EXCUSED:
Ken Kuraya

ALSO PRESENT:
Maverick Yasuda, Student Representative
Robert Hull, Senior Advisor, National Association of State Boards of Education
Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, Department of Education
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Executive Secretary
Lady Garrett, Secretary

1. Call to Order

1. Discussion Items

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

Jessica Caiazzo, member of the public, testified on agenda item II.A, entitled “Presentation on National Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning.” She testified on the failure of Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, Department of Education (“Department”), to timely respond to parent complaints, the Board’s oversight of Hayashi and the Department, and the Board’s lack of communication regarding the Board’s Strategic Plan Community Meetings.

Board Chairperson Bruce Voss stated noted that the Board’s Strategic Plan Community Meetings were publicized in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and Civil Beat and was broadcasted on several television and radio stations.

Ryan-Nicholas Luther, member of the public, testified on agenda item II.A, entitled “Presentation on National Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning.” He testified on the mission and vision of the Board, various Board policies, and books with sexual content in the school system, which violate Board policies.

Board Member Makana McClellan joined the meeting at 8:21 a.m.

Kristina Tullos, member of the public, testified on agenda item II.A, entitled “Presentation on National Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning.” She testified on schools still using COVID-19 protocols for students eating lunch, failing to communicate with parents, and her struggle to get a geographical exception approved.

Cynthia Bartlett, Moms for Liberty Honolulu, testified on agenda item II.A, entitled “Presentation on National Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning.” She testified on the vagueness and potential consequences of using several words in the Board’s mission and vision and emphasized that books containing pornography should be removed from schools.

Board Member Shanty Asher joined the meeting at 8:27 a.m.

Board members received written testimony before the meeting. (A listing of the people who submitted written testimony before the meeting is included at the end of these minutes.)

Board Chairperson Voss asked to suspend parliamentary procedures for this portion of the meeting. There were no objections, and the Board suspended parliamentary procedures.

Board Chairperson Voss called on Hull to facilitate the strategic planning portion of the meeting.

Hull reviewed the session objectives and priorities that Board members had come to a consensus on during earlier sessions: Priority 1, high-quality learning for all; Priority 2, high-quality workforce in all schools, and Priority 3, effective and efficient operations at all levels. He reviewed options for a strategic plan timeframe and stated that one of the objectives for today’s session is for Board members to come to a consensus on a timeframe. Hull suggested a 5-year timeframe for the strategic plan at a minimum because this timeframe allows the Board to address immediate, short-term plans, but also permits longer term aspirational goals. He provided a number of benefits of a strategic plan with a longer term: (1) allows the Board to plan for a longer-range investment of resources, financial and other resources, and to plan and allocate over a longer term; (2) promotes a continuous improvement model because a strategic plan should be an iterative, working document that the Board works on at every meeting and uses to assess its accomplishments annually; (3) strengthens marketing and accountability; (4) allows the Board to see longer trends; (5) provides the Board with time to refresh, extend, or revise with an opportunity to reflect on what the next phase will look like at the end of three years; and (5) provides stability for the Board and public education system because it avoids episodic change. Hull invited Board members to talk about different timeframes and discuss the suggested timeframe.

Board Chairperson Voss confirmed that the request is that the Board come to a consensus on the strategic plan timeframe and asked Board members to provide their input.

Board Member McClellan stated that she liked the idea of a five to six-year timeframe.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that the strategic plan needs to be a minimum of five years and stated that he would be open to something as long as ten years. He stated that this timeframe would have a vision for where the system should be in ten years with a reassessment in five years.

Board Member Fallin stated that she likes the 5-year timeframe and the idea of aligning the strategic plan with governmental processes and dates. She asked whether the Board should ensure there is a system wide alignment of goals, objectives, and plans. Hull stated that Priority 3 should include an objective that the Board go through the aforementioned process of alignment.

Hull discussed the possibility of a strategic plan with a 10-year timeframe that had a more detailed plan for the first five years and a more general longer-term plan so every time the Board revisited the plan, it could refresh its longer-term plan. He stated that Board members do not necessarily need to come to a consensus on whether they want a plan with a 10-year term today.

Board Member Namau‘u stated that when she became a Board member in in 2017 it appeared to her that the Board and Department had already done most of the work because the Board had just adopted its strategic plan. She stated that she waited for something to happen, but the Board and Department did not go back to the strategic plan often enough to think about it and implement it. Board Member Namau‘u noted that the strategic plan needs to be a part of the Board’s agenda to keep it at the forefront and that the Board needs to tie agenda items to the strategic plan as a constant reminder.

Board Chairperson Voss agreed with Board Member Namau‘u that the Board failed to follow up on and monitor the previous strategic plan. He stated that the Board needs to make specific commitments to ensure the Board is doing what it needs to do, regardless of the timeframe.

Hull noted that it will take time for schools to digest the strategic plan and align their processes with it. Hayashi noted that the University of Hawaii started its strategic planning process and is looking at a strategic plan with a 6-year term, 2023-29.

Board Member Moriarty advocated for a 5-year strategic plan timeframe, but stated that she was intrigued by the 6-year timeframe because Board members serve 3-year terms and a 6-year timeframe could allow alignment with the biennium budget process. She asked Hayashi which timeframe would work best for the Department. Hayashi stated that the Department could work with a five or six-year plan.

Hull stated that it appeared that Board members reached consensus on a five or six-year timeframe and that they could move forward with that consensus.

Hull then started discussing the mission and vision statements. He recapped the work Board members had already done by reviewing the current mission and vision statements and reviewing mission and vision statements from other states. Hull stated that he took comments Board members made at previous meetings and created suggested mission and vision statements. Hull noted that the mission and vision need to cover every necessary aspect for both a State Educational Agency (“SEA”) and Local Education Agency (“LEA”) because the Board serves both roles. He asked Board members to provide their perceptions and opinions about the suggested vision statements. Hull explained that a vision statement should be aspirational, motivational, and clearly state what the Board wants at the end of the process. He stated that the words need to be actionable and need to mean something.

Hull shared two versions of suggested vision language, Version A and Version B.

Version A provided, “[t]he vision of the Hawaii Board of Education, in cooperation with our partners, is to create an excellent statewide system of public education that derives strength from our diversity, ensures equity of opportunity and an inspiring learning experience for each student in a safe and healthy learning environment, and prepares all students to be capable, responsible, and self-reliant citizens in the global society.”

Version B provided, “[t]he vision of the Hawaii Board of Education is to create an excellent statewide system of public education where students are engaged in inspiring, personalized and culturally responsive learning experiences that foster creative and critical thinkers prepared for civic engagement, careers, and postsecondary education.”

Board Member Fallin stated that she liked the concepts of excellence and student focus, which is in both versions. She stated that she likes that Version A describes a responsibility that everyone has, which is to provide students with a safe and healthy learning environment and the tools they need. Board Member Fallin noted that Version B gives students a more active role because students are actually engaged and that Version B is more outcomes focused because of the use of the word “prepared.”

Board Member Arakaki stated that he wanted to make a comment about the strategic plan timeframe. He stated that he learned at the NASBE conference that it is necessary to have both short-term and long-term goals and noted that the strategic plan should be aligned with the University of Hawaii, the legislature, and the biennium budget process, but that there are lot of details and moving pieces.

Board Member Arakaki stated that he likes Version A because it includes the concept of cooperating with partners. He stated that having that concept in the vision shows communities that the Board heard them during the Board’s strategic plan community meetings and that the Board has included them in the vision. Board Member Arakaki further stated that NASBE emphasizes the importance of partners and community effort. He noted that he likes that Version B describes the skills a student needs and that the system will provide them with these skills before they graduate.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that he liked the concepts in both versions, but preferred Version B because it is more straightforward, which he believes will help everyone to understand the vision, not just the Board. He stated that Version B does not preclude the Board from doing anything described in Version A.

Board Member McClellan stated that, like Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse, she also preferred Version B, but that she liked elements of Version A, particularly the partner component. She stated that Version B hits the essential points and reflects what Board members heard from stakeholders during the community engagement process. Board Member McClellan stated that she likes how the Board will build culture in Version B. She said that she will continue to emphasize the importance of aina-based learning because that is what she has heard from stakeholders. Board Member McClellan stated that she likes the concepts of “healthy” and “safe” in Version A, but that Version B describes next-level students for the future with words like “inspiring” and “personalized.”

Board Member Asher stated that she sees the concept of “equity” in Version A, but not in Version B. She stated that equity and diversity are important.

Student Representative Maverick Yasuda emphasized the importance of perpetuating the strength of diversity and the idea of equity. He referenced one of the testimonies that stated that equity should be for the well-being of everyone and not just grouping students. Student Representative Yasuda stated that equitable accommodations, not just equitable opportunities, should be available for everyone. He stated that he prefers Version B because it is more visionary.

Board Member Moriarty expressed her preference for Version B because it focuses on excellence and inspiring, which are aspirational and a vision statement should be aspirational. She stated that she thought about whether the Board should aspire to something even higher, like world-class. She stated that she can see Hawaii as a world leader, but that she would settle for the word “excellence.” Board Member Moriarty stated that Board members have made a number of comments about being culturally responsive and she thought that the vision should be more explicitly linked to Board Policy E-3, entitled “Nā Hopena A‘o,” because the Nā Hopena A‘o (“HĀ “) framework covers all of the most important things (belonging, responsibility, excellence, aloha, total well-being, and Hawaii). She stated that she is fine with the term “culturally responsive,” but that when she thinks of what the system can aspire to, she thinks of HĀ, which the community has already come together on.

Board Member Namau‘u stated that she also liked Version B because everyone needs to be responsible for what they must take care of. Board Member Namau‘u stated that if everyone did this then the world would be a better place. She stated that Hawaii is unique and special and that Hawaii needs to be incorporated in our vision.

Hayashi stated that inspiring learning opportunities is important to him because the public education system does not just teach students, it needs to inspire them. He stated his preference for Vision B and echoed Board Member Asher’s emphasis on equity.

Board Chairperson Voss stated his preference for Version B and agreed with Board Member McClellan on the importance of being culturally responsive, but added that the public education system also needs to foster creative and critical thinkers who are prepared for their life going forward. He stated that the principles of HĀ are more appropriate for the mission statement. Board Chairperson Voss stated that the vision needs to be a concise and inspirational message that people can take to heart. He stated that while he agrees with the importance of the principles of HĀ, he cautioned against putting concepts into the vision when they are more appropriately placed elsewhere in the Board’s foundational statements.

Hull stated he struggled with whether the term “culturally responsive” was better than the term “culturally relevant.” He acknowledged that a lot of students do not have Hawaiian ancestry and that the public education system needs to honor their cultures as well. Hull stated that he used culturally responsive, which he felt was more inclusive of all cultures. Board Member Namau‘u stated that when she uses the term “Hawaii,” she does not necessarily mean Hawaiian culture, but is rather speaking to a more local viewpoint, which includes Hawaii’s ethnic diversity. She stated that in Hawaii, people are more tolerant and caring of one another and that this is not necessarily limited to Hawaiian culture, but is a local feature.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse added that part of Hawaiian culture is to honor different ethnicities.

Board Member McClellan stated that she likes the term “culturally responsive” because it is more dynamic. She stated that she needs to be clearer when she is talking about Hawaiian culture and local culture. Board Member McClellan added that it is important to be inclusive of all cultures and languages.

Board Member Fallin asked whether the word “create” includes support because the Board has a responsibility to support students. Hull stated that the vision creates and the mission supports.

Hull shared suggested language for the mission statement.

The mission of the Hawaii State Board of Education is to:

1. Create a compelling and dynamic vision for all citizens that drives educational excellence;
2. Establish a comprehensive policy structure that supports an effective and efficient system of public education through transparent and collaborative leadership;
3. Build connections among all stakeholders to act in support of success for all learners;
4. Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of operations at all levels of the public education system;
5. Ensure equitable opportunities and access to high-quality learning experiences resulting in equitable outcomes for all students;
6. Provide all students significant opportunity to receive fair, equitable, and high-quality instruction and services that meet their individual needs and value their diverse cultures and abilities;
7. Encourage and promote a culture of responsibility, personal growth, and social-emotional well-being for all students and educators;
8. Ensure all educators are effective in providing effective, high-quality instruction and monitor student progress using multiple measures of proficiency;
9. Advocate avidly for adequate and equitable school funding and resources; and
10. Continuously monitor and evaluate the public education system for improvement and growth by practicing data-informed decision making.

Board Member McClellan returned at 10:46 a.m.

Hull reported on the top ten themes for Priority 2 and asked Board Members to review them, comment, and note if anything is not captured. He stated that for Priority 2, high-quality educator workforce in all schools, themes included providing competitive and adequate compensation for all employees, focusing on educator pipeline development, and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the application and hiring process. Hull noted that the overwhelmingly most mentioned theme for Priority 2 was competitive and adequate compensation for all employees.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that, in addition to teachers and administrators, lots of school staff attended meetings. He stated that staff appreciated the compensation increases for teachers and principals, but did not see compensation increases being considered for staff and that he wants to honor staff and their concerns.

Board Member McClellan stated her appreciation for the inclusion of Priority 2, Theme #7 (“encourage active participation of teachers and support staff in school-based decision-making”) because this theme is reflective of the comments from the communities she went into and their desire to ensure that they can do instead of being told what to do. She noted a theme that is not from a community meeting, but which she personally believes the Board needs to consider, which is acculturation. Board Member McClellan noted this is out of aloha (love) for those that come into Hawaii’s public school system, particularly teachers being acculturated into communities, becoming mentors, and building respect.

Board Member Fallin underscored the importance of a variety of staff positions like school administrative services assistants or SASAs and educational assistants who are all part of a school’s workforce and who either assist with educating students or supporting those who educate students. Hull stated staff, other than teachers and administrators, are called out in several themes in Priority 2, but that it may need to be more explicit.

Board Member Moriarty stated that there should be a theme regarding whether teacher preparation programs are adequately preparing teachers for when they step into a classroom and noting who is responsible for that. She also noted a theme that she heard was that basic operations should be taken care of at the state level so that schools can focus on educating students. Board Member Moriarty stated that everyone that affects a student needs the time and opportunity to collaborate so they can work as a team.

Board Member Arakaki stated that the voices of support staff (speech pathologists, psychologists, mental health support positions) were clear and that a team approach is important.

Board Member Namau‘u stated that a common theme was different ways to support teachers, particularly with housing.

Board Member Asher emphasized the importance of Priority 2, Themes #3 (“increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the application and hiring process”) and #6 (“providing personalized professional development opportunities for all educators and staff”) and urged the Department to prioritize this. She stated that the Department keeps saying that it needs people and many apply, but they leave because the process is long and onerous. Board Member Asher stated that at the Molokai community meeting there was a lot of discussion about professional development and their unique challenges and asked how the system can really provide equity.

Hayashi agreed that he heard a lot about the need to support all employees.

Board Chairperson Voss stated there would not be enough money to address all of the issues and that money, by itself, does not solve all problems and that there were also issues relating to showing respect for people and positions through compensation.

Hull reported on the top ten themes for Priority 3 and asked Board Members to review them, comment, and note if anything is not captured. He stated that facilities maintenance was the dominant theme in all meetings, so he placed it as the first theme.

Board Member Namau‘u stated that for the neighbor islands, the Department of Accounting and General Services (“DAGS”) is responsible for facilities and it adds an extra layer of bureaucracy. She stated that she frequently hears from principals on Maui that they are desperate to address a safety issue and they get the runaround from DAGS staff. Board Member Namauʻu asked whether there is a way to address this bureaucracy and make neighbor island school facility issues a priority, particularly when it has to do with safety.

Board Member McClellan stated that she would like to highlight four of the themes. She stated that with regards to Priority 3, Theme #2, Oahu-centric resource allocation, neighbor island principals make magic happen without any resources and that issues are compounded in rural areas on neighbor islands. Board Member McClellan noted that elevating food services, as described in Priority 3, Theme #5, locally prepared food, is possible, but that it depends on school and community partnerships. She highlighted Priority 3, Theme #6, greater presence of state office staff in schools and that when on the neighbor islands she frequently heard that it is critically important for Randall Tanaka, Assistant Superintendent, Office of Facilities and Operations, and his team to be on-site. Board Member McClellan clarified that the infrastructure failures and maintenance issues pre-dates Tanaka’s tenure, but that the Department needs to invest in visiting and inspecting all schools. She noted the importance of Priority 3, Theme #7, improve school-family relationships though communication, engagement, and collaboration, because there is a severe lack of communication. Board Member McClellan stated that the system and process is bad, but that this is exacerbated by poor communications.

Board Member Moriarty stated there needs to be a theme focusing on statewide systems to collect good ideas from people within the system, including charter schools.

Board Member Fallin raised the issue of communication about the status of a facilities project. She stated that there also needs to be clarification of the role and responsibility of the school. Board Member Fallin shared that a principal told her that they are overwhelmed with emails and memoranda telling them what to do. She stated that it is fine to want schools to make decisions, but that the school’s role and the role of others must be clear.

Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that he wanted to elevate the fact that the community recognizes the change in leadership and strategic planning, but that they also want to see results. He detailed that people feel that things will be status quo, so the Board and Department has a small window to set the strategic plan in motion and start getting things done. Board Vice Chairperson Barcarse stated that the message that he received was that the public will give the Board a little more leeway, but it wants to see action.

Hayashi stated that he heard the clear need to support operations. He stated that the themes in Priority 2 and 3 are important to consider as the Department looks at establishing a competitive system to supplement its workforce and fill vacancies so the Department can reach the goals of Priority 3. Hayashi stated that the Department needs to secure resources to address these issues.

Board Chairperson Voss stated he heard a lot about this priority, particularly relating to facilities, Capital Improvement Projects, and repair and maintenance, and that the perception is that there is no system. He stated that people feel that the system is random, unresponsive, and is not designed to prioritize things that are safety issues. Board Chairperson Voss encouraged the Department to listen to people, particularly on the neighbor islands who are doing amazing things with little or no resources as it develops or improves its systems. He suggested that the Department consult with these people to find out what they are doing and what they need.

Board Chairperson Voss called for public testimony.

Susan Pcola-Davis, PTSA Highlands Intermediate and Pearl City High, testified on agenda item II.A, entitled “Presentation on National Association of State Boards of Education (“NASBE”) building capacity for effective leadership and governance through strategic planning.” She testified on building and sustaining relationships, timely communications between families and teachers, differences between rural and urban schools, and the experience of military students.

Board Member Moriarty stated that she went to community meeting at Radford High School, which has a large military student population, and that she had military officers in her small group. She shared that they told her that, for the most part, things work well, particularly transition centers, which help students assimilate into a school. She noted that Hawaii has a robust system of liaison officers that meet regularly with the complex area and that there were some efforts to see if the group had feedback on the Strategic Plan.

Hull explained that the Board will take its mission and vision and use them to create goal statements. He reminded Board members that they had said that they wanted a manageable number of goals because if you have too many goals, you have no goals.

Hull asked Board members to look at the goals through multiple lenses, including whether the goal aligns with the vision, whether the goal supports the implementation of the mission, whether the goal is reflective of stakeholder input, and whether the goal is within the prevue of the Board’s authority and responsibility. He asked that Board members keep in mind possible differences between data and public perception.

Hull reviewed three suggested goals for Priority 1.

• Goal 1: All students will have equitable access to a high-quality learning experience resulting in equality of outcomes for all learners.
• Goal 2: All students will learn in a safe, nurturing, and culturally-responsive environment.
• Goal 3: All students will graduate high school prepared for college, career, civic engagement, and community involvement.

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

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

There were no testifiers.

1. Adjournment

List of the people who submitted written testimony before the meeting