding that the Department spends funds in a way in which it advances student learning and achievement. He stated that FIC should be clear that the budgeting process, particularly expenditures, should be transparent.

Kishimoto stated that the Board could include language that states the second FIC strategic priority establishes a budgeting and monitoring process that results in transparent Department expenditures that the public could easily consume and that is useful for policymakers. She stated that the budgeting process includes expenditures but noted that the language could be more explicit.

Board Member Voss stated that FIC should ensure that it would work with the Department to emphasize both the budgeting process and expenditures. Board Member Uemura stated that these statements are redundant. He noted that the Department includes expenditures in financial reports. He explained that the budgeting process is separate from financial reports because it refers to how the Department budgets to implement strategic priorities. Kishimoto stated that the Board could add a bullet point to the FIC indicator regarding how the FIC could expenditure reports publically available in the form of outcomes or deliverables.

Board Member Voss stated that he agreed with Kishimoto’s proposed language regarding the establishment of a budgeting and financial reporting process because it would encompass expenditures.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima commented that the Legislature has been asking for budget variance reports for many years, but the Department was unable to compile these reports due to antiquated financial systems. He stated that the Department attempts to compile more reports but continues to face challenges. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that the Legislature has concerns regarding the Department’s financial reporting systems even though auditors and national reports indicate that the Department expends more funds at the school level than at the state or district levels. He stated that the Board should discuss recent lawsuits regarding accessibility to financial information during executive session. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima emphasized that it is important for the Board to prioritize ensuring a budgeting process that results in a credible budget to successfully advocate for resources at the Legislature.

Board Member Nolan Kawano detailed testimony he submitted to the Committee on Weights (“COW”) X regarding inequity in the allocation of funds and stated that the Board should add a third FIC strategic priority to ensure that application of Weighted Student Formula (“WSF”) is fair and equitable to rural and neighbor island schools.

Board Member Uemura agreed that the Board could include a third priority for FIC because FIC noted in earlier committee meetings that it would like COW X to prioritize equity for neighbor islands and rural schools.

Board Member Kawano emphasized the importance of fair and equitable WSF allocation and stated that this should be a separate priority because it is separate from the Department’s budget.

Board Member Voss commented on the first FIC strategic priority and noted that the Legislature line-itemed R&M projects, which contributes to inequity. He stated that he wants to ensure that FIC would work with the Department to establish a priority list for new projects. He noted that the Board should add language regarding R&M, new construction projects, and all facilities to the strategic priority to reduce inequity.

Board Chairperson Payne suggested that the Board could change the language from referring to R&M projects to referring to all facilities projects.

Board Member Cox stated that the Board should include additional priorities and indicators for the Student Achievement Committee (“SAC”) strategic priorities. She stated that SAC is interested in Stetson, input from principals, alternative learning centers, authentic assessments, and early learning. She commented that several schools are piloting authentic assessments, and SAC has not discussed these pilots even though the pilots fall under student achievement. Board Member Cox noted that some schools have grants to pilot projects, and SAC might make recommendations to FIC if resources are necessary in certain areas. Board Member Cox stated that the Board should include these specific areas in its SAC strategic priorities so that the public understands that the Board is aware of various issues and plans to address specific areas of concern. She stated that the Board is concerned about the different levels of student achievement and needs to capture that concern in its SAC strategic priorities.

Board Chairperson Payne noted that inclusion would fall under the first SAC strategic priority. She commented that her memorandum previously included a third priority regarding early learning, but the Executive Office on Early Learning (“EOEL”) asked the Board to remove this priority. She stated that the Board plans to continue to work with EOEL.

Board Member Cox stated that the Board should review whether EOEL could provide the Board with reports so that the Board could successfully ask the Legislature for resources. She stated that the areas she raised are of concern to SAC and need to be part of SAC’s priorities so that a focus remains.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board must review its policies because policies could address the areas of concern to which Board Member Cox alluded. Board Member Cox explained that SAC should prioritize school-level instruction and occurrences in order to contemplate policy changes. She stated that she would like SAC’s strategic priorities to be more explicit.

Board Member Namauʻu agreed that Board members are unaware of various issues and areas and are unable to provide oversight if they do not know what is occurring at the school level. She stated that the Board must have a better partnership with EOEL to reduce the achievement gap and needs to hear input from the school level.

Board Member Kawano stated EOEL should not factor into the Board’s committee priorities. Board Chairperson Payne emphasized the importance of the Board working collaboratively with other entities and not perpetuating divisiveness. She detailed challenges during the past legislative session and stated that the Board needs to move forward in a collaborative manner.

Board Member Kawano stated that it appears as though early learning is not a priority if the Board does not include early learning as one of SAC’s strategic priorities. He stated that the Board could simultaneously include early learning as a SAC strategic priority and work in partnership with EOEL.

Kishimoto stated that SAC could focus on policies related to these areas and determine whether appropriate policies are in place. She stated that the Board should understand what policies look like in practice to understand whether policies are supporting effective practices. She stated that SAC could include early learning related to special education, inclusion, and English learner services under its strategic priorities because the Department is responsible for these prekindergarten programs and access points.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that the Board and Department should hold a data retreat in the near future to discuss these topics.

Board Member Voss expressed concern over the Human Resources Committee’s (“HR”) strategic priorities. He stated that both teacher recruitment and retention should fall under HR’s strategic priorities. He noted that HR reviewing Board policies would not assist in recruitment and retention because the issue is the lack of new strategies. He stated that HR should work with the Department and stakeholder groups to create new strategies to recruit and retain teachers and approach the Legislature for resources. Board Chairperson Payne confirmed that the Board could add language regarding new strategies. Board Member Voss stated that the ultimate goal is for HR to develop new strategies rather than generate a comprehensive report. Board Chairperson Payne stated that HR might need to engage the Hawaii State Teachers Association (“HSTA”).

Kishimoto described the Department’s work with HSTA and stated that the Board needs to review whether it needs to amend policies to enable new strategies and ideas.

Board Member Kawano emphasized the importance of the Department providing the Board with a salary study and noted that higher pay for teachers might result in successful recruitment and retention outcomes. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that the Department should conduct a salary review that includes the overall administrative structure.

ACTION: Motion to defer the adoption of standing committee strategic priorities for the 2019-2020 school year to a later meeting with a revised proposal that considers and incorporates the Board’s discussion (Voss/De Lima). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.

Kishimoto reviewed her Superintendent’s priorities for the 2019-2020 school year. She stated that the Superintendent priorities identify three high priority areas and include five leadership standards, including strategic planning, leadership development, and academic outcomes.

Kishimoto stated that the first priority is to advance teacher leadership that empowers and enables teachers to make powerful and effective decisions that ensure student success. She noted that the Department focused on student voice this past year and plans to focus on teacher voice this upcoming school year. The Department is reviewing the creation of a structured teacher development program or process.

Kishimoto stated that the second priority is to advance equal access to school facilities and opportunities that align with school designs. She noted that the second priority includes 21st century school designs, facility planning work, modern schools, equity, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 compliance, and the facilities master plan.

Kishimoto stated that the third priority is to improve funding allocation and use for special education and English learners programs by advancing system modernization work for a replacement financial management system and targeting special education and English learner funding sources for accountability improvements. She stated that the Department plans to review its budget process, particularly how it monitors and reallocates funds to close the achievement gap.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima asked about the second indicator under the third priority and whether the Department would review clear financial guidelines for the effective use of special education funds. Kishimoto clarified that the Department plans to develop and present clear financial guidelines for students it identifies who are receiving English learner services and special education services.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima commented on the first indicator under the third priority and stated that the Department allocates Title I funds based on student population rather than student achievement. He stated that the Department should focus on identifying resources for elementary schools so that schools could strategically use funds to help students who are struggling sooner rather than later. He stated that the Department should include these strategies as part of its financial design.

Kishimoto explained that the current system for the allocation of funds is designed in the way in which Board Vice Chairperson De Lima described. She stated that the Department could review how to concentrate support and strategies in elementary schools to reduce the achievement gap.

Board Member Voss commented on the first priority regarding teacher voice and detailed dynamics between teachers and principals. He asked how the Department plans to empower teachers and school-level decisions while developing a cohesive teacher leadership structure. Kishimoto stated that she plans to engage teacher voice in the same way in which she engaged student voice. She explained that the Department developed indicators and implemented ways in which to engage students after receiving feedback from students. She highlighted that the Department collected feedback at the Department’s recent computer science conference and has been collecting input from teachers regarding teacher leadership. Kishimoto highlighted that teachers are defining and recommending structures.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima asked about Stetson training and inclusion. He stated that he would like Kishimoto to include an inclusion target in her priorities. Board Member Cox stated that SAC received reports on inclusion, but inclusion does not change student learning. She noted that strategies must show improvement. She stated that inclusive practices would fail if there were no implementation of instructional strategies. Board Member Cox stated that SAC could discuss Stetson and strategies at a future meeting.

Kishimoto stated that she does not want to add an additional priority because taskforces are working on implementation. She stated that taskforces could provide the Board with reports. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that SAC could include Stetson and inclusion as one of its strategic priorities.

Board Member Kawano stated the first priority should be more substantial, and each complex area should develop a plan for the three or five schools in the complex with the highest teacher turnover rates. He stated that the Department could measure whether complex areas are reducing teacher turnover and meeting goals. Kishimoto stated that she would review how to incorporate language that includes SMART criteria and outcomes. She emphasized the importance of teachers providing input to identify schools. She noted that her input would not allow teacher voice to drive plans. Kishimoto stated that she would prefer to determine how to proceed based on teacher input rather than telling schools and complexes how to proceed.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board could approve Kishimoto’s priority statements so that the Department could move forward, and Kishimoto could present language changes to indicators at a future date.

ACTION: Motion to approve the Superintendent Priorities for the 2019-2020 School Year, as described in submittal dated June 20, 2019, provided that Superintendent Kishimoto will consider and incorporate Board members’ comments and present revised indicators for Board approval at a later meeting (De Lima/Cox). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.


IV. Adjournment

Board Chairperson Payne adjourned the meeting at 12:24 p.m.