A. Board Action on findings and recommendations of investigative committee (a permitted interaction group pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 92-2.5(b)(1)), concerning nomination of individuals to serve as members of the State Public Charter School Commission ("Commission"):

Dr. Makalapua Alencastre

Jill Baldemor

Terry L. Holck

John S.S. Kim

B. Board Action on Board Resolution directing the Department of Education to offer summer school in a way that supports students disproportionately impacted by school closures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure clear coordination between each level of the tri-level system, and to communicate timely and effectively with the public

She stated that summer school is a valuable opportunity to support students that were disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 closure of schools for the last quarter of the 2019-2020 school year. She noted that this opportunity is the reason she is proposing that the Board adopt a resolution outlining the Board’s expectations regarding summer school to provide guidance to the Department and to communicate to the public. She noted that she opted to use a resolution as the vehicle for the Board’s summer school expectations to establish an interim policy guidance document tailored to the specific situation, which is less permanent than Board policies while still setting forth the Board’s positions. She stated that while she prefers a resolution as the vehicle, she is still urging Board members to consider and deliberate on the contents to ensure it sets sensible policy guidance and sends a meaningful message.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the proposed resolution is a way for the Board to provide “big picture” guidance of what the Board expects to see regarding summer school this year. Once adopted, the Department would use this resolution to guide its implementation work, and the resolution would help to keep everyone in the organization on the same page. She noted that the resolution is also a means to communicate to parents, guardians, the public, and education stakeholders about the Board’s expectations for summer school this year.

Board Chairperson Payne detailed that the resolution has three main parts, including establishing the students whom the COVID-19 pandemic school closures have disproportionately impacted and prioritizing access, resources, and services for these students; ensuring clear communication and coordination between each level of the Department’s tri-level system; and ensuring timely and effective communication of data and information with the public.

Board Chairperson Payne recommended that the Board adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit A to her memorandum, thereby approving the directives contained therein.

Board Member Cox moved to adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit A to Board Chairperson Payne’s memorandum dated May 21, 2020. Board Member Barcarse seconded.

Board Member Cox expressed concern regarding recent conversations she had with principals on Oahu and Kauai. She detailed that principals were frustrated about not being made aware of what would happen regarding summer school. Board Member Cox detailed that summer school consists of credit recovery, extra courses for students, and extended school year (“ESY”) services for students receiving special education courses. She stated that principals were told that they would receive free computers for summer school but would need to pay for teachers. She noted that schools might be unable to pay for teachers if they did not budget for these costs. Board Member Cox stated that she spoke with Deputy Superintendent Phyllis Unebasami following these conversations and was assured that the Department has addressed issues and would provide devices to secondary and elementary schools and provide funding for teachers.

Board Member Cox expressed concern that additional teacher training is needed because teachers were not taught to teach online and some have struggled in the fourth quarter. She noted that Unebasami assured her that the Department was releasing a plan for summer school and released this plan on May 19, 2020. She expressed concern that schools contacted her on the day of the release and were frustrated that they were made aware of the plan from media rather than from the Department. Board Member Cox stated that she supports the Board’s resolution because it emphasizes communication and noted that the Department would need to focus on communication moving forward.

Board Member Cox expressed concern that she visited the Department’s website for e-school and learned that summer school registration had closed. She noted that the Department released its summer school plan on May 19, 2020 but registration was already closed. She expressed concern regarding the Department’s communication processes and emphasized the importance of the Department communicating with schools. Board Member Cox stated that the Department is working hard to ensure that communication flows through its tri-level system but noted that it would need to improve this flow so that the Department does not cause additional stress for principals and teachers as they enter the new school year.

Christina Kishimoto, Superintendent, commented that the Department had five days to plan as it entered the fourth quarter as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department needed to make quick decisions regarding the fourth quarter and has had to plan for commencements, virtual ceremonies, transitions, summer school, and the opening of school campuses simultaneously. She noted that information has been complex, confusing, and challenging. She stated that the Department has been empathetic as its employees manage transitions and has been attempting to deliver services quickly and accurately, sometimes designing services as it delivers them. She added that the Department’s employees are also managing personal challenges while determining plans and transitions. Kishimoto stated that the Department is planning, managing, and leading within this context and emphasized that this is a crisis situation. She emphasized that the Department does not fault anyone for saying that they need greater clarity and communication.

Kishimoto detailed that the Department has been planning for summer school while simultaneously awaiting executive orders that it received on May 18, 2020. The Department was unable to produce plans regarding what summer school would look like until it received clarity that the Department could balance distance learning and in-school options. She explained that e-school is full because the Department has been attempting to fill seats since the beginning of April throughout the fourth quarter and did not wait until it released its plan to begin filling seats. The Department reviewed what would need to occur if it was unable to provide in-person services during summer school and noted that some students have not been successful in distance learning due to a variety of reasons. She stated that the Department was ready to roll-out its ESY program and had reviewed how it would conduct the program if it could only deliver this program online. She highlighted that the Department received an executive order allowing for some in-person instruction and has had to quickly determine how to transition some students who need in-person services.

Kishimoto explained that the Department has had to plan, communicate, and re-communicate as new opportunities are available. She stated that the Department is reviewing challenges regarding how to provide distance learning, in-person services, and open up classrooms. She noted that the Department doubled its summer school seats and opportunities from 7,000 in the previous year to 15,000 this summer. She explained the process for credit recovery and described how the Department pays for a number of seats in advance. Juniors and seniors fill half of these seats. The Department opens seats to additional students if juniors and seniors do not fill the entirety of paid seats. Kishimoto stated that the Department is rolling out access as quickly as possible and is focusing on its highest need students, including students who struggled with distance learning, while simultaneously designing a new reality for public education, preparing for a continuation of distance learning, and planning for potential future closures. She stated that the Department and charter schools would need to partially transition to in-person instruction while simultaneously having infrastructure in place to provide distance learning.

Kishimoto stated that the Department has engaged in an immense amount of work and would continue to improve its communications. She highlighted that the Department initially held daily meetings with Complex Area Superintendents (“CAS”) and assistant superintendents and then added weekly meetings with principals to assist in decision-making. The Department intentionally implemented a tri-level, high-touch decision-making structure. She stated that the Department could have implemented top-down decision-making but that would create additional challenges for schools because schools, neighborhoods, and communities have different designs, resources, assets, and conditions. She explained that sometimes the Department has rolled out decisions while other times it needed to rework its decisions due to changing circumstances. She highlighted that the Department would continue to articulate as clearly as possible, communicate, and involve all in decision-making processes. Kishimoto detailed that the Department has been maintaining its website and has links to decisions made by various organizations, such as the Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She noted that everything needs to be seamlessly connected for health. She added that the Department has been working with mayors, emergency management agencies, and various decision-makers from federal, state, and county levels. She stated that all of these decision-makers have been making decisions over the course of the last six to eight weeks. Kishimoto emphasized that this is a crisis situation and the Department is managing complex information from various levels. She stated that the Department would continue to use feedback to improve its approach.

Kishimoto highlighted that the Department plans to produce webinars during the first week of June to communicate with business industries, nonprofits, internal staff, and parents. The Department plans to answer questions and collect feedback regarding how to improve communications and what information communities still need. Kishimoto stated that it has had to make adjustments on a daily and weekly basis and continues to send out information regarding these changes. The most important communication has been via principals. She stated that she understands that this is added stress on principals. Principals need to understand what’s happening on the national level as well as understand the Governor’s, Department’s, and county’s guidelines; interpret this information; and then communicate this information to teachers, students, and parents. She stated that the Department’s goal is to keep everyone healthy and the Department is committed to providing clarity regarding its decision-making.

Board Vice Chairperson Brian De Lima stated that he is in support of the Board’s resolution. He highlighted that Kishimoto is addressing issues of concern to communities and parents and it is obvious through her op-eds and media appearances that she understands that there are many students who are struggling and need remedial work and attention. He highlighted that Kishimoto understands and supports the needs of students receiving special education services. He detailed the Special Education Advisory Council’s written testimony and noted that he believes that the Department will confirm that students receiving special education services could access summer school at no cost and receive appropriate devices. He stated that he believes that the Department will address the issues raised by testifiers in written and oral testimony. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that he supports Nakamura’s suggestion in her oral and written testimony to insert language in the Board’s resolution regarding metrics. He emphasized the importance of the Board being able to review metrics in order to evaluate challenges the Department might experience. He emphasized the importance of the Board receiving data and information regarding student engagement, including the numbers of students engaging or not engaging in distance learning.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima suggested that the Board amend its resolution to include Nakamura’s suggestions detailed in her testimony.

Board Member Takeno stated that he supports the amendment proposed by Board Vice Chairperson De Lima. Board Member Takeno proposed that the Board amend language on lines 180-181 by striking out “timely;” inserting “weekly detailed reports;” and inserting “process and metric outcomes” after the word “implementation.”

Board Member Uemura stated that he supports the original resolution as well as the suggested amendments. He highlighted that Board Chairperson Payne’s memorandum is well-organized, clear as to its purpose, and provides relevant information to the Board for its decision-making. He stated that he hopes that the Board is able to be proactive and take additional next steps to provide the Department with guidance regarding reopening schools in the fall. He emphasized the importance of the Department designing a plan for how to reopen schools and noted that parents will not be comfortable unless there is a clear plan.

Board Member Bruce Voss stated that he supports the proposed amendments to the Board’s resolution. He commented that Corcoran provided valuable information in his oral testimony and noted that he has also heard concerns from community members regarding the availability of summer school. He stated that school closures damaged students and summer school provides an opportunity to repair that damage. Board Member Voss stated that while he understands challenges and difficulties, he does not want to hear about those in respect to summer school. He stated that the Board’s resolution requests a plan and timely reports. Board Member Voss stated that the Department previously presented on its flexibility in rearranging available funds and stated that he does not want students to experience financial obstacles if the Department is able to rearrange funding to expand summer school opportunities and provide more students with no-cost access.

Student Representative White stated that the Department and teachers are working hard to assist students in distance learning and create effective lesson plans. She expressed concern that students and teachers are providing feedback regarding many students not engaging in lessons nor completing assignments because they do not need additional credits. Student Representative White stated that she raised these concerns in previous meetings and Kishimoto responded that students and families are partly responsible for completing assignments and engaging in distance learning. She noted that summer school offers opportunities for credit recovery and asked if the Department has a plan to address and motivate students having trouble engaging.

Kishimoto emphasized the importance of the Department reaching the hardest to engage students. She stated that the Department has taken a number of steps during this time to address these students. She explained that sometimes students do not engage due to non-academic reasons. Kishimoto detailed that teams are providing services to students experiencing homelessness, the Department has provided information regarding support and resources during its meal distributions, the Department established a telehealth hotline to provide confidential supports to students statewide, and the Department has been working to address families experiencing connectivity challenges. Additionally, the Department is working with principals to support learning hub designs, purchased over 10,000 devices, working with service providers to distribute hot spots, and collecting data on how many hot spots are necessary for students to be ready to continue their education in the fall. She stated that the Department is managing a balance between what families need for academic engagement and what non-academic services are necessary that affect access. She detailed that the Department is continuing to provide support through its telehealth program and continues to provide outreach and support to communities experiencing homelessness in the form of Wi-Fi access, technology, arts programming, academic support, social services, and connections to partner organizations.

Kishimoto stated that the Department plans to work on school designs this summer and plans to work with principals on opening buildings and acquiring devices to support families with the highest needs. She detailed that schools are implementing learning hub approaches to support students in distance learning and e-school. She stated that the Department is balancing e-school with the opening of classrooms and community opportunities. Kishimoto stated that the Department is issuing surveys regarding data access and distance learning experiences. The Department plans to issue surveys to parents in mid-June to review how many families do not have access to devices or internet connectivity. She stated that these are significant equity issues and highlighted that she issued an op-ed on these issues to raise awareness. Kishimoto stated that access to distance learning and technology would need to be achieved to achieve true equity. She noted that students collaborate and engage online and students who do not have that access are at a disadvantage. The Department is committed to addressing these issues holistically and identifying how it could maximize funds. The Department is also calling upon business partners, nonprofits, and legislative leaders to assist in resolving these issues. She detailed that issues such as internet access in certain areas and ability to pay for internet services are issues that communities and agencies need to band together to resolve.

Student Representative White emphasized the importance of equity and detailed challenges she experienced in the past when she did not have access to technology. She expressed concern that some students are relatively at ease using technology and accessing learning hubs while others have found it difficult to transition to online learning because they are not accustomed to using technology to complete assignments on a daily basis. She asked about the Department’s plan to address students who are having difficulty accessing distance learning because they are not comfortable with technology and devices.

Kishimoto explained that the Department completely outfitted learning hubs. She emphasized the importance of the Department making training available for parents, students, and teachers. She detailed that teachers are leading trainings and providing the Department with feedback. She stated that the Department is addressing and reviewing how to support parents who do not have the background and training to support their children in online learning.

Board Member Kili Namauʻu emphasized the importance of teacher training. She stated that some teachers are having difficulty transitioning to online delivery systems and stated that these teachers need continued support from the Department. She stated that she is heartened to hear that the Department is expanding training to include parents and families.

Board Member Namauʻu stated that she supports the Board’s resolution and proposed amendments. She noted that the Department could use summer school as an opportunity to learn how to improve for the start of the school year in fall. She stated that while she understands that the situation is difficult and the Department has had to make daily adjustments due to COVID-19, the Department needed to improve its communication and communicate throughout the process of planning and designing. She stated that additional communication would alleviate fear and concerns. She stated that she would like to receive communication regarding positive occurrences as well as challenges that the Department is experiencing. She noted that businesses, organizations, and legislative leaders might have answers to these challenges. Board Member Namauʻu emphasized the importance of including metrics in the Board’s resolution.

Board Member Voss stated that he wants the Board’s expectations to be clear. He stated that the Board would like the Department to establish metrics for each disproportionately affected group identified in Board Chairperson Payne’s memorandum. He stated that he would like metrics to address these specific students whom the resolution is targeting regardless of whether the Department succeeds or not.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima moved to amend the main motion by amending the Board’s resolution by: (1) Amending the following paragraph (by adding the underlined text) to state, “BE IT FURTHER RESOLOVED that the Board directs the Superintendent to provide the Board with a comprehensive plan for summer school, including the plan for distance learning, blended learning, and on-campus instruction, as applicable, and metrics by which the plan can be monitored and evaluated by June 1, 2020;” and (2) Amending the following paragraph (by deleting the stricken text and adding the underlined text) to state, “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board directs the Superintendent to provide [timely and] weekly, detailed reports to the Board on the implementation process and metric outcomes of summer school as described in this resolution.” Board Member Barcarse seconded.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on the secondary motion. The secondary motion carried unanimously with all members present (Board Vice Chairperson De Lima, Board Members Barcarse, Cox, Kawano, Namauʻu, Takeno, Uemura, and Voss) voting aye.

Board Chairperson Payne asked if there was any objection to consider the resolution adopted as amended. There was no objections.

ACTION: Motion to adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit A to Board Chairperson Payne’s memorandum dated May 21, 2020 with amendments to: (1) Amend the following paragraph (by adding the underlined text) to state, “BE IT FURTHER RESOLOVED that the Board directs the Superintendent to provide the Board with a comprehensive plan for summer school, including the plan for distance learning, blended learning, and on-campus instruction, as applicable, and metrics by which the plan can be monitored and evaluated by June 1, 2020;” and (2) Amend the following paragraph (by deleting the stricken text and adding the underlined text) to state, “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board directs the Superintendent to provide [timely and] weekly, detailed reports to the Board on the implementation process and metric outcomes of summer school as described in this resolution” (Cox/Barcarse).

C. Board Action on Superintendent's evaluation for 2019-2020 School Year: end-of-year evaluation

Board Chairperson Payne detailed why the Board is using a different procedure for discussing the Superintendent’s end-of-year evaluation. She stated that under previous protocols, the Board conducted its mid-year formative assessment and end-of-year summative assessment of the Superintendent in executive session and then exited executive session to take action on the assessments in public. Following the completion of the assessments, the Board would publish its ratings and comments on its website. However, on June 27, 2019, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding discussion of personnel matters in executive session. She noted that based on this opinion, the discussion of the Superintendent’s performance should occur in public because there is no clear, legitimate privacy interest in highly personal and intimate information, as described in the opinion.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that she would like to set some clear procedures in advance because this is the first time that the Board would be conducting an end-of-year evaluation in public and because this meeting is being conducted virtually where Board Members are not in the same room. Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board would go through the evaluation in the following order, discussing and taking action to establish a rating for each standard; an overall standard rating; a rating for each Superintendent Priority; an overall Superintendent Priority rating; and an overall rating for the Superintendent.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the discussion of each standard and priority would start with a motion to provide an “effective” rating. The Board would designate a Board Member to make the motion and one to second. She stated that she would not call on the Board Members each time a motion would need to be made, but would instead state that per the previous agreement the aforementioned Board Members moved and seconded a motion for an effective rating. She noted that this is to start the discussion from a neutral standpoint and streamline the discussion process so the Board does not have to spend time getting a motion and second for every standard and priority.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that she would like to designate Board Vice Chairperson De Lima and Board Member Cox to make the motion and second the motion. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima agreed to make the motion to start the discussion for each rating and Board Member Cox agreed to second.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that Board Members could discuss after the motion for an effective rating was on the floor. If a Board Member wanted to propose a rating other than “effective,” the Board Member could make a motion to amend the main motion. The Board Members could then discuss that rating. She noted that Board Members should refrain from asking questions that would require the Superintendent to respond during this discussion. Board Chairperson Payne stated that questions for the Superintendent would be reserved for the end of the discussion period to ensure that focus is on the discussion between Board Members regarding evaluating the Superintendent on what she has done this year.

Board Chairperson Payne stated that she would call on the Superintendent to see if she has any comments once the Board has finished its discussion on the main motion and any amendments. She stated that the Board could review all of its standards ratings and Superintendent Priority ratings and discuss whether it wanted to change any of them after establishing ratings for all the standards and Superintendent Priorities. She noted that the Board would not need to issue a separate written evaluation document because all discussion and decision-making will be done in public. The minutes of the meeting would serve as the official record of the Superintendent’s evaluation.

Board Chairperson Payne reviewed Standard 1 (Visionary Leadership and Organizational Culture). She stated that per the previous agreement, Board Vice Chairperson De Lima moved and Board Member Cox seconded a motion for an effective rating.

Board Member Uemura stated that his rating for Standard 1 is “marginal.” He stated that a marginal rating means that the Superintendent’s performance was inconsistent or partially met expectations. Board Member Uemura stated that this is the first time that the public will have access to the annual evaluation discussion and the previous expectations that the Board discussed with the Superintendent. He noted that it was important to add context in the form of previous expectations when supporting his ratings for each standard and priority.

Board Member Uemura expressed concern that Kishimoto’s self-evaluation does not give Board members sufficient information to make informed decisions on her ratings. He stated that the Board expects and has requested in prior evaluations for Kishimoto to align her justification to each standard, sub-standard, and priority. He stated that unfortunately Kishimoto had not done so. He noted that Board members are once again faced with the task of aligning the justifications themselves, which then promotes the misinterpretations of her justifications. He expressed concern that Kishimoto did not include data, metrics, or comparisons to prior years when justifying her ratings for the standards and priorities. He noted that this implies that there is no way to determine an accurate measure of effectiveness or validation for Kishimoto’s self-assessment ratings. Board Member Uemura stated that Board members cannot be confident that the standards, sub-standards, and priorities are met or what stage of being met they are in. He noted that without alignment of justifications and inclusion of data, the only basis for his ratings are his individual observations. He stated that a “marginal” rating is appropriate because an “effective” rating would mean that her performance met expectations and it was not clear in her justifications if her performance had met expectations.

Board Member Uemura stated that Kishimoto used the 2030 Promise Plan as an example of visionary leadership, but it is debatable as to whether she met Standard 1. He stated that the Board did not fully vet nor approve the 2030 Promise Plan, there was little discussion of progress or lack thereof on strategic student success indicators, and no inclusion of data. Board Member Uemura stated that the piloting of the first volunteer administration of the HÂ Assessment at Paʻia Elementary School does not meet Sub-Standard 1.2, “Creates and implements a HÂ-based, focused plan for achieving strategic plan goals and objectives supported by resources.”

Board Member Uemura commented that it would have been helpful to review examples of how Kishimoto met Sub-Standard 1.4, “Leads and supports the use of quantitative and qualitative data to identify priorities, assess organizational effectiveness, identify effective practices and promote continuous organizational learning, and inform instruction for administrators and teachers,” to justify a higher rating. However, she did not include any examples in her justification.

Board Member Uemura reviewed COVID-19 related issues. He stated that he understands the COVID-19 pandemic, but there were three quarters prior to COVID-19. He commented that while many explanations in Kishimoto’s self-evaluation refer to COVID-19, it would have been helpful to discuss the number of students who do not have access to distance learning after the Department issued 12,000 devices; the measurement of how many schools had contact with their students during school closure periods; a plan for practice development for virtual teaching for teachers; and a timeline for reopening schools in the fall. He stated that the inclusion of data, metrics, or comparisons for the remaining examples would have provided the framework for fully assessing whether Kishimoto met Standard 1. He reiterated that in his assessment, a rating of “marginal” is appropriate.

Board Member Cox stated that she does not agree with a rating of “marginal” for Standard 1. She noted that the Department might not have all of the answers to Board members’ questions readily available due to COVID-19. She stated that she also has questions about learning during the pandemic, but feels that the Department has been doing a good job. Board Member Cox stated that she would rate Kishimoto as “effective” for Standard 1.

Board Member Voss stated that the Board needed to recognize that this is an awkward and imperfect forum for an evaluation and might not accomplish its best purpose. He stated that he appreciates Kishimoto’s vision regarding equity for all students. However, many objectives remain a work in progress. He stated that the Department still needed to develop good metrics for its strategic plan, school design has not reached its full potential, student achievement levels are erratic or stalled, and the Department still needed to collect data on how many students are actively participating in learning on a daily basis. He stated that the Board needs quantitative and qualitative data and does not want to rely on anecdotal evidence. He stated that he would give Kishimoto a grade of “incomplete” if he were a teacher. Board Member Voss stated that he recognizes the work that has been done, but more work still needs to be done. He stated that he supports a rating of “effective” for Standard 1.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that he understands Board Member Uemura’s and Voss’s concerns. He stated that the Board would continue vetting the 2030 Promise Plan and engaging in discussions with the Department. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima highlighted that Kishimoto’s work is to be applauded and noted that she has been providing consistent reports to the Board. He stated that he believes that the Department would continue to collect and compile data to provide to the Board, Legislature, and public. He stated that he agrees with a rating of “effective.”

Board Member Namauʻu agreed with Board Vice Chairperson De Lima. She highlighted that she has great faith in Kishimoto and her actions under dire circumstances and appreciates her leadership. Board Member Namauʻu agreed that data is missing and it is impossible and difficult to ascertain the Department’s performance without more information. She stated that the Department would need to focus on collecting and providing missing information. Board Member Namauʻu stated that she supports a rating of “effective.”

Kishimoto emphasized the importance of building up a system of the Department’s size and complexity to achieve true equity, voice, and empowerment. She stated that her approach during this past year and past three years has been to remind employees and students that there is nothing more powerful than voice for their own futures and that there is a power in public education that Hawaii has not fully harnessed. She detailed that she has spent time building up these systems and communicating that there is power and promise in public education. Kishimoto highlighted that she spent an entire year engaging communities in the development of the 2030 Promise Plan and noted that the Department started with a cultural context and included different voices, and empowerment throughout the development process. She stated that various conversations throughout the entire year came to fruition in the release of the final plan. She noted that conversations did not start because of the current crisis. Rather, the Department leveraged the current crisis to make changes happen. Kishimoto stated that she does not agree that she has not led with vision. She stated that her vision includes the many voices of various communities.

Kishimoto stated that the not all of the Department’s systems were well-designed and this has presented challenges during the crisis period. She emphasized that the crisis has not prevented the Department from continuing to build its financial management system (“FMS”). She stated that the entire state has modernization challenges and the Department is leading in system modernization efforts by continuing to meet on a bi-weekly basis and continuing its modernization work. She stated that she has led with vision in the middle of a crisis and has continued to execute tri-level empowerment and promote voices and engagement in decision-making. Kishimoto stated that the Department has many data points. However, the Department’s data systems are not great and its method of sharing data needed improvement. Kishimoto noted that this is why she insisted on a data retreat with the Board and presented current data. Kishimoto stated that the Department is committed to continuing work on its 2030 Promise Plan and creating a set of metrics for each promise. She detailed that the Department would need to find different ways in which to present data dashboards that go beyond standards-based testing.

Board Member Cox asked about the Department’s survey and data collection plans.

Kishimoto explained that the Department released teacher and student surveys to collect information regarding device and internet access, online learning experiences, transitions, and positive changes in practices. She stated that the Department is also collecting information from a parent survey regarding access to resources, knowledge bases, and experiences supporting children with online learning. She noted that the Department is using a partner vendor that previously worked with the Department on its school climate surveys to collect data and produce reports. She stated that data collection is not optional and all principals are gathering data regarding devices, such as the number of devices available in schools, the types of devices in schools, whether schools are able to loan out devices, what additional resources schools need to sustain blended learning, what types of teacher training are being offered and are still needed, comfort with e-conferencing, systems schools are using, and software and platforms schools need to continue to deliver distance and blended learning. Kishimoto stated that the Department plans to use this data moving forward as it continues to implement changing school designs.

Kishimoto stated that the Department would have results from its teacher and student surveys in mid-June and results from its principal and parent surveys in late June. The Department plans to triangulate all of its data by the first week of July and check it against more informal data collections to review device, training, school design, professional development, learning hubs, and support needs for the 2020-2021 school year.

Board Member Nolan Kawano stated that he agrees that this data is necessary. He commended Kishimoto for taking all of the necessary action steps to implement programs. However, for a “highly effective” rating, it would have been helpful to review data regarding the purpose and results of these programs. He stated that data regarding results would have justified a higher rating. Board Member Kawano commended Kishimoto’s vision regarding student voice, equity, and teacher collaboration. He stated that these are all powerful foundations. Board Member Kawano expressed concern that the Department’s previous presentation included information regarding pay cuts and over 900 teachers submitted testimony to the Board seeking help. He stated that it would have been helpful for Kishimoto to address pay cuts prior to the Board’s meeting and communicate to teachers that the Department does not support pay cuts. He stated that this communication would have supported Kishimoto’s vision.

Board Member Uemura detailed that “effective” means that Kishimoto’s performance met expectations. He stated that he is unsure of what expectations Kishimoto met. He reiterated his concerns that Kishimoto did not align her justifications to each standard and sub-standard in her self-evaluation and expressed further concern that she did not address specific areas he mentioned in her response to the Board nor aligned her justifications in her response. He stated that additional information would have allowed him to consider an “effective” rating, but he did not receive this additional information so his rating stands as “marginal.” He stated that it would be helpful for the Board to justify its ratings if Kishimoto responded to requests regarding alignment. He noted that it is still not apparent if Kishimoto actually met the sub-standards in Standard 1.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on a rating of “effective” for Standard 1 (Visionary Leadership and Organizational Culture). The motion carried with Board Members De Lima, Barcarse, Cox, Kawano, Namauʻu, Takeno, and Voss voting aye, and Board Member Uemura voting nay.

ACTION: Motion to rate Superintendent Kishimoto as “effective” on Standard 1 (Visionary Leadership and Organizational Culture) of her end-of-year evaluation for the 2019-2020 school year (De Lima/Cox).

Board Chairperson Payne reviewed Standard 2 (Operations, Resource, and Personnel Management). She stated that per the previous agreement, Board Vice Chairperson De Lima moved and Board Member Cox seconded a motion for an effective rating.

Board Member Voss stated that Standard 2 primarily addresses areas overseen by the Finance and Infrastructure Committee. He recognized that Kishimoto faced challenges in this area, including pervasive historical issues that were present before her arrival. Board Member Voss stated that whether it is fair or unfair, Kishimoto did not get much done in terms of what the evaluation measured. He noted that while there has been some progress on facilities, including job order contracting, there has been little to no progress on issues of equity or facilities policies, the capital improvements program (“CIP”), or repair and maintenance (“R&M”). He noted that while there are challenges to modernizing the FMS, there has been little progress in the areas of financial reporting. Board Member Voss noted that the Department did not have any answers when the Legislature asked the Department to explain or justify how it would fund teacher pay differentials if it did not receive appropriations. He stated that the Department has lost credibility at the Legislature when it comes to facilities and finances. He noted that it is very difficult to get credibility once it is lost and stated the Department has a long road ahead in terms of gaining credibility and trust of the Legislature. He emphasized that the Department needs trust and credibility in order to fund priorities for students. Board Member Voss stated that he would support a rating of “marginal” for Standard 2.

Board Member Uemura commented that Standard 2 falls under the Finance and Infrastructure Committee’s area of responsibility, which he chairs. He stated that his rating for Standard 2 is “unsatisfactory.” A rating of “unsatisfactory” means that Kishimoto’s performance did not meet expectations, requires significant improvement, and has not made any gains in program results. He stated that his rating for this standard has not changed from his last evaluation rating. Board Member Uemura stated that he expected Kishimoto to make more progress in this area. He noted that the reason for his optimism was a result of previous discussions revolving around his concerns that Kishimoto needed address the operational side of the Department since it was evident that her comfort zone was in the educational side of the Department. He detailed that more supervision and effort were warranted because the Department made little progress in obtaining resources to fund its educational priorities, such as Act 155 and impact fees. In addition, budget questions, such as how much the Department needed to run the Department, were still outstanding. Board Member Uemura stated that Kishimoto promised to devote more time this past year to the Department’s operations. He noted that she had an opportunity to address the Department’s needs when two key positions opened in August 2019 due to resignations and filling these positions would have been a key milestone in getting the Department’s operations back on track. Board Member Uemura stated that the Department filled one position recently with an individual with questionable qualifications and the other position is still vacant.

Board Member Uemura stated that Kishimoto did not align examples to the six sub-standards in Standard 2 and he is once again faced with attempting to align justifications on his own and rely on his individual observations. Board Member Uemura stated that as Committee Chairperson of the Finance and Infrastructure Committee, he is able to offer a unique perspective when relying on his individual observations. He stated that a rating of “unsatisfactory” is appropriate because Kishimoto’s performance did not meet expectations and warranted significant improvement from the previous year.

Board Member Uemura detailed that modernization of the FMS has not been completed and timelines have not been met. He stated the FMS falls under the duties of the Finance and Infrastructure Committee so it was incumbent on the Committee to ensure that all of the checks and balances were in place prior to proceeding with the project. He stated that initially, the Department was not following the Governor’s director nor state protocols on acquiring new software. He noted that the Finance and Infrastructure Committee devoted an entire meeting to discuss the requirements and obligations of the Committee in acquiring new software. The Department is finally able to proceed after months of meetings. Board Member Uemura detailed that teacher retention and recruitment is another questionable program that generated many questions but not a lot of answers. He stated that the Department has not shared the results of recruitment and retention programs with the Board. He noted that he is unsure of where the Department is with its recruitment and retention or whether its programs are successful. He added that the Department previously communicated that it might reduce its budget for recruitment. He stated that the Board has questions regarding what the Department funded in areas in which it needs teachers but has not received any answers.

Board Member Uemura detailed that the Department’s extra compensation for teachers was a great initiative but was poorly planned and left many questions regarding funding and the potential impact to current programs. He stated that the Department spent $9 million on a Facilities Master Plan that was hyped as such in newspapers and media only to be renamed as the Facilities Master Plan Guide when the Board had not reviewed nor approved of the plan. He stated that the guide faded away with no known reference to its value in the Department’s facilities planning. He stated that all of these are examples of how fiscal responsibility has not been great. Board Member Uemura detailed that the Department spent over $500,000 on a potential Act 155 property that the Board did not approve for further due diligence. He noted that the Department had to remove this property from its list of potential Act 155 properties because it belonged to the City and County of Honolulu. He expressed concern that the Department spent over $500,000 but received nothing in return. Board Member Uemura detailed that the Department spent funds on a consulting contract with a questionable scope of work that started at $100,000 and ballooned up to $1.1 million. He stated that there are more examples, but the key takeaway is that listing the examples does not mean that it justifies meeting the standard. He stated that it would be helpful to include more information on the project, status, process, and results.

Board Member Uemura requested that Kishimoto address specific items to assist him in determining his final ratings. He asked Kishimoto to discuss Act 155 and impact fees and impacts these had on providing funding sources for educational priorities; the steps being taken to obtain additional funding sources for educational priorities; the strategic initiatives to recruit and retain teachers, such as the “Refer a Friend” program, the number of teachers hired from referrals, the number of teachers retained, the number of eligible applicants from the 70 international applications, and retention data from pay differentials; how the determination of what funds are needed to run the Department is progressing; and aligning the justifications to the sub-standards.

Board member Uemura stated that because a rating of “effective” means that Kishimoto’s performance met expectations and it was not clear in her justifications, if her performance did meet expectations a rating of “marginal” would be justified. However, he supports a rating of “unsatisfactory” since no significant gains were made from the previous year.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima commented that he supports a rating of “effective.” He stated that Kishimoto demonstrates the knowledge, skills, and abilities to manage operations. He noted that there are systemic problems with programs such as Act 155 and impact fees and these problems were present prior to Kishimoto’s time as Superintendent. He stated that only the Legislature can resolve some of these issues as some of these challenges are beyond the Department’s authority. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that Board Member Uemura’s concerns should be agendized and prioritized.

Board Member Takeno commented that the Human Resources Committee, which he chairs, oversees parts of Standard 2. He commented that he has been perplexed regarding the Department’s dealing with matters that procedurally the Board should be apprised of. He noted that the Board should be aware of matters that are occurring and discussions that have led to agreements made by the Department and some of the collective bargaining representatives. He stated that the Board has votes to weigh in on these matters under the process of the law but more recently the Department simply presented information to the Board during general board meetings. Board Member Takeno stated that one of the deliverables under Standard 2 requires the Department to at the very least make the Board aware of what is being discussed and how it affects collective bargaining contracts, as well as, inquire as to the Board’s thoughts on matters and seek the Board’s approval. He stated that the Department has made many agreements during post-COVID-19 lockdowns, but it would have been helpful for the Board, especially the Human Resources Committee, to be aware of ongoing discussions and occurrences. He stated that oftentimes Board members are just as surprised as members of the public when they receive phone calls regarding the Department’s decision-making. Board Member Takeno expressed concern regarding communications breakdowns. He emphasized the importance of the Department conveying information to the Human Resources Committee and stated that a lack of communication might cause issues in the future. Board Member Takeno stated that he agrees with Board Member Voss and supports a rating of “marginal.”

Kishimoto stated that the Board’s comments show diminished and impacted faith and trust in the Department. She stated that her record shows that she is rebuilding the Department’s systems and establishing good relationships with the Legislature. She noted that her team constantly visits legislative offices to help legislators understand the Department’s work. Kishimoto highlighted that the Department has received positive feedback in a number of areas where it has made improvements, including how the Department’s reorganization of its departments with assistant superintendents as point people has provided clarity. Kishimoto detailed that one of her first steps this past year was to separate two departments and place two highly skilled assistant superintendents in charge to address and fix many of these areas. She noted that one of the budget-related areas in which the Department showed great improvement was Medicaid. She detailed that she conducted investigations and was transparent with the Board and Legislature as to why the Department was unable to maximize Medicaid reimbursements. Kishimoto stated that the system was not built up in the way it needed to be to maximize reimbursements. She highlighted that the Department designed and implemented an efficient system to collect reimbursements and communicated to the Legislature that it might receive $200,000 in reimbursements. However, the Department received $1.2 million in reimbursements due to its efforts. Kishimoto stated that the Department maintained and reported on its budget on an annual basis as well as reported on audits and continued to review how to provide follow-up on audit reports. Kishimoto highlighted that the Department has engaged in discussions this year regarding its need to redesign and rethink facilities while simultaneously replacing and modernizing the FMS. Kishimoto stated that that the Facilities Master Plan was developed prior to her accepting her position as Superintendent and she noted that she was very clear with the Board that this plan was not necessary. However, the plan included very rich data so she renamed it to clarify that it is a guide.

Kishimoto highlighted her relationships with collective bargaining units. She stated that she does not always agree with collective bargaining units, but always engages in discussion to express the Department’s vision and requests. She stated that the Department has implemented many ideas of how to do things differently as a result of these relationships. She highlighted that the Department and collective bargaining units would not be at the table together during this crisis situation if she did not already establish good relationships prior to COVID-19. Kishimoto commented that she notified the Board that the Department could not move forward with the Young Street property as an Act 155 property. She stated that she would always review data and projects prior to her arrival and make corrections. She noted that she brought the Young Street property before the Board to suggest it be removed it from the list of potential Act 155 properties because the Department did not own the property.

Kishimoto stated that various recruitment and retention programs, such as the “Refer a Friend” program, are new, innovating programs that the Department is currently wrapping up. She stated that these recruitment and retention initiatives are the result of the Department’s work with constituents and collective bargaining units. She highlighted that the Department would be able to share data from these programs with the Board shortly. She stated that the Department would need to rebuild and review its operational designs and review how to present fiscal information in more digestible ways. She detailed that the Department has been sharing its work with legislators, including its FMS modernization efforts, and collecting feedback on ways in which it could review designs and present data. Kishimoto highlighted that she has wonderful partnerships with the State comptroller and State chief information officer and that the Department has collectively worked on creating a model of best practice for other state departments. She stated that she shares reports on FMS development efforts with the Board.

Kishimoto stated that other agencies, like the unemployment office, are struggling during this crisis due to a lack of modernization. She highlighted that she has been meeting and collaborating with leaders of other state agencies on best practices and continuing modernization efforts. While the Department has not finished its modernization work, this work has been at the forefront and the Department continues to lead. Kishimoto stated that she has communicated that the Department cannot fall behind on R&M and CIP projects despite the fact that the world is in the midst of a pandemic. She detailed that her staff meets weekly with one another, the Governor’s Office, and other state agencies to ensure that everyone is collaborating and learning from one another. She highlighted that she would continue to build and push forward efforts in these areas.

Kishimoto detailed Act 155 efforts and described how principals and communities were opposed to private entities accessing land that otherwise could be beneficial to schools and students. She detailed that the Department conducted research with external agencies and implemented a community-centered voice approach. She stated that the individual she hired for operational areas is currently unable to come to Hawaii due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which means that the Department is still conducting work shorthanded. She stated that the Department would continue to make advancements in critical areas, leverage land resources, seek opportunities, and lead. Kishimoto highlighted that she partnered with the military to provide affordable housing to teachers on military installations and collaborated with banks to implement other programs.

Board Member Namauʻu expressed appreciation for Kishimoto’s explanations regarding the Department’s operations. She stated that she supports a rating of “effective” for Standard 2. Board Member Namauʻu noted that the Department works amidst antiquated systems that have been in existence for a number of years. She stated that it appears as though Kishimoto is attempting to fix systems but is not totally responsible for areas and systems that still need work. Board Member Namauʻu expressed concern regarding communication and stated that Kishimoto would need to address various communication concerns moving forward.

Board Member Uemura stated that while Kishimoto addressed some of his concerns, he is very familiar with the details of various programs. He noted that legislators were concerned regarding Medicaid reimbursements and stated that he appreciates Kishimoto’s work on the Department’s Medicaid reimbursements. He stated that he and Board Member Kawano worked with the Department’s assistant superintendent on the details of Medicaid reimbursements. Board Member Uemura stated that he is familiar with the $9 million for the Facilities Master Plan. He stated that the Department received additional funding to finish its master plan and poured $9 million into a plan that it ultimately did not use. Board Member Uemura stated that the Board communicated from day one that the Department should not spend money on nor entertain Young Street Property as a potential Act 155 property. He stated that there had been challenges regarding this property from the beginning and the Board had expressed concern regarding the Department spending $580,000 on a property that the Board did not approve for due diligence. He stated that these are examples where more fiscal responsibility could have been shown. He noted that the property belonged to the City and County of Honolulu and commented that he is aware of the details being that he was involved in the process. Board Member Uemura stated that he does not want to downplay Kishimoto’s efforts and recognizes what she has achieved, but these are examples where she did not show fiscal responsibility. Board Member Uemura stated that he supports a rating of “marginal.”

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on a rating of “effective” for Standard 2 (Operations, Resource, and Personnel Management). The motion did not carry with Board Members De Lima, Cox, and Namauʻu voting aye, and Board Members Barcarse, Kawano, Takeno, Uemura, and Voss voting nay.

Board Member Uemura moved to rate Superintendent Kishimoto as “marginal” on Standard 2 (Operations, Resource, and Personnel Management) of her end-of-year evaluation for the 2019-2020 school year. Board Member Voss seconded.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on a rating of “marginal” for Standard 2 (Operations, Resource, and Personnel Management). The motion carried with Board Members Barcarse, Kawano, Takeno, Uemura, and Voss voting aye, and Board Members De Lima, Cox, and Namauʻu voting nay.

ACTION: Motion to rate Superintendent Kishimoto as “marginal” on Standard 2 (Operations, Resource, and Personnel Management) of her end-of-year evaluation for the 2019-2020 school year (Uemura/Voss).

Board Chairperson Payne reviewed Standard 3 (Board Governance and Policy). She stated that per the previous agreement, Board Vice Chairperson De Lima moved and Board Member Cox seconded a motion for an effective rating.

Board Member Cox stated that she believes that Kishimoto works with and collaborates with the Board. She stated that she would like more specificity in reports but noted that Kishimoto provides the Board with weekly reports and responds to questions. She stated that she supports a rating of “highly effective.”

Student Representative White stated that Kishimoto communicates well, especially with the public, and keeps students and families updated on what is occurring. She noted that while sometimes there are questions regarding communications, it is evident that Kishimoto puts forth her best effort in keeping all informed.

Board Member Voss detailed that Sub-Standard 3.3 requires that Kishimoto, “Offers professional advice to the Board with appropriate recommendations based on thorough study and analysis and keeps the Board regularly informed with quantitative and qualitative data, reports, and information that enables it to make effective, timely decisions.” He stated that the Board has consistently received late or incomplete reports throughout this past year. He noted that the Board received the 2030 Promise Plan a couple of days prior to needing to take action on the plan. He noted that last month the Board had to take action on an important Board policy as well as comment on a memorandum of understanding. He stated that the Department had nearly completed the rollout of its plan and made information available to the public the following day but did not provide this information to the Board. He stated that the Board and Department could have avoided problems and issues related to school closures had the Department provided information in a timely manner. Board Member Voss stated that information is not just for the Board, it is also for the public. The Board is the conduit to the public giving the public access to data and information. He stated that the Board does not get the benefit of public input if it does not receive complete information in a timely manner. He stated that he disappointed with the Superintendent’s performance and does not support a rating of “effective.”

Board Member Uemura stated that his rating for Standard 3 is “unsatisfactory.” He reiterated that unsatisfactory means that expectations were not met, performance requires significant improvement, and there were no gains in program results. Board Member Uemura commented that he downgraded his rating from “marginal” to “unsatisfactory” since his previous evaluation. His basis for last year’s rating was due in part to continuing issues with materials presented to the Board that were not properly vetted for accuracy and relevancy. He stated that the Board relies on the Superintendent to provide all information that is required for the Board to take appropriate action. Incomplete or inaccurate information might result in delayed or incorrect action as well as hinders the Board from fulfilling its oversight responsibilities. He noted that the reasons for a rating of “marginal” still exist today with no noticeable gains having been made thus contributing to a rating of “unsatisfactory.”

Board Member Uemura detailed that additional items that contributed to his rating included Board IOUs, which is a vehicle that the Board Office uses to ensure that all questions and requests for information that are generated during a Board meeting are captured. He noted that the Department was not following up on these information requests nor answering questions. He noted that in the past year, some of the responses to IOUs were ill prepared, did not accurately respond to the request, second requests had to be sent, and sometimes IOUs were ignored. Board Member Uemura emphasized that this practice is unacceptable and prevents the Board from fulfilling its mandated responsibilities, including accountability and oversight of the Department.

Board Member Uemura stated that it is questionable whether Kishimoto has worked collaboratively with the Board because there has been a troubling trend of her presenting key action items to the Board close to deadlines thereby causing the Board to have limited time to review materials. Board Member Uemura detailed the Department’s extra compensation proposal. He noted that the entire Board approved the proposal in principle but some Board members were concerned about a plan for funding the extra compensation. He noted that Kishimoto stated that she worked on the plan for a year but yet did not present a comprehensive total plan that addressed funding scenarios, goals to be achieved, and could not tell the Board if the amount of extra compensation was sufficient to accomplish its goals. He detailed that follow-up answers to the Board’s questions were promised in January but not delivered. He noted that Kishimoto presented the proposal to the Board in December and needed approval by January 1, 2020. He stated that it was not ideal for the Board to fully consider the proposal when it should have been brought before the Board in September for proper vetting. Board Member Uemura stated that the proposal should have been a coordinated effort between the Governor, the Hawaii State Teachers Association, the Board, and the Legislature. However, the Department did not include the Board and legislative branch even though it was mentioned that they were included. Board Member Uemura stated that a lack of proper planning places the Board and legislative branch in a bad position.

Board Member Uemura detailed that the Department’s executive memorandum on Act 155 recommending two properties for approval by the Finance and Infrastructure Committee were biased and poorly done. He stated the memorandum created unnecessary tension in the community as well as amidst the Committee because the memorandum included plans for an elementary school site when the purpose of the recommendation in accordance of Act 155 was to seek approval of the sites for further due diligence and not for the use of the sites. He stated that the Department also sent a letter to the parents of the elementary school informing them of the intended use of the site. Board Member Uemura stated that the Department did not send letters regarding the other property nor mentioned the potential use of the site. He stated that this was a misguided attempt to influence the selection of the other site. He emphasized that there is no excuse for this as the process has been ongoing for more than three years and the guidelines are known.

Board Member Uemura stated that the Board received the 2030 Promise Plan two days prior to its meeting when it should have received the 2030 Promise Plan in January. More so, the Board was not actively engaged in the development of the plan. He noted that the plan was incomplete and did not represent a strategic plan since there was no operating plan nor financial plan to support implementation. He noted that the Board was asked to waive 2020 graduation requirements and approve a guidance plan without seeing the plan even though the Department had completed a draft. He noted that the Department should have provided the Board with a guidance plan if it were available at the time.

Board Member Uemura detailed that there are specific items that would assist him in determining his final rating. He asked Kishimoto to align the justification examples to the sub-standards so that the Board is able to ascertain which sub-standards are being met and to what extent the examples apply. He asked Kishimoto to explain the success of the data retreat from the perspective of the Department and the Board. He noted that while data was collected and shared, the Department did not provide analysis of the data nor how it could apply the data to improving student performance, closing the achievement gap, creating equity, and providing equitable supports for all students. He asked Kishimoto to explain how the Committee on Weights XI was successful in providing equity to rural, suburban, outer island, small, and large schools. He noted that the Committee on Weights recommendations were lacking in providing meaningful solutions and stated that the Board would have benefited from stronger leadership and direction.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that he supports a rating of “effective” for Standard 3. He detailed that the standard requires that the Superintendent partner effectively with the Board to ensure high quality education and noted that the standard covers how these roles lead to shared success and how the Superintendent manages and leads the Department. He stated that Kishimoto is effective in meeting these expectations. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that he understands problems and issues arise. He noted that the Department is a large and complex organization and the Board has many members with different perspectives regarding priorities. He stated that he is pleased with Kishimoto’s overall performance and supports her focus, vision, and approaches. He noted that the Board has embraced and supported many of these approaches, such as student voice and school empowerment. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that it appears as though there are communication issues regarding expectations of the chairs of committees. He noted that Kishimoto would need to address these concerns in an open, frank, meaningful, and expeditious manner. However, he does not support the rating of “unsatisfactory” or “marginal” given Kishimoto’s efforts and overall performance.

Board Member Barcarse stated that he agrees with Board Member Uemura’s concerns. He noted that part of the evaluation process is articulating expectations. He stated that he hopes communication, quality of materials, and timeliness improves moving forward. He noted that it puts the Board in a precarious position and at a disadvantage when its informed of decisions that were made the day before these decisions are made public or presented with information a couple of days prior to a Board meeting. He noted that residual fallout occurs that would not have occurred had the Department looped in the Board sooner. Board Member Barcarse emphasized the importance of quality, timing, communication, and data.

Kishimoto stated that she has a great relationship with the Board, all Board members have her phone number, she meets frequently with the Finance and Infrastructure chairs, and she has always been accessible to Board members. She noted that Board members stated that they were standing behind her and were supportive of her work during her mid-year review. She noted that this is very different feedback from what she received earlier in the year. She stated that she has viewed her relationship with the Board as partnership and is concerned regarding the lack of trust and faith in her leadership. She noted that she is receiving mixed messages. Kishimoto stated that she is in the midst of rolling out a major strategic plan and reorganization. She noted that the feedback she is receiving includes language regarding a lack of trust in her capacity and leadership. She stated that the Board supported her during her mid-year review while communicating areas in need of focus. She stated that the Board acknowledged that it had a good relationship and partnership with her. She noted that the fact that the Department is undergoing a crisis situation and has had to quickly make decisions and determinations should not be used as examples of areas in need of improvement. She stated that she would like to improve the entire situation and would like to not be in this crisis.

Board Member Voss stated that the Board does stand behind and support Kishimoto. He noted that students succeed if Kishimoto succeeds and at the core this is the Board’s mission and job. He stated that a public format for an evaluation is not the best and he would have voted differently had he served on Hawaii’s Supreme Court. Board Member Voss stated that comments made by Board members are meant to be constructive and provide opportunities for Kishimoto and the Department to improve and move toward being highly effective.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on a rating of “effective” for Standard 3 (Board Governance and Policy). The motion carried with Board Members De Lima, Barcarse, Cox, Kawano, Namauʻu, and Takeno voting aye, and Board Members Uemura and Voss voting nay.

ACTION: Motion to rate Superintendent Kishimoto as “effective” on Standard 3 (Board Governance and Policy) of her end-of-year evaluation for the 2019-2020 school year (De Lima/Cox).

The meeting recessed at 4:30 p.m. and reconvened at 4:36 p.m.

Board Chairperson Payne reviewed Standard 4 (Communication and Community Relations). She stated that per the previous agreement, Board Vice Chairperson De Lima moved and Board Member Cox seconded a motion for an effective rating.

Board Member Cox stated that she recognizes that Kishimoto and the entire Department are working hard in this area although there have been issues in communications. She stated that she previously voiced her concerns regarding the Department’s communication to principals but these are minor issues. She stated that Kishimoto has worked hard and she expects that she would continue to work hard. Board Member Cox stated that she backs the Superintendent and supports a rating of “effective.”

Board Member Voss stated that he supports a rating of “effective.” He noted that Kishimoto has been available to the media to articulate her views and has been a strong advocate for education and students. He cautioned that not every area needed a positive spin. Board Member Voss stated that he would like Kishimoto to be more frank regarding areas in which the Department has not made progress, acknowledge issues, and explain what the Department is doing to resolve issues.

Board Member Barcarse stated that he supports a rating of “effective.” He noted that there are areas in which communication could improve but appreciates Kishimoto being available and out in the public.

Board Member Uemura commented that communication is a two-way street. He emphasized the importance of both parties communicating rather than just talking. He noted that the Department copies in the Board in correspondence but it is evident that sometimes the Department’s responses do not answer the question. He stated that he would like Kishimoto to answer questions with specificity. He detailed that the Department did not directly response to questions posed in a letter by the HEʻE Coalition and did not provide direct answers to questions posed by Hawaii’s congressional delegation. He stated that there is room for improvement in terms of communications, but he would support a rating of either “effective” or “marginal.”

Board Member Namauʻu agreed that there is room for improvement in communications to the Board. However, Kishimoto is visible and takes opportunities to engage with communities and the public. She noted that Kishimoto is articulate and good spokesperson and commended her relationship building with business communities and the private sector. She stated that she would support a rating of “effective.”

Kishimoto stated that she would continue to review ways in which to expand and improve communication. She noted that the Department developed and is continuing to work and add to its communications plan that it presented to the Board a year ago. She stated that she reviews opportunities to use social media and communicate information in different ways. She highlighted the Department’s tri-level partnership in decision-making. Kishimoto acknowledged that there are areas in which the Department could improve outside of the crisis situation in terms of daily communications. She noted that every organization needed to continue to improve on its approach and emphasized the importance of a feedback loop. She stated that she would continue to review ways in which constituents would like the Department to communicate and generational approaches, such as social media versus print. She highlighted various community meetings where the Department collaborated with the Board and noted that these forums provided another opportunity for discourse with the community. Kishimoto highlighted upcoming webinars the Department plans to release to communicate with the public and further highlighted how she has led the Department to be part of national dialogues and engage in communication on a national level.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on a rating of “effective” for Standard 4 (Communication and Community Relations). The motion carried unanimously with Board Chairperson Payne and Board Members De Lima, Barcarse, Cox, Kawano, Namauʻu, Takeno, Uemura, and Voss voting aye.

ACTION: Motion to rate Superintendent Kishimoto as “effective” on Standard 4 (Communication and Community Relations) of her end-of-year evaluation for the 2019-2020 school year (De Lima/Cox).

Board Chairperson Payne reviewed Standard 5 (Equity Advocacy). She stated that per the previous agreement, Board Vice Chairperson De Lima moved and Board Member Cox seconded a motion for an effective rating.

Board Member Voss stated that he supports a rating of “highly effective” for Standard 5. He highlighted that Kishimoto has a good heart, strong sense of spirit, and her entire life is about equity. He noted that one of the main reasons that the Board hired Kishimoto was so that she could fix or attempt to fix serious issues within special education and English learner services. He stated that much of the progress in the area of equity is in large part due to Kishimoto’s advocacy.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that he supports a rating of “highly effective” and agrees with Board Member Voss. He stated that Kishimoto exemplifies empathy for students who are struggling and understands the need to focus on improving special education and other services. He stated that he recognizes that there are significant challenges in these areas, but Kishimoto has taken steps to improve inclusion rates and teacher training. He highlighted that the Department has focused on how to train and provide professional development internally rather than rely on outside consultants.

Board Member Cox stated that she supports a rating of “highly effective.”

Student Representative White described her experience struggling within equity systems in the Department and highlighted that Kishimoto has advocated for equity for all students, including creating initiatives to staff hard-to-staff schools and various classrooms experiencing shortages. She stated that from a student perspective, Kishimoto deserves the highest ratings on this standard.

Board Member Namauʻu agreed with other Board members and stated that she supports a rating of “highly effective.” She stated that equity advocacy is one of Kishimoto’s greatest strengths and it is apparent that Kishimoto is passionate about equity in all of her work and ensures that the Department consistently addresses equity.

Board Member Barcarse stated that he supports a rating of “highly effective” and noted that Kishimoto has proven both in word and in action that this area is one of her greatest strengths.

Kishimoto stated that it takes an entire community to recognize the value of children who are part of the public education system. She stated that it takes an entire community to be willing to make bold changes that truly lead to equity. Kishimoto highlighted that all Department employees, including state office staff, CASs, teachers, and principals, committed to a career in public education and are committed to achieving equity. She noted that there is still work to be done to truly achieve equity and provide access to quality education. She stated that inequity has become more apparent during this crisis and detailed various issues of equity that the Department, communities, and the nation would need to address. Kishimoto highlighted the importance of voice and stated that the Department is providing students with opportunities to use their voices.

Board Chairperson Payne asked if there was any objection to amend the rating of Standard 5 (Equity Advocacy) to “highly effective.” Board Member Uemura stated that he objects to this amendment.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on a rating of “effective” for Standard 5 (Equity Advocacy). The motion did not carry with Board Members Takeno and Uemura voting aye, and Board Chairperson Payne and Board Members De Lima, Barcarse, Cox, Kawano, Namauʻu, and Voss voting nay.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima moved to rate Superintendent Kishimoto as “highly effective” on Standard 5 (Equity Advocacy) for the 2019-2020 school year. Board Member Cox seconded.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on a rating of “highly effective” for Standard 5 (Equity Advocacy). The motion carried with Board Chairperson Payne and Board Members De Lima, Barcarse, Cox, Kawano, Namauʻu, and Voss voting aye, and Board Members Takeno and Uemura voting nay.

ACTION: Motion to rate Superintendent Kishimoto as “highly effective” on Standard 5 (Equity Advocacy) of her end-of-year evaluation for the 2019-2020 school year (De Lima/Cox).

Board Chairperson Payne stated that the Board would review ratings for all of the standards and discuss whether Board members want to change any of them. Board Chairperson Payne reviewed the overall rating for standards. She stated that per the previous agreement, Board Vice Chairperson De Lima moved and Board Member Cox seconded a motion for an effective rating.

The meeting recessed at 5:07 p.m. and reconvened at 5:09 p.m.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on an overall rating of “effective” for standards. The motion carried unanimously with all members present (Board Chairperson Payne and Board Members De Lima, Barcarse, Cox, Kawano, Namauʻu, Takeno, Uemura, and Voss) voting aye.

ACTION: Motion to rate Superintendent Kishimoto as “effective” overall on the professional standards of her end-of-year evaluation for the 2019-2020 school year (De Lima/Cox).

Board Chairperson Payne reviewed Superintendent Priorities, beginning with Superintendent Priority 1 (Advance teacher leadership that empowers and enables teachers to make powerful and effective decisions that ensure student success). She stated that per the previous agreement, Board Vice Chairperson De Lima moved and Board Member Cox seconded a motion for an effective rating.

Board Member Uemura commented that he believed that Superintendent Priorities change every year as the Board and Superintendent agree to and set priorities, including timelines and dates. He stated that Kishimoto has not met any of the priorities, which would result in a rating of “unsatisfactory.” However, this would not be fair to Kishimoto because the Board did not hold any meetings on April 16, 2020, which was one of the deadlines for one of her priorities. He noted that Kishimoto could have sent information to the Board by the deadline regardless, but logistically there would be issues with all of the priorities due the current situation.

Board Member Takeno agreed with Board Member Uemura’s analysis. He stated that Kishimoto has not met some of these priorities due to the current circumstances, which is not Kishimoto’s nor the Department’s fault. He stated that he would agree to a rating of “effective” and would give Kishimoto the benefit of the doubt that she would have met these priorities had it not been for the pandemic.

Board Member Voss agreed that Kishimoto could not have met the deadlines for her priorities due to the current circumstances because of the COVID-19 situation. He stated that it would not be productive for the Board to guess what might or might not have been accomplished by those deadlines if not for the pandemic. He stated that it would not be fair nor appropriate for the Board to move forward on rating her priorities. He noted that it is likely that Kishimoto would continue these priorities into the following school year. Board Member Voss suggested that the Board defer review and evaluation of the Superintendent Priorities to a future date when appropriate submittals can be made and the Board is able to provide a fair evaluation.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that he supports completing this evaluating and not rating the Superintendent Priorities. He stated that the Superintendent and the Board should determine whether these priorities should be included in next year’s evaluation.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima moved to amend the main motion to: (1) Complete the Superintendent’s end-of-year evaluation for the 2019-2020 school year without providing ratings for the Superintendent Priorities; and (2) Direct the Board and the Superintendent to consider whether the Superintendent Priorities from the 2019-2020 school year should be modified or included as Superintendent Priorities for the 2020-2021 school year. Board Member Takeno seconded.

Kishimoto stated that she is comfortable with the Board’s recommendation regarding her priorities. She highlighted that the Department recently completed its first iteration of a teacher leadership model and further highlighted that she looks forward to presenting these models to the Board and sharing them with constituents in the near future.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on the secondary motion to amend the main motion. The motion carried unanimously with all members present (Board Chairperson Payne and Board Members De Lima, Barcarse, Cox, Kawano, Namauʻu, Takeno, Uemura, and Voss) voting aye.

Board Chairperson Payne asked if there was any objection to accepting the main motion as amended. There was no objections.

ACTION: Motion to (1) Complete the Superintendent’s end-of-year evaluation for the 2019-2020 school year without providing ratings for the Superintendent Priorities; and (2) Direct the Board and the Superintendent to consider whether the Superintendent Priorities from the 2019-2020 school year should be modified or included as Superintendent Priorities for the 2020-2021 school year (De Lima/Cox).

Board Chairperson Payne reviewed the overall rating for the Superintendent. She stated that per the previous agreement, Board Vice Chairperson De Lima moved and Board Member Cox seconded a motion for an effective rating.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that he agreed with an overall rating of “effective.” Board Member Barcarse agreed with Board Vice Chairperson De Lima.

Board Vice Chairperson De Lima commented on the process of conducting evaluations in a public format. He stated that the Board has nine voting members who are all independent thinkers and do not function as a rubber-stamp. He stated that the public should have confidence that the Board is constructively critical of the Superintendent while simultaneously supporting her work. He noted that the Board offers feedback to assist Kishimoto in being a highly effective leader because all students will succeed if she succeeds. Board Vice Chairperson De Lima stated that he believes in Kishimoto and her desire to advocate for equity and champion students who are struggling. He highlighted that the Board and Department are lucky to have a Superintendent with her level of understanding. He stated that the Board does not view Kishimoto in less than admirable ways. He noted that she has challenges due to the Department’s size, technology, and current systems, but has passion and an effective team to address concerns in proactive way.

Board Chairperson Payne agreed with Board Vice Chairperson De Lima. She stated that she is impressed with Kishimoto’s engagement, dedication, and scholarship. She recognized Kishimoto as an outstanding educator and stated that she has confidence that Kishimoto would be able to address issues regarding communication and operations to the satisfaction of the Board. She stated that the Board does not have doubts about Kishimoto’s capability to lead the Department in challenging times.

Board Member Cox agreed with other Board members and stated that Kishimoto is a true educational leader who is willing to listen to how to improve. She stated that the Board supports her in her work.

Board Chairperson Payne called for a roll call vote on an overall rating for the Superintendent of “effective.” The motion carried unanimously with all members present (Board Chairperson Payne and Board Members De Lima, Barcarse, Cox, Kawano, Namauʻu, Takeno, Uemura, and Voss) voting aye.

ACTION: Motion to rate Superintendent Kishimoto as “effective” overall on her end-of-year evaluation for the 2019-2020 school year (De Lima/Cox).


V. Adjournment

Board Chairperson Payne adjourned the meeting at 5:27 p.m.