EDU-LBT, EDU DEFER, EDU Public Hearings 03-23-2026

001Good afternoon everyone. Hope you have dried out from the weekend and you're ready to go for this week. Keep our fingers crossed that we have nice weather. We are here in room 229 for the committee on education jointly with the committee on labor and technology for hearing three measures. Uh today's Monday, March 23rd. It's 100 p.m. And if we must end this hearing due to technical issues, the committee will reconvene on Wednesday, March 25th at 1 p.m. in this room 229. And a public notice will be posted on the Hawaii State Legislaturator's website. And due to the number of measures before committee and volume of testifiers, testimonies will be limited to one minute per testifier. And I want to welcome the labor committee. Welcome, chair. >> Thank you. >> First item on the agenda, do

002you have the >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate you uh incorporating us into your time slot. First item on our agenda is House Bill 1890, House draft 3, relating to education. First up on our list is Jen Mustto, I should say. Sorry, it's the Italian part that I >> You're right. If you were Italy, we would be >> Yes. >> Good to see. >> Thank you, chair. Thank you, vice chair. Thank you, members of the committee. I have to take my minute of personal privilege and say it feels like I'm home again. Um, you have my written testimony. Let me just say that I keep going around to both House and Senate hearings about I'm sorry. If you could speak a little directly into the mic, please. Thank you. >> I've been going to

003House and Senate committees talking about proposals that fund teacher salaries, DOE, all of those good things. Someone asked me at one of the hearing what my personal opinion was. I said, I don't have one. I'm here representing the governor of the state of Hawaii. But in that capacity, I can tell you Governor Green absolutely is committed to public education and the teachers of Hawaii and the administrators of Hawaii and everyone. However, in our wisdom, we created Chapter 89. Chapter 89 was unique in the United >> Thank you, Mr. Mosto. I'm sorry, your time's up, but we do have your written comments. >> Yes. Again, in opposition. >> Thank you, Ed. No. State public charter school commission. It is Mr. No. Online >> not available on Zoom. Chair. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh we'll go to

004Attorney General Amanda Donlin or >> Fama Rago. Aloha. Welcome. >> Good afternoon chairs Elephante and Kim and members of the committee. I'm Deputy Attorney General Biamarago providing testimony on behalf of the department of the attorney general. As written, this bill may create ambiguities related to the source of funding. Our draft language resolves those ambiguities and makes it clear that funding is subject to legislative appropriations. Additionally, this bill now includes a retention bonus for those who worked during the CO 19 state of Hawaii pandemic period. Draft language has been suggested so it does not conflict with chapter 89 the collective bargaining chapter. If the suggested changes are not adopted we respectfully ask the committees to hold this bill. I'm available for questions should you have any. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Robbo. Uh Keith Hayashi

005superintendent de or representative. >> Good afternoon chairs vice chairs and members of the committee. Sean Bacon speaking on behalf of the department. The department stands on its written testimony providing comments and we do support the intent of this measure supporting all of our teachers with recruitment and retention. We would just ask that this bill be expanded to incorporate all of the department employees so they can receive the same benefits. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Seth Kobe, BNF director written testimony available for questions. >> Written testimony in opposition. >> Opposition. Thank you. also to a HSTA. >> Hello Millie. >> Aloha chair, vice chair. Sarah Millan on behalf of HSTA. Um, thank you for hearing this bill. So teaching during co was the hardest thing I've ever done. I've been teaching for 21 years.

006So that screen that you have on the board. I had some kids online teaching learning computer science. I had some kids in person. I was managing things back and forth. I was writing lessons. I was putting it together. Teachers worked so hard at that time and deserve to be compensated. So definitely that retention bonus for those of us who stayed in the classroom, we're where we want to be. Thanks for honoring our service if you go ahead and support that. In terms of automatic step increases, I just want to go ahead and draw your attention. We've heard from a lot of your peers that um this language has not been negotiated. I have copies of contracts if you want one with page 66. We have negotiated this automatic step increases as long as it's funded

007by your body. So that language is there in case people want to know. Automatic step are best practice. So it helps a teacher know where you're going in your career. I think it's also important you want mentor teachers like me staying in the classroom and not seeking admin jobs to make more money. You want us to be able to have a living wage in the classroom to provide for our families and care for the kids in our state. >> Okay. Thank you. And in support? >> Yes. In >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Chris Coughfield. >> Hello committee chairs uh and vice chairs and committee members. I'm Chris Coughfield speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party of Hawaii's Education Caucus uh in support of this bill. Uh the party has long believed that higher compensation, adequate

008compensation uh leads to better teacher quality, better teacher retention, recruitment and retention uh and ultimately better student outcomes. Uh the legislature has including both of your committees have for a long time tried to create innovative pathways to provide adequate teacher compensation for our state to improve the teacher shortage and help boost outcomes uh for our students. So this is another vehicle that's important in uh making that happen. We hope that you will move it forward. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Thank you so much. And then the last person I have registered to testify is Kylie Adam Otammani in support on Zoom. Hope I got your last name correct. I'm sorry if I mispronounced pronunciated your last name, but please proceed. >> Good afternoon, Chair Elephante and Kim and members of the committee. My name

009is Kylie Adam. I'm an 11th grader at Kalle Hill High School and I'm in strong support of House Bill 1890. As a public school student in Hoy who hopes to become an elementary school teacher, this bill is very important to me. Right now, when adjusted for cost of living, Ho's teachers are among the lowest paid in the nation. The high cost of living makes it very difficult for teachers to stay here, which also leaves many teachers forced to choose between staying in their home or leaving their passion. We are already seeing the impact. Nearly half the teachers leave within 5 years. When that happens, student lose stability and consistency in their education. Providing automatic step increases gives teachers predictable growth and a reason to stay. Research shows that competitive pay and structured salary growth improves

010teacher retention and strengthen schools. This bill is not just about pay. It's about supporting students or supporting teachers in investing in our future. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. In addition to that, members, we had 13 folks in support, three in opposition, and three comments. Anyone else that wishes to testify on House Bill 1890, House draft 3? Okay. If not, members, questions? >> Um, yeah. Jay, >> it's good to see you. By the way, you haven't changed since I've seen you last. Um, as far as the negotiation, as it was pointed out, didn't haven't the step increased already been negotiated into the contract? >> This is true. They are in a current contract. However, contracts are a limited term. They expire. There is nothing in any contract that automatically rolls over without it being negotiated

011in to a successor agreement. We're about to enter negotiations. Uh I suspect that this item will be on the table and that they would like similar language perhaps in their next contract. But under chapter 89, there is no such thing as rolling contract language that does not have to be reaffirmed predicated on the the expiration date of the current agreement. So you're saying that every time we negotiate a contract like say negotiate that the teachers get their um vacation upfront has to be renegotiated every year. >> It is subject to negotiated to negotiations every time there's a new contract. The parties would often agree that they would roll the contract language over because we've been doing it since 1971. But that doesn't mean that it automatically happens. That's the difference. >> Okay. So, in the

012current contract, these step automatic step increases are in there, right? >> There are step increases in the current contract >> and >> that occurred during the life of the contract. It's a four-year agreement. It's four years. If it's two-year, >> right? So, but these step increases h have had they been given within this contract? >> I assume so. They are part of the language. They should have been and if they weren't, the HSTA I'm sure would have filed a grievance. >> Okay. Well, we'll ask them on that. Okay. >> Members, any questions for the chief negotiator? Okay. Any other further follow-up questions for any Madam Chair? You had a request HSDA. >> Okay. So, yeah, that can you respond to what was said? J said. So, we're talking about the automatic step increases and the

013the bill specifically says if negotiated into um a collective bargaining agreement. So, we are aware that the contracts can change from time to time. And in our current contract, the one that's 2023 to 2027, this one in page 66, it does say that the state and the um HST have agreed to automatic step increases subject to funding. This is where the funding needs to come in through the legislature. um that part of the contract has not been um moving through so far. Um as far as the automatic steps are concerned, there are negotiations with the state when it comes to like salary increases. Maybe it could be across the board increase of like say hypothetically 3 or 4%. There could be a step increase if it's negotiated or they could negotiate and change the salary

014schedule as well. As you can see here, this is what our salary schedule looks like under the current 2026 2027 school year. You can see different classes and different schedules. And these are what teachers will make across the board. But what we're looking at really is just automatic step increases. This is something that would help with the retention and recruitment of teachers. And you can also see too um I think it was provided to many of you on the committee. The Department of Education actually committed a study and in this study it did say that automatic step increases the number one way to help retain and recruit teachers um in Hawaii. And it's a best practice that's usually done um in many other states. And so this is just something too that we're looking at

015to adopt here in Hawaii. But yes, um under this current contract, automatic step increases are in there. Of course, it's something that will continue to seek in future contracts, but the bill also says if negotiated into a contract. So um just to keep that in mind as well. >> Okay. So it's already there. >> Yes. >> So then is this bill needed if it's already there and can be negotiated? >> It it is needed. We do feel that this is strongly needed to um because of the annual step increases are subject to funding and this is important that they're um and we codify this on the law >> but we we can fund it but we haven't fund it. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And then and then just to point out too I

016mean there are things that the legislature does as well that is done through statutes. We look at national board certification for example, this is in law where we provide an annual bonus um to NBC teachers of either 5,000 or it could be up to 10,000 in like hard to staff areas. We also see like even like um firefighters call rescue workers I think at the state airport where they get certain like hazard pay compensation that's done through statute as well. So even though we have chap 9 and things negotiated, we do things too legislatively as well that give various incentives like a bonus or like a hazard pay or something of that nature where it does occur already. >> So um what is your comment regarding the DOE's position that if we do this then

017the legislature should do it for all member >> um >> I'm not aware who they're trying to suggest for um which other workers. I talk about the different bargaining units talking about the exemp 2 and three >> um >> four 6 9 10 and 13. >> I can't speak for the other bargaining units. We're the exclusive representative for HSTA and I don't want to speak for those bargaining units um and we're here advocating for um bargaining unit members. >> Okay. Um is there a concern that the department was able to go ahead and give their administrative um some of the increases and the CO increases? You're absolutely right. So, back about a year ago, um December of I believe 2024, if I'm not mistaken, um the department came in and requested um hazard pay for

018all of the exempt or basically like middle management. Those are the workers that work at the Department of Education building across the street. Somewhere around 2 to 300 workers got the same amount of hazard pay that was negotiated with um the HGBA um union. So they got anywhere between $10 to $20,000 also depending on how many days they worked, the hours they worked. So those workers did get hazard pay where of course bar five members did not. And they by the way those workers didn't have a contract that says they deserve hazard pay or they have hazard pay in their language. It was something that the board of education authorized for the department when the department requested it for those workers >> and they didn't they didn't request it for any of the other units.

019No, only for the only for the exempt management level positions >> that they want this bill to then apply to area. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> A follow up to that. So currently now I know I believe in the house and finance they included language for teacher retention bonus during basically during COVID. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Did was there any temporary hazard pay language in your contract? >> Not in our contract. >> Okay. So this is an ask that you're coming to to the legislative body. Yes. Okay. >> But there's precedent. So again, saying that the DOE that they gave that to 200 some workers retroactively who hadn't even worked with people the front line during during COVID. So our teachers saw that and like Millie, how does that happen when we

020were with kids every day in the classroom? The teacher that I made lesson plans for, the educational assistant, she got it. I did all the same work at the at these scary times and weren't we weren't compensated for it. So teachers feel that this this is a fairness issue as well. >> Okay. Hi. >> Um, one final question I have is so as a follow-up to that, um, I do appreciate, you know, HSDA for coming up with some creative ways on how to look to fund some of these measures, but in the current bill, it has it as installments. >> Yes. >> Uh, over the next several years, do you have a dollar amount if we were to pass this, what that would cost per year? Um, so it this only currently only applies to

021active workers that are still working for the Hawaii Department of Education that work during that period of time. The number would probably be in the range of over the course of the 4-year period total would probably be in the range of 150 to 200 million if there were the funding of that nature. So that's why we looked at the um if you recall we were looking at the the rental car um tax right as far as um a mechanism to provide funding for the state to provide a revenue generation. Um and that was a way to raise anywhere between 70 to $80 million annually for the state. One thing if you notice in this bill is it doesn't start the payments until I think two years um in 2028 if I'm not mistaken. Um that

022way that looks at they're trying to look at the state for economic well-being as well. Right. So, and it's also done in $5,000 installments over a four-year period. So, it's not as big of a price tag in just one year. >> Okay. >> Thank you, >> Chim. Just wanted to say I certainly can identify with what you're saying fairness because we in the legislature or in the Senate, our COVID committee worked really long hours, many days, and we didn't get anything. Some of our some of the people that were staff and now legislators got co money. And so, yeah, we understand. However, in this time of um austerity that we're going through with everything, um you know, a case can certainly be made that you negotiated these step increases. It's difficult that uh on the

023co sites. So, just understand where you're coming from. >> Understand >> and teachers do our homework. So, when you ask, we came with the revenue generator because we wanted to make sure that we did our homework to see how we could help the state too. >> Thank you. >> Sort of like me. Yeah. >> Absolutely. >> You absolutely do your homework. Yes. >> Any any further follow-up questions? I had to ask some clarification please. So this bill would allow uh that payment to be made only for teachers who are currently teaching and worked during the co period. Those teachers who have since retired would not get paid. >> Not under this current draft. >> I don't see how that's fair. But >> any further followup questions? Okay. If not, I'll turn it over to you

024Kim for the next items. Thank you. >> Thank you. Let's see where are we 188. Okay. House Bill 1888, House draft 3. This is relating to the safety of educational workers. Requires Department of Education and public charter schools to take certain steps to report incidents of harassment and implement procedures for handling harassment of education workers. Elevates the penalty for harassment of education workers to a misdemeanor. And uh see here to testify for Department of Education Kayashi. >> Hello Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kedani, Chair Elephante, Vice Chair Lamos, members of the committee, Shantima testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands on our written testimony in support of this measure. Uh this bill helps to protect our educational workers from harassment, especially because it elevates the offense offense from a petty misdemeanor to

025a misdemeanor. We really appreciate the department of the attorney general developing the pilot program to assist state employees with the temporary restraining orders. Uh given the attorney general's pilot program, the department would like to recommend the following amendment to section 2C number five. Um the page >> uh I have it on for me it's page four the section 2C. >> Okay. >> Number five. >> So it reads um assist educational workers who are subjected to harassment and they were requesting to amend the next part to remove including providing assistance in obtaining a temporary restraining order then adding the word by and then continue with the rest reimbursing the educational worker. Uh the reason why we're requesting that is because the attorney general's pilot will be providing that assistance uh in helping helping the employees to

026obtain a temporary restraining order which is more appropriate uh than the department of education providing legal assistance in obtaining a a TTRO. So given that the attorney general's pilot will address that we feel it's more appropriate that the language be removed from the bill. So we strongly support this bill to protect our educational workers from harassment. Uh, thank you for this opportunity to testify. We stand by for questions. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Uh, testifying for the Office of Public Defender, Haley Sheng. >> Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs, and members of the committee. My name is Haley Chang. I am the first deputy of the Office of the Public Defender. Um, our office has submitted testimony in opposition to this bill, and we want to focus our testimony only on part two,

027which amends the harassment statute and elevates it to a full misdemeanor. Uh, we've outlined in our written testimony the very clear conflict that we see with the language disrupts or interferes. We believe that it is overly broad, vague, and would not withstand constitutional scrutiny. Um, in addition, we believe it runs into speech protected by the First Amendment, and we've outlined that in more detail in our testimony. We also want to highlight for these committees um that we also believe that there are already statutes in place to address any problematic behavior and that educational workers are already a protected class under our terroristic, threatening, and assault statutes. Um, so we believe that this measure is unnecessary. Um and again our biggest concern is that it would not withstand con constitutional or judicial scrutiny. So that's all

028my time. I'll be available for questions. Thank you. >> Thank you Ed. No for charter schools here also for HSTA. >> Aloha vice chair Sarah Milan on behalf of HSDA. Um we're excited to see this bill move forward. Obviously, we've seen the news on when it comes to threat threatening educational workers, but also this bill has been in the works for quite a few years. There's been some really powerful advocates kind of advocating for it. Um, and it's something that needs to happen. I I need you to understand that after COVID, like things have changed in education. Um, the way that teachers are approached at student conferences, um, at academic events, at awards ceremonies, um, I've had parents come up and talk about grade changes in pretty forceful ways. I'm also the president of the

029HSTACA Leeward chapter. So 3,000 teachers on the Leeward side and teachers tell me they've had pe kids and families come up to their cars to argue points from conferences yet to meet them at their soccer games. That there's an intimidation factor and I think we need to address this especially because a lot of educational workers are women and there's this belief that women can be menaced or um as a pink collar profession can be talked to in a different kind of way and get a different kind of peace and that we have to stand up for ourselves. So we're here today hoping that you move this forward so you can give us an extra layer of protection. Thank you. Look at the women in this body. I don't think we can be. >> I mean,

030I like your >> talking about us. Okay. Uh Susan Ro for Special Education Advisory Council. >> Yes. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair. Um I'm here representing the Special Education Advisory Council. >> Can you speak up a little bit more, please? >> Surely. Can you Is this better? >> Better. Yes. Uh I'm here representing SEAK as we call it and your committee four years ago helped us kill certain language in this bill. It's the bill that was referred to by the Office of the Public Defender which includes disrupting and interfering with a school function. We don't believe that's menacing. We don't think it's warranting a severe penalty. It also intimidates parents who have children with IEPs who are entitled by IDEIDA to speak up for their children. So we hope that you will take out these

031two amendments that we find uh very troublesome. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Let's see. We have uh Lasman Shane. Did I say that correctly? >> Sorry if I don't even worry about it. Yasm mean Cheney for the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. It's Spanish like tortilla with Hawaii. Yeah. See? Um okay. So I am here uh standing on my written testimony in support of this measure and thank the committee for your consideration and support. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Linda Elento on Zoom. >> Not available on Zoom. Chair. >> Okay. Uh Annalie Rodrigz on Zoom. not present on Zoom. >> Okay. In support, uh, Inger Stonehill on Zoom in support. >> Okay, there we have it. >> Hi. Okay. Sorry. Hi, Anger Stonehill. I um stand on my

032written testimony and um in in support and I just like to say a few other little things and I I know keep it under a minute. So I just want to say and listening to everybody I kind of want to cry but here we go. Harassment in our schools is too it it's too minimized and handled inconsistently. People are getting hurt as we have seen. So how many more educators have to carry that fear? How many more have to suffer in silence wondering if if anyone will listen? And I'm here to say that has happened to me and I'm still suffering. So it leads to a lot of stress, burnout, people leaving the profession because of this. So, I just feel this bill and I've been trying to get, you know, I've been working on

033this, working on this for the past couple years to get it through so we all are accountable and it does help uh bed parents to be able to talk so everybody's on the same page. So, I just urge you to support this so we don't have to feel alone. And I am happy that the DOE or the attorney general is offering this pilot program that will help, but we need to have something more in place so that we're all on the same page so that we all can be accountable. So, thank you for listening to me and um yeah, I think that's under a minute. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Let's see. I have several others in support. Um, several opposing. Let's see. 16 opposing, 20 in support. With that, anyone else

034wishing to testify? I'm sorry, I missed somebody that's on Zoom. >> Hi, Lindsay Chambers on Zoom. >> Okay, Lindsay. Thank you. Go ahead. >> Chair Kim, Chair Elephante, Vice Chairs, and members of the committee. I stand on my written testimony and strong support of HB1-188. It is clear that employers, particularly government agencies, must do more in light of the growing number of attacks targeting public employees. This reality is reflected in the judiciary bills introduced this session, which would allow public employers to seek TRO in cases of employment related harassment. One parent who harassed educational workers for years resumed targeting me on social media after the three-year court issued injunction expired. The conduct is ongoing, intentional, and shows the terrifying stalking behavior of these perpetrators. Parent and educ educational worker partnerships are essential. As a parent,

035I understand that completely. However, strong partnerships must be grounded in safety. No child should witness an educator being threatened or harassed. Yet, teachers have experienced that in person and online. Educator safety is student safety. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify? Please come on up. Identify yourself. >> Good afternoon, chairs and vice chairs of the committees. My name is Michelle Pestoaga. I am I testifying in strong opposition of HB1 1888 House draft 3 based on our firsthand experience of Hawaii Department of Education's educational workers as defined in the bill. Our daughter Ana was born with a unique genetic anomaly in cle lip and cleft pallet. She's a former special education student at Hayon Elementary School from 2012 to 2019. From August 2019 through today, she's

036been homeschooled. She refuses to return back to a regular school in fear of what has happened to her. The trauma that she experienced was not just from students bullying her. It was also from the administrators. Seven years out of the school environment, she still needs the lights on at night to sleep and still has nightmares about what happened to her at school. In 2017 2018 school year, Ana was put into a secluded classroom, door closed and lights turned off. It was called the Unicorn Learning Center. When the schoolbased behavior health representative assigned to Anna learned of this room, she informed the sped teacher that this would be considered a seclusion room and it was to be discontinued. The room was still used on December 20th, 2017, halfway into the school year. How many times she

037was put in that room, we don't know. 2018 2019, Ana was restrained school year, Ana was restrained on three separate occasions. All three restraints took place in a one-mon period. two within days. During one of the restraints, the vice principal provoked and scared Ana to where she climbed a tree to flee to a safe place. The DOE team then pressured us to sign documentation to continue to allow the staff to restrain Anya even after we raised significant concerns about the adverse effects of restraints and we vemently disagreed with this approach. 2018 2019 on another occasion staff kept Anna after the bell inside a classroom with a closed door for 20 minutes with no explanation to me while I was instructed to wait outside. These are just a few examples of what our family endured while

038sending Anya to public school. Our family supports safety for all persons in schools to include staff, students and parents, everyone. Four years ago, a similar bill was going through legislature and I sat up here and I gave you the same information. Excuse me. I'm sorry. DOE representatives during that hearing provided testimony in the House Judiciary Committee on February 24th, 2022 that specifically stated the following about parents of special education students. Not only do they harass, but they also interfere with the operations of the school. This testimony specifically targeted special education parents and is extremely concerning. >> Can you summarize, please? Can you summarize? >> Yeah. So, it's okay. My name is Jason Manga. Um, I am father of Ana Manga and Michelle's husband. Um, as parents of former former special education student um that had

039to endure IEP meetings where we had to actually physically record um the meetings because the ineptness of the folks that were in those meetings uh and the knowledge that they had um was just um they had no knowledge of special education. So, we had to forcefully go to those IEP meetings. We had to forcefully and aggressively um advocate for our daughter. We actually had to go get our own independent evaluator, our own sorry, >> independent educational that cost about $3,000. >> We had to text with the um the the teachers, the DOE teachers, um the special education teachers. So in that case, I just fear that a law like this is going to make what we did for our daughter seem like harassment or aggressiveness towards the department employees. And we had to do that

040to advocate for our daughter who deserves these services under IEDA. So I am very concerned that a department system is going to over supersede an individual right and that is a serious problem. There are already laws in place um as a public defender said that can take care of this and this is just I think a step in the wrong direction to make it more difficult for a lot of different individuals versus a department that can take this and and somehow address the issue in other ways. Thank you for the time and >> thank you. Thank you. >> I'm sorry for what's happened to your daughter. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure >> hearing? Hearing none, we are open to questions. >> Is AG here attorney general's office? >> Understand? >> Did

041you want to ask anything? >> I just wondered if they had an opinion on this. I can with the department and get back to you on that, >> please. Thank you. >> As a followup that to the AG, sorry, I know you're not the representative for that, but there were some comments made by the Department of Education if there are two bills that are moving to do a pilot program regarding TTRO's on employees. If you could follow up and find out if that would cover what's being proposed here in this bill. >> Thank you. Can we have the public defender, please? >> Thank you. Uh, I know that it's a balance that we're trying to seek and I realize that there are bills and laws on the books, but if the laws aren't are working

042or aren't working, I mean, how do you what do you say to that? because the incident that happened at Moana High School um you know and others have prompted measures like this perhaps the measures that we're looking at doesn't safeguard for situations that's been raised um so can you can you address that? >> Sure and thank you for the question. Um, you know what we've been hearing as these bills have been making its way through the session is that the Department of Education and other concerned individuals are primarily focused on what is considered this egregious behavior. Um, you know, the true threatening, very, you know, aggressive behavior, yelling inappropriately. We believe if there's an enforcement issue either with law enforcement or the prosecuting agencies, that's a different issue. Um there are already laws under the

043existing harassment statute without this additional language as well as the other terroristic threatening and assault statutes that already specially protect educational workers that are already in place. um our main concern is and and that's what we maybe need to shift the focus to is why these things if they're reported to law enforcement are not being either taken seriously or not pursued by the prosecuting agencies. Um, additionally that disrupts or interferes, you know, just from a pure legal perspective, this is not meant to in any way discount the feelings of the educational workers or the need to address some problematic behavior. But is interrupting a teacher during a meeting a disruption? Under the plain language of the statute, it would be um if you are, you know, passionately engaging at a board meeting, is that a

044disruption or interfering? If you, as you've heard from these parents, showing up at the school without an appointment to advocate for your child, is that an interference with school activities, which according to the plain language of the statute, it would be. Um, so that really is our main concern. And then also highlighting for people who believe that there's nothing already in place to assist or protect educational workers. Highlighting and providing information to people that there there are um and they are seen as a protected class above and beyond a lot of other individuals. Um and so for example under terroristic threatening what's a misdemeanor normally is a felony for educational workers. under assault. A misdemeanor conduct assault is already a felony for educational workers. So, we are very appreciative and understand the knee-jerk reaction to

045want to bring more attention and respond to some of the things that are going on. Um, but that does not in any way, shape, or form take away from the fact that this measure as written um would not withstand constitutional scrutiny. We are we feel very confident about that. um and just educating the community and even perhaps the department and as well as um other people who are concerned about this that we already have criminal measures on the books that are targeted to specially protect our educational workers. Are you familiar with Senate Bill 2900 that um talked about the sports officials as well as uh educational workers uh limited to bodily injury and stuff like that? Are you familiar with that bill? >> I am familiar. Um, and what I recollect about that measure is

046it sought to escalate what would normally be misdemeanor assault three level conduct, which is defined as assaultive behavior causing bodily injury. Um, under the law, bodily injury is just physical pain. So, for example, if you pulled someone's hair without leaving a mark, a bruise, anything, that would normally be assault-free conduct because our legislature has, you know, has a spectrum of crimes that we do and with increasing behavior. What I believe that measure, if I remember correctly, wanted to do was take that conduct and if it was committed against a sporting official was make it a class B felony assault in the first degree. Um and we oppose that for similar reasons here and also noting that again sports officials are already a protected class >> but the bill itself does u does not have some

047of the issues that are is in this bill. >> It did not include um the disrupts or interferes because it was truly I believe from my recollection addressing physical contact bodily injury type of behavior. >> So it's a little more nar a lot more narrow than this measure. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Members, any questions? Questions? I >> got a question. >> Senator Favlla. >> So, just I like some clarification. So, >> I'm a special education student. I have u emotionally handicapped or I have some kind of situation and then um school is known notified principal teachers and I have an outbreak in a sense um you know being restrained of course that usually the teacher or their uh shadow helps to restrain. Now the student knocks the teacher down teacher get

048hurt that student going to get charged with a felony. I mean not a failing but immediately does it cover this child for being disciplined for that actions that happens on campus under the special education. >> There is no delineation under this measure for special education students or students who are non special education. >> Yeah. Um, I think what you've described in terms of the criminal statute >> or any applicable laws that may have be broken would go into the intent behind the behavior um and the conduct. >> Um, so it's a I'm I'm not trying to be evasive. It's just a little bit of a complex fact pattern, but but this bill um doesn't delineate any difference between any type of student no matter what their designation would be. The reason why is that at

049one time we had the no child left behind, right? And some of these kids are put in the education system because they need to be educated. But knowing that they would be in a predicament that they might act up to a certain point and then be criminalized or even justifies in in imprisonment. Um that's why I have a hard time with this bill. Um because coming from a special education uh background as a special learning disability, I had times that I would get frustrated because I cannot read and write well when I was younger, not when I got older. And uh my peers used to do way better than me. And I used to get frustrated and act out a lot in class verbally and throwing things and everything. And I think to myself, wow,

050if I was if this bill passed, I probably would have got in trouble back then. >> Yes. And to your point, uh, Senator, the verbal disruption, whether it's due to a, um, you know, a learning issue or a special needs issue, whatever it may be, um, if there was a disruption in the classroom, um, this the plain language of the bill as proposed would technically be harassment. That is our concern as well. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, chair. >> Thank you. I think part of the issue as well is when we turned our schools into uh places where now they have to be experts in mental health issues and other kinds of um issues that they weren't trained to do. They're really not trained to handle it and that doesn't

051excuse the behavior and it doesn't make any of that right. And certainly the responsibility rests with DOE to either make sure they're trained or we we have to change the laws or something because that is happening more and more. So um but thank you. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> There's one followup. So um back in the when I when I was going to school back in the day, the principal um played a pretty good role in the sense of um articulating on what's punishment, goes where and we I guess they had a lot of responsibility and back in that day we had students there. I think we still get chapter 19. Yeah. regardless of the fact of special education a lot of the students do have to follow within chapter 19 or getting you

052know expelled so there is consequences within the DOE it's just that it doesn't go to this extent so I just wanted to make sure that you know my colleagues and a lot of you understand that there is measures in place yes >> for the protection of our DOE and our employees on campus because um it's already it's there >> yes and there's protections that are not afforded to the general public um who are not designated as a protected class above and beyond what normal citizens would would receive already. Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you, chair. >> Any other questions? Hearing no other questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Let's see. Moving on to the last item on this joint hearing agenda is relating to artificial intelligence. House Bill 1676, House draft 1, uh,

053establishes an artificial intelligence and education task force to develop guidelines and recommendations for the use of artificial intelligence in state public education. Um, testifying Keith Yashi for the Department of Education. >> Hello. chairs, vice chair, members of the committee, Winston Sakurai representing the department. We stand in support uh and want to share that we believe artificial intelligence is important to help uh guide provide guidance to support our students and educators and we've been working on this uh for the past four years uh with a work group within the department and also working as recently as last week with the University of Hawaii uh on artificial intelligence. But thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> Thank you, Steven Shots. Excuse me. >> Aloha chairs, vice chair, members of the committee. Steven shots. On behalf of

054Deborah Halbert, vice president at the University of Hawaii system, uh we stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. Haven't yet answer any questions if there are any. >> Thank you, Stephen. Edno, not present. Let's see who else. Uh, Hawaii State Youth Commission testifying on Zoom. >> Not here. >> Not available. Chair, >> I'm sorry. >> Not there. Chris Caulfield for Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus. He was here earlier. Chris, are you there? Okay. If not, let's see. We had 10 10 testimonies in support. None opposing. Uh members were open for questions. I have a question. I guess DOE. >> So you said you've been working on this for four years. Why do you need this measure? >> One of the things that that the measure provides is the opportunity to partner

055with more entities. uh we we are in support because we know that is important but we will continue our work if we need to because it is also important for our students. So >> well can't you reach out to these entities? I mean you got the University of Hawaii already P20 I mean you I just bothers me every time we need a law when you can do it or if you're already doing it why why you got to wait for a law to create a working group? >> Uh we appreciate that and uh yes we we um have been doing that uh even uh international partners and national partners as well. uh there is appropriation in there which we understand in these uh uh austere times that >> so so but we will continue to

056work uh because it is important for our students so we could do that. >> Who what partners are you working with? >> Uh we've worked with the University of Hawaii. We've also worked with some of the members of the um ISTY, International Society of Technology and Educ uh Education uh National Association of Secondary School Principles and then there's a couple work groups uh with Canada and the United States as well. >> Okay. Because according to this, we're talking about representatives from University of Hawaii, Department of Education, teacher and employee unions, charter school, independent school representatives, state chief information officer, and possibly Native Hawaiian education specialist. So, is this people that you've been all working with already >> in in different forms? We've worked with some of the private schools recently. We've uh provided some training.

057>> Can you formalize that into a working group without this measure? >> That is possible. Yes. >> Okay. So, we're authorizing you right now to >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> To put this group together so we don't need to make more paper and have more bills with that. >> Yep. Thank you. >> And you're going to come back and report to us, right? Next year. >> Yeah, we will definitely share all the good things that are happening in our schools with the >> We're going to hold you to that. >> Thank you members. Any other questions? Okay. Hearing none. I think that's the end of our joint bills decision making. Recess. >> Recess real quick. Recess. Call back to order the joint committee on education and labor. We are in decision making.

058Uh chair for labor for the first item. >> Okay. Members, uh first item is House Bill 1890, House draft 3. Chairs having conferred. Recommendation here is we're going to pass with amendments. We're going to add language to include the annual salary step increases for public charter school teachers. Members, we had this in our companion Senate draft bill. So, thank you for the testimony from Mr. No. Um, we're also going to accept and adopt the AG's proposed amendments in their testimony. Further, we're also in in addition to that, we're going to strike language as it relates to teacher retention bonuses. Um and members that's because as from one of the line of questionings while we appreciate all the teachers and staff has done in BU5 and all that being that it wasn't in their collective bargaining

059agreements in that contract and the annual step increases is uh we are going to strike that language and that language came over from the house and then further we're going to change the effective date to July 1st 2077. Any further discussion, questions, comments or concerns? Okay. If not for the committee on labor and technology, vice chair lamas for the vote to pass with amendments. Chair votes I. >> Okay. Members voting on HB1890HD3. Recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments. Chair votes I. Vice chair also votes I. Senator Yhara is excused. Senator Moriwalki is also excused. Senator Pavlla. >> Oh shar. Okay. >> She's hiding. >> All right. Sure. Recommendation is adopted. >> Okay. Thank you. uh same recommendation for the committee on education to pass with an SD1 noting the explanation by the

060uh labor chair and also to note that you know we're very supportive of our teachers and certainly have to make some hard decisions and um hopefully this measure will do that for all the current teachers and into the future. So with that members any discussion any >> okay the chair votes I on SD1 Chair Kim votes I on House Bill >> 1890 House three. >> The chair votes I. Senator Kunaga excused. >> Senator Hashimoto. >> Hi. >> Senator Deort. >> Hi. >> Measures adopted. Madam chair. >> Thank you very much. Uh let's see. We are on House Bill 1888 House draft 3. This is the relating to the safety of education workers. Uh after conferring, members, the recommendation is to amend this measure to delete out uh references to disruptions on page 11, item G,

061lines 9 to uh 11 and anywhere else in the measure that that might appear that be stricken from the measure. Also amending this to add in uh Senate Bill 2900 definition of sports official. uh also include language from 29 00 that makes intentional body injury of an education worker or sports official, engage in lawful discharge of an education worker or sports official duties a class B felony and include clarifying language that authorizes the attorney general to assist education workers or sports officials who've been subject to harassment or intentional bodily injury. So with these measures um and any any technical amendments that may need to be put in members any discussion? >> Just yes. So um when I look at the oh >> when I look at um educational worker >> um it seems a little

062broad to include administrators because what we're talking about are people who are actually in direct contact with the with the student or the parent. So I would take out administrator and just at least leave the counselor, the teacher, the sports official, you know, people who are actually in >> Yes, I understand. But you don't think that it elevates to administrator at some point? >> Not as an educational worker. Um I would say direct contact. >> So >> um I don't have a problem with that. We could also have it done as it moves on or >> yeah prefer it taken out here. >> I would just take out the administrator >> the word administrator from educational workers. >> Yeah. Right here. >> Any issues on that? Line 17. >> Line 17 page 11. >> Same

063page. >> Okay. Okay. Just any administrator. >> Okay. Any administrator. >> Okay. >> And then I I just want to get clarification. Is this going to be have anything to make sure that we have the protection of the special education program or the special education students that's um within this bill. Because if you guys know anything about uh emotional handicap classes, they do outburst, they do yell, they do scream um in class. And then um I just don't want this to >> that's why we taken out the words disruption. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Harassment's in there and I don't see that the students will be harassing. Yeah. But we did take out the disruption >> and you know it is going to move forward to ways and means and we can make more amendments as

064needed and then probably got to go to conference at that. So that education committee members there no discussion. Chair votes I for SD2 on house bill 188. Chair votes I. Vice chair votes C1. >> I senator Fukunaga excused. Senator Hashimoto. >> Hi. >> Senator Dort. >> Hi. >> Measures adopted. Madam chair. >> Okay. For the committee on labor and technology, same recommendation on House Bill 1888, House draft 3. Uh to pass with amendments. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamas for the vote. Chair votes I. >> Okay. For HB1 1888, HD3 recommendation of the chair is passed with amendments. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no >> Reservations for Senator Plla. Um all other members vote I. Your recommendation is adopted. Sorry. Um also noting the excused absence of Senator. >> Thank

065you Senator Lamas. >> Okay. And for the last item on the agenda 16, House Bill 1676, House draft one, um, taking into consideration the discussion that we've had with the Department of Education that they are going to continue to work on this. We do not need a measure to have a working group and I urge them to do so during the interim and be ready next year if we need a measure. So with that, uh, we adjourn the joint session. Thank you. Call back to order the committee on education. Uh we have several more measures. One, two, three, four, five measures on this agenda. And following this agenda, we also have decision-m left over from last week, Wednesday. So with that, we're going to get started. This is committee on education. Today's Monday, March 23.

066We are on agenda 111 p.m. agenda. Uh starting with House Bill 1970, House draft 2 relating to the University of Hawaii Cancer Center. This appropriate funds for the University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Hawaii Tumor Registry. And we have testifying at that Brenda Hernandez for the University of Hawaii. Thank you. >> Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. We stand on our written committee uh testimony, but I would also like to highlight some key contributions of the Hawaii Tumor Registry to really illustrate its importance for public health and medical research in Hawaii. Um the Hawaii tumor registry over the years have worked closely with the department of health and different uh and different projects including the Hawaii cancer plan. Um we have worked closely with the DO to investigate suspected cancer clusters in

067areas such as Kuna, Kawaii, um Hawaii Island as well as among firefighters and the children of firefighters. Some important cancer trends that have been identified in recent years include the increasing rates of colorectal cancer among young adults in Hawaii, both males and females, increasing rates of prostate cancer among men of all ages, increasing rates of endometrial cancer deaths among women in Hawaii, and we are the only registry nationally to report cancer incidents, mortality, and survival specifically among Native Hawaiians, Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos individually. And this is very critical to identifying cancer prevention, early dete detection and treatment strategies. So, some of the key research findings of studies that have come out of the Hawaii Tumor Registry supported by um the Hawaii Tumor Registry with specific investigators include a recent study looking at Native Hawaiians and

068the risk of lung cancer and found that per cigarette smoked. Native Hawaiian have a higher risk of lung cancer and Japanese Americans a lower risk even accounting for the same amount of cigarette smoke compared to whites. Distinct molecular features of lung tumors of native Hawaiians have been identified that suggest they have a higher mutational burden and suggest that they may be more amenable to certain therapies including imunotherapy. There have also been uh studies looking at the breast cancer risk among specifically Japanese and Hawaiians who have the highest rates of breast cancer in Hawaii and specifically found that this may be due to greater uh accumulation of intraabdom abdominal fat. So fat that's in in in the abdomen um compared to total body fat and this may explain some of the higher rates in these groups.

069>> Can you summarize please? >> Sure. So uh I just wanted to highlight these points to really illustrate why it's critical to support the Hawaii Tumor Registry for the public health benefit of our state. Thank you. Thank you. Paula Dome for John Luen. Jack Luen or Jack yourself? >> Yeah. Chair Kim, Vice Chair Dani, members, Jack Leuen, Administrator Shipa, we strongly support this measure. We think that uh we need this cancer registry um and tumor registry. Um we think the funding requests are fair. uh and we we strongly support it. >> Okay. Thank you. Cynthia, American Cancer Society, chair, vice chair, and committee members. Thank you so much, Cynthia. On behalf of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, in strong support of the measure, the Hawaii Tumor Registry is a backbone of cancer surveillance

070in our islands. 9,400 people are going to hear the words, "You have cancer this year." And to effectively prevent, detect and improve outcomes for cancer, clinicians, researchers and policy makers need to know the data um that is reflected um from the camp uh from the t tumor registry which will help to monitor trends, see clusters, guide prevention strategies and respond to emerging issues. March is colorectal cancer awareness month. Registry data has shown that in Hawaii that the um that more and more people and younger people are getting colorectal cancer um incidents and diagnosis and this is also reflected in the national data too. Um colctal cancer is a second leading cause of um cancer deaths in the nation as well as in Hawaii. Tumor registry data is also important in helping to secure federal funding

071for cancer research purposes and um CA uh preventions and treatments. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yoping ding might have said that wrong. >> Not available on Zoom chair. >> Not available. Okay, we have 28 in support and one with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Hearing none. Members, we're open to questions. I guess the University of Hawaii So, how long has this registry been? It's in been in place since 1973 as part of the National Cancer Institute surveillance epidemiology and end results program. We're actually one of nine founding registries of the program. So, we have a great deal of experience um and have been very very important in bringing on the front lines of public health. >> Since then, the funding has come from the feds. >> Yes. with the exception of

072a um approximately about five or six years where we received $40,000 from the Department of Health specifically to help to support the um vital statistics um information that we do receive from them. And so that was actually considered a state contribution, but that was um no that was only available for those those number of years. Other than that, it has been fully funded through the federal government, but there is a uh contribution that is required on the instit by the institution of 20% as part of this federal contract and that has been provided um with the exception of that $40,000 for those years by the uh cancer center directly. And I would like to also point out that um cancer reporting uh so what we do is required by state Hawaii state statute. So we're

073really performing a public health function and so we do believe that it is entirely appropriate to receive you know state funding and in fact many registries across the nation um are in either receive a significant amount of funding or um a large amount of you know funding or um at least inind contributions through other mechanisms. But I'm saying >> we certainly have have supported that through the cigarette tax and so forth. So, the cancer center has a percentage of all of that that goes to the cancer center. In addition, I believe the governor has given $5 million for the last couple years to the cancer center uh as well. So, um how much has the feds been actually contributing all these years? >> So, it's uh it's been about about $1.2 million in direct funding.

074Um but that and the reason that um this was introduced is because we are facing significant cuts to the Hawaii tumor registry specifically from the NCIC program as a result of uh decreases in funding at the NIH overall. >> How much are they cutting? So, it has been estimated that upwards of a third of our funding may be cut and that um is still something that has been has been has to be worked out yet. But we have been forewarned to prepare for um substantial cuts in federal funding. Um and that is, you know, been something that >> So, you folks are asking in this bill $1.5 million. >> Is that what you folks asking in this bill? >> Yes. But your direct funding was 1.2 million from the feds and you're saying that up

075to onethird is being cut or more. >> So that was was to also include the uh state contribution. So what what we are the 20% um mandatory uh contribution of the institution. >> Yeah. But with the money being cut that that contribution amount goes down. Right. >> Right. Well, we do receive other so in order because we have not received direct support from the state, we've actually had to be very creative in the way we count um institutional uh I'm sorry uh indirect um support. Um so the what we've done for example is to include um department of health. So we get our vital statistics records to be able to ascertain cancer deaths um in the state. so we know which patients succumb to cancer and specifically um and that we've been using um assigning

076a dollar amount to each death certificate record so that we can actually um make that 20% um required contribution. So that's you know what just one example of the way because we haven't gotten dollars support we've had to really um justify having um support from the state. How many people on your registry? >> So we have uh currently 14 people in the registry and they um we have a cadre of cancer registars who are um nationally certified registars who are specifically trained to be able to work with cancer data and they work we work with each of the hospitals and medical facility all medical facilities across the state that are involved in the diagnosis um and treatment of cancer. >> Okay. So you have had this this registry since 1973 and currently the registry has

077only 14 people on the registry. >> Yes. And it takes upwards of 1.5 million to manage this registry. Most of our most of the um direct funding budget is to personnel support. Um, we also are >> When you say personnel, you mean the cancer center personnel? >> Right. Right. So, I am the principal investigator for the Hawaii tumor registry and um so part of my support is with the Hawaii tumor registry, but um the I have staff that are fully funded through the registry that are entirely dedicated to um work on the Hawaii at the Hawaii tumor registry. But when we did the cancer center and when we appropriated tax tobacco tax dollars and yes those dollars are dwindling but the money still goes there and when we appropriate funds that the governor appropriates to

078the cancer center that's to take care of personnel and that this registry probably is part of the overall cancer center um expectations and so the fact that you folks have sought federal funding all these years as understandably, but these these are things that is what those funding go for. Now, I know that the cancer center has embarked on other things over and above what was what was um envisioned in the beginning. And I've questioned them time and time again on how you going to pay for those. And so now you're telling me that an integral part of the of the cancer center, this registry, needs funding. and yet they're using the monies that should have been going for this for other other possible programs. So, I really think that we need to really look at

079exactly what in fact the cancer centers program is and what they're doing because we can no longer count on federal funding and we're at a time in our budget when everybody is getting cut by the feds and everybody wants us, the state, to replenish that amount. and it's not going to happen because there's just not enough funding to go around. >> So, may I respond? >> Yes, of course. >> Um, so my understanding um with the cig cigarette tax is that there's a new stipulation that it can only be used for facilities or for >> for the non-personnel >> for the debt service. >> Yes. >> Um so that would now that takes away any support that this that the cancer center can provide to the registry or any other program. Well, the per the

080reason for that is they were using up all of the funds and not putting anything in reserve when we had monies to put in reserve to pay for the debt service. And so we had to do that otherwise the cancer center would have gone bankrupt. So now that that's happening, we're looking that the cancer center will look at all of their their projects and what they're embarking on and that the university believes in that then they have a $243 million surplus in their fees and um the student tuition and fees which in fact they have been giving money from what I understand to the cancer center as well. So, I think the cancer center really has to look at its mission and what exactly they're spending some of the funding for. >> I I mean

081I think the um the governor's allocation I believe is specifically to largely support the pre-clinical center that is being open at the cancer center. So, that will go for that that clinical program. Well, that's the concern we've had whether or not this cancer center and this community can support that early clinical trials and we've discussed that time and time again and they keep saying that it's going to make money and it's going to be able to you know provide for a lot of this and it's not. So that's a concern that we're you're taking monies that should be for the current program making sure we have enough money to support like this um tumor registry instead of embarking on new areas that really cannot be sustained at this point with the income that is coming

082into the cancer center and we don't want to see the demise of the cancer center. >> Thank you. And I'd like to also correct myself that um the monies that we're asking for is not going to only go towards personnel. But one of the things that also happened within the last two and a half years was that the SEIR program discontinued its um arrangement with a program called a a private company um that provided electronic path reporting to to SEIR registry. So as a result in our state since for the last 15 years, we have provided to each pathology uh each hospital at pathology lab the um software to be able to generate um electronic path reports that can then facilitate their reporting to the cancer center. And that was adopted by all facilities here

083in the state. And that was discontinued two and a half years ago. And as a result, we've been scrambling to try to figure out how to we can work with each different hospital with each with a different electronic reporting system to be able to um maintain that capture of electronic information because the path report is one of the pieces that is so critical. So a person is typically diagnosed with cancer, they get a biopsy and to tell whether or not they have cancer or not. So that is the first indication that the Hawaii Tumor Registry gets that there is a cancer case. And so that because that was discontinued, we've had to now work with every single facility around the state. Um we don't we do not have a replacement. We do not have funds

084to replace that software. So within the bill, we've actually asked to be able to have some funding to be able to um establish either that that software or a different type of software to be able to facilitate the electronic reporting of path path reports to the Hawaii tumor registry. >> Who who's who um stopped that? the NCIC program did not uh renew their arrangement with the uh the company inspirada and the product that they um produce is a pathology reporting software system that's widely adopted throughout the nation and when it first became adopted we made it w we were one of the first registries to implement it make it widely available to all state all Hawaii labs and so that they could facilitate reporting to us. Um, so this has been a huge blow to

085us because we have not been able to. >> So why haven't you folks used the money from the cancer center instead of embarking on early clinical trials? >> Well, I mean if this again it's the priorities, right? And so we're hoping that the cancer center will look at the priorities and fund whatever if this is so essential to to the work of the cancer center then I would imagine that this would be one of the top priorities. >> Right. Well, I mean I think they're trying to really tackle multiple you know avenues in terms of what's needed from everything from cancer surveillance to to you know research prevention. But everybody has to prioritize because the budget is only so >> there's only so much, right? And as you lose federal funding, then you have to

086look at how are we prioritizing. Um the divisions and I think the cancer center for too long have just relied upon using up all of the funding that have come in without regards to how they're going to pay the debt service and how they're going to pay for a number of things. And they've made the decision to cut that. And certainly we didn't. But again, it's got to be based on priorities and not just every time something goes back, we're going to go seek the from the legislature to fund it. Members, any other questions? If not, thank you. Okay, moving on to House Bill 1896, House draft 1, uh, relating to community schools, appropriate funds to the Department of Education to support community schools. Kayashi for Department of Education. Aloha chair, vice chair, members of

087the committee. Elizabeth Dashi on behalf of the department. We stand on our written testimony providing comments saying that we support the intent of this bill regarding community schools um provided the passage does not adversely impact priorities established in our board of education budget. We'll be on hold for any questions you may have. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Nathan Morata comments. Jennifer Masutani for after school alliance. Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Jennifer Mosatani testifying on behalf of Hawaii After School Alliance in support of HB1 1896. Um, we're already seeing a lot of promising results with community schools being used as a school improvement strategy. Of the 12 schools that were identified as more rigorous interventions or consistently underperforming, eight of those schools have made enough academic progress to exit those statuses.

088Um, three additional schools also exited comprehensive support and improvement status, which also includes Wii Elementary that had been in the bottom 5% of schools for over a decade before this. Community schools do this by providing additional coordination and support to align resources around student and family needs. And this work happens in partnership with families and the community. Community schools create shared responsibility and a sense of shared ownership amongst the entire school community for student success and help schools respond quicker and more effectively to the needs of their communities. So, we ask for your support of HB1896. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Chris Cfield not here. Meline McKinnon on Zoom. >> Not on Zoom. Chair. >> Okay. Uh, Lauren Lauren. Pelle. Peel. I'm sorry. Piler. >> Piler. Got it. On the third try. Aloha, chair,

089vice chair, and committee members. My name is Lauren Piler and I'm the community schools coordinator at Princess Ruth Ka Kani Middle School and I'm here today in support of HB1896. I've had the amazing opportunity to see firsthand the inspiring power of what community schools can do. The programs and resource support that has been created through the community schools framework has not only positively impacted our students academic success but also their physical, mental, and emotional well-being as well. Um, through this program, we've been able to build systems of support such as having a food pantry, clothing closet, hygiene station, housing assistance programs, job assistance programs, and giving families their first step in access to healthcare. And all of which of these are free. Students have also have found a safe space to share their voice and

090learn to be resilient leaders as well. Being a community school has allowed us to provide a higher level of care and support towards our students and their families. I truly believe that continuing to support the community schools will allow us to nourish and present our home with more opportunities to thrive in Hawaii. Mahalo. >> Thank you. Uh Cheryl from Car. No, >> must have said that wrong. Cheryl, are you on Zoom? >> Yes. >> Hello Cheryl. Sorry if I misspel mispronounced your name. >> No, you're good. Um aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Cheryl Famolano. I am a proud member of two and I stand on my written testimony in support of HB1896. As a parent, I want my children's school to be more than just a place where they

091go for classes. I want it to be a place where they feel supported, where our families feel connected, and where they know help is available when when they need it. Community schools make that possible by bringing together educators, families, and community partners to support the whole child. Here in Hawaii, that can look like schools becoming trusted spaces where families can access services like counseling, health support, and culturally grounded programs all in one place. When schools are truly connected to their communities, they are better to able to understand and respond to what our Kiki and Ohana need. Um, so for families like mine, that connection matters. It builds trust, strengths rel strengthen relationships, and helps ensure that children have the support they need to succeed in the school and beyond. So, I respectfully urge you to

092pass HB1896 to strengthen strengthen our schools and better support our Hawaii um Hawaii's Kiki and Ohana. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify. Thank you. >> Thank you. See number of written testimonies and support that is all that signed up to in person or on Zoom. Uh let's see. 37 in support for comments. Zero opposition. Anyone else wishing? Please. >> Hello again, chair and vice chair, members of the committee. Um Sarah Millen on behalf of HSTA. >> You say they're always so fast. I'm like I guess the minute it's counting. Um yes, just call me Millie. Um in my dream world, every school is a community school and I think you've had amazing testifiers here after school alliance talking about what these buildings are. um they're living parts of our community and they really do build

093success stories. I think it's important when families know that the school that we're all on the same team. I would say one of the beautiful things that's not always talked about with community schools is that the teacher retention because if you feel part of a community, you're going to stay in that position. You're going to build up. I I love the fact that as a teacher at my school, I've I've had siblings and cousins and whole members of families where they've all come through my classroom because they they know that I care about them and that we care about each other. So, a community school model is great for all of our schools, but please support this measure. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Okay, hearing none, we are

094open to questions. Members, any questions? Questions? Senator Decort? >> Uh, DOE. >> Thanks. Uh, are the appropriations from this bill also used to hire the community school coordinator? Um, so my apologies. I'm unsure regarding that, but my assumption would be that the appropriations would be used for the schools in order for them to hire the community school coordinators within the at their schools if that if that's what you're asking. >> Yeah. So the funds are so the funds it's a contract with the schools then and then the school hires the coordinator. >> Correct. So, we do have a vendor list of approved community organizations that are authorized to provide community schools model. And so, schools would be able to use that list in order to um have their contracts with those community organizations to have

095the community school coordinator on their campus. >> So, it's private organizations like nonprofits. >> Nonprofit. >> So, not directly to the school >> but primarily through the private organizations like nonprofits. that money is given to them and then they therefore go ahead and hire the school communities coordinator >> that they assign to the school. >> You're no that that that is correct. I just Yes. >> So it is a so it is a contract between the DOE the department and the nonprofit organizations. >> Correct. >> Okay. So how much uh oversight does the department have when these positions are being hired as example? Well, I'll let you answer. Um I I think it depends on the the corporation, but the existing community school coordinators that I'm aware of, the school has worked with a nonprofit

096um in conjunction with our partnership with Hawaii After School Alliance and uh and a person is selected and then a person um is assigned to the school to assist the school with whatever they need. So, if in the event that community schools coordinator maybe feels like they're being treated unfairly or maybe need to file a grievance, does the department have any kind of oversight on that since it's DOE funds? >> If the the because the the employee is hired by the nonprofit, the nonprofit works um through those situations. >> Okay. So, the department does not get involved if there is correct been harassment, grievances. So I think it depends on the unique situation and and what occurred. >> Yeah. What what would you consider to be a unique situation? >> I I I I I

097don't know how to broadly answer that question. >> Oh, okay. I I I had only asked because you had brought it up. Uh so I do believe that the department since it is department funds and it is taxpayer funds that there should be oversight on these positions being hired especially if school coordinator excuse me community school coordinators are filing grievances against the school. So I would just like to recommend that you look into those private organizations or those nonprofits to maybe dig a little bit deeper because we don't want to keep repeating the same cycle. >> Thank you. Thank you chair. >> Any other questions? Uh yes, more questions of course. >> Go ahead. >> So Heidi or whoever can answer this, do you guys have a list of who those community groups are that

098the B works with that you can provide to us? >> Yes, we do. We can provide that. >> Thank you. >> How many community schools do we have? >> Currently, we have about 22 community schools. >> 22. And with without a measure like this. So it is up to each school to determine um their family community engagement strategy and fund it them and fund it using um they can use it either WSF or also a lot of our title one funds is eligible to be used for these me for this purpose. >> So what prompts this measure? I I'm I do believe there are a few schools that were funded by grant funding and it is my understanding and I can't speak the numbers specifically but I do believe that some of for some of

099them the grant is ending this year so I can imagine that would prompt the me prompt the measure. >> Okay. Your first statement in your testimony says that the department supports the intent provided it passage does not adversely impact the priorities established in the U board of education's approved budget. So what do you expect that we're just going to give millions of dollars and it's going to come from the sky? It's got to come somewhere, right? >> Understood. >> And you know that is probably going to come from the DOE budget because you folks have one-third of the budget, state budget. So how do you reconcile this? >> I I I think we do recognize funding is a priority. I mean funding is is um not in abundance and the department does support community schools.

100We've seen a lot of successes with um our schools and you've heard some testimony about the advantages um and it it's very difficult for the department when this bill came out not to fully support but we do recognize the funding has to come from somewhere and that's why we put in the testimony um we do fully value community schools and what they do. Um but with limited funds there are other priorities um that we would not want cut in order to fund these positions. >> You think community community schools are the right terminology because the man the mandate for public education is academics. And over the years, we have seen the growth that now teachers are expected and and you've seen that and heard about protection of school workers, harassment, they don't know how to

101deal with certain kinds of special needs and that we keep putting all of these mental health issues and counselors and so forth into the schools and then mandate that the teachers get educated on some of these issues. Um and yet, you know, many times it's inadequate because they're not health workers. They're not um human services workers. And so we keep making the schools become the catchall for everything about a child and the family. So I'm not saying that these types of organizations or concepts are not good but to then put it on top of department of education which is primarily there for the academics of the child to now say that we need to pay attention to everything else. Um, I think that whole concept needs to be really fully discussed before we launch into

102community schools because we're changing the exact nature of the mandate for public education. >> Do you agree? >> Um, I I do think community supports can benefit um the operations of >> it can come from Department of Health. It can come from many areas. But should it be housed in school? And if it should be then I think that's a bigger conversation that because that is a complete change from what public education's mandate have been and it's grown with no child left behind. But again, many of these growths are because our state have chosen to increase some of these types of services to the point now that we want to do a complete community school type thing that includes the families as well, which goes over and beyond what was intended for for public education,

103which started from K through 12 and now seems to be going from pre preK to three years old. I mean, we keep making the window larger, which I'm not saying is bad, but again, the intent and the amount of funding for that certainly has to be taken into consideration because you still have the department of education and everything else um there and humans department of human services that are supposed to be addressing many of these issues, right, in the nonprofits. So, that's something to really think about as we go forward. um because I think it's a major it's a major shift um that is being asked for and the cost is huge >> you know and do we sacrifice the academics portion to to to add that on and that's the other area because it

104might not happen right now but that's possibly the unintended consequences as we move forward any other questions members if not thank you thank Okay, we're on House Bill 1891. This requires Department of Education to implement dyslexia sensitive linguist linguistically appropriate universal screenings and evidence-based interventions. Offer professional development on structured literacy and evidence-based interventions and support pre-teacher programs and training candidates and structure literacy programs. Okay, that was a mouthful there. DOE. >> Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kedani, members of the committee. I'm Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. The department provided comments on this bill, highlighting um its existing rollout of our K3 screeners and structured literacy training while requesting amendments in our um comments to clarify that these screeners identify general reading risk rather than diagnosing dyslexia and specifically to exempt Hawaiian medium kauni schools

105from the English ccentric reading requirements. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you, D. Uh, Dry Bart Vitals Vitalis. I always have trouble with your last name. I don't know why. >> Hello, chairs, vice chair, committee members. My name is Chase over. I'm with the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities here for Danger told us. Yeah. >> Um, the the council will stand on our testimony. I just want to highlight that, you know, we always appreciate screeners, especially in early intervention, especially with ID folks. this is a way that you may possibly catch um an intellectual disability when they have learning challenges. There's often cross diagnosises as well. Uh I also just wanted to highlight that, you know, we always appreciate that once they're identified or there's a diagnosis. They get evidence-based uh interventions

106and supports. I will also note that, you know, I have dyslexia. I went I was born and raised here. I went to our public school system. They didn't even catch that I couldn't read until fifth grade. Uh I didn't catch that I had dyslexia until I was going to grad school. Uh, and I went to public school and then I had to go to assets for a long time and only thanks to assets was I able to actually learn to read and catch up academically and do what I do now. So, I appreciate screeners like this. >> Thank you, Susan Roco on Zoom. >> Hi, uh, chair, vice chair, this is Susan Roco representing the special education advisory. >> Can you speak up a little bit, please? Sorry. Um, is this better? a little bit

107better. >> The Special Education Advisory Council has long supported this bill. It is essential to help the kids that have already been identified as having dyslexia uh or having a specific learning disability, 90% of whom also have dyslexia, but also catching kids who would fall into the special education arena if they are not given the support they need. So, we appreciate the training in the bill. We appreciate the screening. We're all for it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Susan. Uh PK, >> it's not here. >> Okay. Here. Okay. Dyslexia Advocacy Club testifying for Lejar Dan. Do we have a representative from them? Okay. >> Aloha. I'm Serena Marsen and I'm the lucky teacher of the Literacy Dyslexia Advocacy Academy and we just have a few students here who would like to speak to you in

108support of this bill. So, I'm just going to go ahead and send them in. >> Okay, can you just have them queued up, please? >> Hello Okay, >> please have a seat. Please tell us your name and then you can >> I'm Evelyn. >> Thank you, Evelyn. Okay, go ahead, Leela. >> Aloha. Aloha, chair, vice chair, and members of the Senate Committee on Education. My name is Mila Richardson, and I'm a third grade student in Hawaii. Right now, Hawaii is the only state in the country without laws to support dyslexic learners. But the good news is that reading problems are not a mystery. We already know how to help kids learn to read. >> Hi, I'm Ella Ka. We just need to identify students only and teach them effectively. HB1891 helps helps Hawaii do exactly

109that. Please pass HB1891 so every child in Hawaii can learn to read and believe in themsel. >> Thank you for your support. Mahalo. Thank you. Good job. Okay, next two. Really good job. Come on. And if you want to bring the mic closer to you, you can. Yes. Good job. >> Go ahead. >> Aloha, chair, vice chairs, and members of the committee. My name is M Marsden. I'm a fifth grade student and a dyslexic learner. When I was learning to read, it was hard for me. Sometimes I felt confused and sometimes I felt like I wasn't smart. But I am smart. I just need to be taught in ways that my brain understood. Because I got help early. I can read. In fact, I can hardly put down my Kindle. But not all kids get

110the same help. Some kids struggle. Some kids start feeling sad and some even stop liking school. And I learned that when kids don't learn to read, it can affect their whole lives. Some even get into trouble later and end up in prison because school didn't feel like a place where they could learn and succeed. This is called the schoolto prison pipeline. That's not fair and it doesn't have to happen. HB1 1891 can identify kids like me and provide targeted support that they need. Please help Kiki learn to read, succeed, believe in themselves, and write their own future. Mahalo for listening to my voice. >> Thank you. Good job. >> Okay, you want to pull the mic? Good. >> Aloha committee. My name is Coco Bear and I'm dyslexic because we found out two years ago

111I'm getting lots of help from school and family. I'm lucky, but I wonder what would happen if I wasn't lucky. And every day at school for me felt too hard to handle. I think I would leave school as soon as I could and my problems would become Hawaii's problems. Please help every dyslexic kid be the lucky one. Vote yes on HB1891. Thank you. Aloha chair, vice chair, and members of the Senate Committee on Education. My name is Emily and I'm a third grade student in Hawaii. Research shows that one in five students have dyslexia. Re that means that in almost every classroom there are dyslexic learners that struggle. But Hawaii is the only state without laws that support dyslexic learners. >> Hi, I'm Henry. HB1891 will help identify students earlier and make sure they get

112the support they need. Please support HB1891 so every student in Hawaii has the chance to become a strong reader. Mahalo. >> Thank you. I I I want I want you students who have testified to know that you've probably done a better job than some of the adults who've come to testify. So, thank you very much for your good presentation. Next, >> you folks are well prepared and well spoken. So, >> aloha chair, vice chair, and members of the Senate Committee on Education. My name is Nuni and I'm a third grade student in Hawaii. When students cannot read and do not understand why, they may begin to think they are not smart. But that is not true. Many students just need to be taught differently. HB1 1891 helps schools identify students earlier and provide them with

113support they need before their confidence is lost. Please support HB1891 so that every student in Hawaii can feel proud, capable, and confident in school. Mahalo. >> Wow, you didn't even have to read. >> Okay, next. >> I know. Good job. Right. >> Alo, aloha, chair, vice chair, and members of the Senate Committee of Education. Aloha. My name is Noah and I'm a third grade student in Hawaii. Students today are the future of Hawaii. When students learn to read well, they can grow up to become teachers, doctors, scientists, and leaders in our communities. But when students struggle to read and do not receive help, it can affect affect their future opportunities. HB1 1891 helps make sure all students get the support they need to become strong readers. Please support HB1891 for the future of Hawaii's cake.

114Mahalo for listening to my voice. >> Thank you. >> Aloha chair, vice chair, and members of the Senate Committee on Education. My name is Hope Paris and I am a third grade student in Hawaii. Um, learning to read is one of the most important things we do in school. Reading helps us learn about the world and dream about our future. But when students struggle to read and do not get help early, these dreams can start to feel impossible. HB1 1891 helps make sure every child gets the support they need to become a strong reader. Um, please pass HB1891 for the future of Hawaii's kei. Mahalo for listening to our voices. >> Thank you. Just want to let the students know that um my son didn't get diagnosed till about the first or second grade that

115he was slightly dyslexic and that happened because uh I had a teacher friend who observed him and said that something wasn't right. So, we went and had him um had him screened and tested and once I found that out then we were able to help him and today he's an attorney and doing really well. So, I understand exactly what you folks are saying. So, thank you so much for sharing your testimonies with us today. Uh we still have few others uh signed up. Uh Eric uh Nakanishi Stannis Erica. Okay, >> I'll respond to just about anything. Aloha, chair, vice chair, senator Hashimoto. My name is Erica Kakishi Stanis with Hawaii Kids Can. We're here in strong support and ask for your consideration of our suggested amendment. As you've seen, illiteracy comes with a shame that

116has the opportunity to derail a student's life like any other. They are disproportionately represented in the prison population. And no one says, "Oh, I'm not a reader." Even though we're proud to say we're not math people sometimes. Um, we appreciate the department's testimony about ongoing work. We note that in late 2024, the DOE received a $60 million federal grant to improve literacy outcomes statewide. Only one-third of schools opted into this work. Pilots are a wonderful thing, but if we're serious about improving literacy outcomes for all students, we need to codify a statewide commitment to best practices and the most coste effective tools with a clear timeline and public accountability. Regarding the exception of the Kaya Puni, we agree and recommend uh language from HP 1784 for reference. Um there's a line in that bill that

117we believe would serve the purpose. Mahalo for your consideration. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Lauren Faratasi. >> Aloha members of the committee. Uh my name is Lauren Ferasadi. I'm the grandmother of a amazing dyslexic child. you just heard from her. And I've been following dyslexia policy in Hawaii for the last several years. I also created a drama group uh called the Lexi Players. And I spend 90 minutes every week with a bunch of dyslexic kids. And what I've learned is that the same kids who struggle to read are often wildly creative, incredibly resilient, and exceptional problem solvers. And the world knows it. NASA knows it. JP Morgan knows it. Microsoft knows it. And Virgin knows it. Those are all companies that actively recruit dyslexic thinkers for their incredible problem-solving skills. HB1891 will assure that these

118kei get that chance. And that's what's so important to me. Um, it's going to happen through early identification and through explicit teacher training. So, I obviously support this bill. But as a business person, I ask for one addition and that is accountability because without any metrics, we'll be measuring good intentions but not results. We want to prove to you that this works. On behalf of all these unbelievable kei, I thank you so much for your support. Thank you. See, we had see 31 in support, one comment. That is all that I had that signed up to testify in person or in Zoom. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? >> Aloha chair, vice chair, and members of the Senate Education Committee. I am Serena Marsen. I've been a teacher in Havi

119for 24 years. I am the vice president of the reading league kawaii and my most important job I am the mother of two brilliant dyslexic children. I stand by my written testimony and I strongly support HB1891 along with the accountability amendment proposed by Hawaii kids can to ensure this bill truly delivers for our students. Reading changes the ch the a child's life. And when we don't teach children to read early, they don't just fall behind. They begin to believe that they are the problem. They feel shame and they disengage from school. I've witnessed this heartbreak in classrooms over two decades. And those students stay with you. This is the weight that educators carry. And we know where this can lead. Many incarcerated adults struggle to read as children. The schoolto prison pipeline often begins with

120early literacy failure, but this is preventable. We know how to teach children to read using evidence aligned practices and structured literacy. HB1891 is a literacy bill, is a mental health bill, and it is an equity bill. Please pass this bill and ensure it is implemented with accountability. Hava East Kei are counting on all of us. Mahalo. >> Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Hearing none. Members, we are open for questions. Uh DOE I guess to start with. So currently uh are we screening students for dyslexia? What are we using? um as a entire department, not all of we do have a few schools who are using a screener that does identify um traits associated with dyslexia. Our goal um we we will be piloting um several dyslexia sensitive screeners statewide school

121year 2627 and um school year 2728 we will have 100% of our elementary schools using a screener um that is dyslexia sensitive. Why has it taken us so long to to do this or what's been the obstacle? We've screened 100% of our students um for I mean I can go back to COVID time starting in COVID but um not >> not all of our screeners do um identify the specific traits through a screening but >> yeah I was going to add Lauren Pedeski administrator at office curriculum and instructional design um so what we're seeing right now is that 16 of our elementary schools right now are assessing between 90 and 100% of their students using a dyslexia sensitive screener. And then another 13 of our schools are assessing between 70 and 89% of their students

122with that dyslexia sensitive screener. And then pockets of schools that are also using dyslexia sensitive screeners. But what needs to happen is that 100% of our schools are using that, which is why like Deputy Armstrong was sharing, we're going to move into that pilot phase to ensure that by school year 2728, we can guarantee that all of our schools are using something dyslexia sensitive. Um, there are other screeners on the market that screen for broad reading risk, but don't have all of the characteristics we'd like to see. And so the screeners that we pilot are going to have to have all of those characteristics and assessment points. >> What's the cost for this? >> Depends on the screener. >> Um so for example, >> I can do that. >> So um it it varies. Um

123we have some screeners that cost $2 per student, some that cost seven, um some that cost 20, some that cost six. So So there is a range. Um there's also a range in what the screeners do. an addition from just screening doing that initial screening. So we we have to take that all into account when we estimate a a what is the total cost. >> So have you folks looked into dribble dibbles? >> Yes. Um and that's >> isn't that free? >> No. Dibbles is $2 per student. Very inexpensive. So if we did dibbles um statewide it would probably for 46,000 um students it cost about 92,000 a year. Um, and there are other screeners that are also available. >> Okay. A lot less than what it cost us to do kindergarten assessments, I can

124imagine. Um, you folks also have I Ready intervention from >> We use I Ready. Um, using I Ready as a screener would require an additional add-on. So, we're looking at the cost of that. >> I Ready right now. You use I Ready as an intervention, right? >> Some schools and some schools do. I'm trying to get my handle around a lot of these things where some schools do because many of these areas I think need to be across the board and I know you're trying to leave stuff up to the individual schools but then it makes it in inequitable situation for a lot of students that don't happen to be in those schools. uh the the statement was made that there was a $60 million budget that uh or purchase services that only one-third of

125the schools opin that that statement was not entirely accurate. And I do think we um have an IOU to you for um the funding and where the funding's gone for the CLSD grant and you can take that information and then make a decision on on what you believe to be >> So do you folks do you folks um audit or or review or do summaries on all of the stuff that is being procured for our students as far as program wise to see what schools are utilizing what percentage of the schools are utilizing it. What percentage of the students are benefiting for it? Because there seems to be a lot of apps that is being entertained and and and put into our schools, but yet I don't know that we actually see who's actually taking

126advantage of it, who's using it, and when you come down to the cost per student, what is this costing us per student if in fact not all the schools take advantage of this? I think our what we have statewide are expectations for universal screening for progress monitoring for interventions. Um what we don't have statewide is you must use this particular screener, this particular intervention tool, this particular So um >> but you did that for kindergarten assessments. You said you had to use John Hopkins >> because for the kindergarten assessment, we wouldn't be able to report statewide um with reliability and um validity um what our students um what skills our students are coming in with and what um skills our students are lacking. >> Yeah. But at that case, what students are coming in these

127are, you know, five-year-olds. what they're coming in and what they lacking changes in two months. So again, you know, it's the quality and and the need to have something like that versus say dyslexia where this is something that is long-term lasting. It's not a one-time shot and then go away. Do you understand? So again, it's boiling down to the priorities and where the greatest need because we cannot be everything to everybody, right? And we have to always be conscious about what it's costing us because you folks take up over onethird of the state budget. So anytime we want to cut places is very difficult because we don't want to cut education but there are areas in which you know the department has to prioritize and then to think that we're not going to cut your

128budget if you're supporting a program you know you're in La La Land if that's what you think because it there's only so much money to go around >> and and the the pendulum does swing. you are correct. And um right now the department um does have committed initiatives in literacy and in math and those are the commitments that we're directing our funding to. So we are um really trying to be cognizant on the overall um asks but we are not yet um requiring every school to use the same tools but we do have a focus. We do have focused initiatives in each of those two major areas. Well, I hope you will have a universal plan and instead of peacemealing it, and I'm trying not to peacemeal, you know, three bodies here for math coaching,

129another two bodies here for this, another one for this, that you will come in with a universal plan on how we can address some of these areas, shortfall areas, and what we can do to help our students and not far into the future, but it's needed now or was needed yesterday. We do have a plan now for English language arts and for math. We have our priority initiatives which are not peacemeal. They're very um thoughtfully um determined for these um so the department can say we have these high lever strategies um that we are committed to. >> So when did have you developed those? The English language arts were developed two three years ago >> and the literacy levers >> and then um math came out last school year. >> Okay. Well, it doesn't seem

130like it's it's comprehensive enough to all the schools at this point and it certainly doesn't seem like it's it's being implemented and it's being you utilizing all the necessary tools. for example, dribbles. I don't know if I'm saying that correctly, but other other types of of very um economical type of of screenings and stuff that we need uh to have the students being diagnosed so that they can get the right help and then the money's to help the students. And so that's where more funding comes in, which is why I don't want it spent on a lot of apps and a lot of consultants and so forth. I want it to get down into the classrooms down to the students so that they can get the help that they need and we have too much

131bureaucracy and not enough down to the bottom which is what we've been committ this committee has been trying to do and of course we get a lot of push back but I hope the parents understand where we're coming from because this is where we need it at the school level. >> Senator Kan. >> Yes, thank you. Um you mentioned that some of the schools do screenings for dyslexia. So what percent of schools and where are those schools >> right now? School um 90 we have 16 schools who currently use screeners that would screen 90 to 100%. Um, our goal is to get a 100% of our schools using they all use screeners, but some screeners go um deeper in and in identifying dis um um specific specific reading needs that could um flag possibly dyslexia.

132So, further screening would be needed after that, but it gives an initial assessment. Our goal is to um pilot a variety of screeners um in addition to the screeners that we currently have school year 2627 next school year and then 100% of our schools that'll also give a year of training 100% of our schools will be using screeners that are dyslexia sensitive by school year 2728. So, I guess the question then is how do you determine which schools will get the screeners now because some schools don't have them. >> We um we're currently soliciting the schools right now who will participate in the pilot using a variety of screeners so that we have feedback from the individual schools. What was the strength? What were the teacher supports? um how valuable was the the information that

133the screener gave so we can make a um informed decision when we roll out the screeners in um 2728 school year. I don't know if you have the information, but I'm sure this committee would be interested in finding out in which areas you're finding that we're that we're having um more dyslexic students or is it statewide and just scattered? Because if there's, you know, I don't know what causes it. Is it drinking water? Whatever. You know, if there's something more that we could be doing that if we could help >> That's a great question. get more information and get other agencies involved to help us get this. >> And I think that's a good point. um when we have a 100% of our schools, it wouldn't necessarily um we wouldn't be able to identify dyslexia

134as we wouldn't um identify that. But we could report to you on um the the trait schools that um are identifying more students with reading traits um that um could lead to a diagnosis of dyslexia. >> That would be a good start. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, I want to go back to when you determine these screeners again, you're going to leave it up to each school to determine which ones they're going to use and how many choices will they have. There there was a screening workg group that identified um suitable screeners. So, right now it looks like there's four that um schools could possibly choose from, but it's two different types. Four um and it might remain four or we might move it down to possibly two. Isn't it better and more cost effective

135when we go with one or two instead of having many more choices and then too when you have teachers that transferred between schools and if they trained on one then they have to train on another or not be familiar. Um it this leads to so many different kinds of issues. So I don't understand why you wouldn't want to do something that is across the board and equalizing for all of the students but a good program that will identify um what needs to be identified right. Um I I across the board um is there is value in that. Um the other side of that conversation is it takes away um choice between two maybe equally um competent tools but who's choosing see it gets chosen with different so we get I'll use example so we have

136a principal in one school that determine that this is a good program and they do it for nine years and then a new principal come in and they stop and they change and do something else, you know, and it just caused a disruption in the school and the faculty and especially the families. So, again, it's very disruptive at times when you have stuff like that for choice because you're not sure what what they're choosing. There's no there's no um expectation that you're going to have something that is consistent across the board >> on on this. We do have criteria and we will have an approved list >> but you're going to have list of choices and then again you know you leave it up to different schools and so if my kid is in one

137school and and I see that another school is doing and then my son is not getting it I'm going to want to probably jump to the that school. I mean you just create a lot of unnecessary by giving choices. I mean it's not as if you know you can choose between chicken and fish. You're talking about, you know, uh, a bonafideed type of screening that we hope will be vetted by the department and have outcome base across the country that we know is going to be reliable and that, you know, the the teachers can really get into it and that the families can certainly understand um these programs and not have to have one child in one school and one child in another school and they have different type of screening going on. Okay, any

138other questions, members? If not, thank you. >> Thank you. >> I want to thank the community and all of the students that came to testify today. Good job. The next thing you need to learn is how to ask questions so you can get the right answers. Okay. >> She's still teaching me too. >> We all We are all learners. Constant learners. Okay. Next um bill is House Bill 1840, House draft 2. This permits the Department of Education and Charter Schools to hire unlicensed individual as teachers on emergency basis for five rather than three years. Requires the Hawaii Teacher Standard Board extend the 5-year period in the case of a declared state of emergency. Establishes a graduation goal for the University of Hawaii and requires a report to the legislature on the progress towards achieving that

139goal. requires Department of Education to provide training to assist emergency hires in passing the practice exam and require the training be mandatory for emergency hires in their fourth and fifth years as a condition of employment. Uh testifying on this measure, DOE Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Sean Bacon speaking on behalf of the department. The department stands on its written testimony in support of this um just really extending the emergency hire window from a three-year window to a 5-year window really is going to help keep experienced educators and committed educators into our classrooms while they're working on that lensure. I think at this point right now we're seeing, you know, these emergency hires, they are taking on a full-time job. They are also trying to go to school and manage family. Um,

140there's also costs that are involved. So, sometimes they may need to pause based on some of the costs. So, just having this additional two-year time frame will definitely help our educators in through this process. The department is ready for any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Yukul Cross. Hello, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kirani, members of the committee. I'm Yuko Ario Cross, director of the Executive Office on Early Learning. We support HB1840HD2 and we appreciate the amendments made by the House Consumer Production and Commerce Committee to address the challenges faced by a broader range of permit holders. Permit holders in Eol prek have a bachelor's and or master's degree, some in early childhood education from nonate programs and even some with experience working with young children in community- based preschools. Ul is working with HTSB and

141our higher education partners to expand pathways to lensure to meet the new demand created by the expansion of public prek. But until the system adjusts, the options for emergency permit holders are extremely limited. There are currently no post-balorate programs in the state that would allow emergency permit holder to obtain an initial teaching license in early childhood education. There is only one master's degree program in Hawaii that leads to an initial lensure in early childhood education and it's offered at Shamanad University. Given the limited pathways currently available to individuals pursuing lensure and early childhood education and the realities of working full-time while supporting a family, EOL believes extending the time limit to 5 years provides a more achievable timeline for emergency permit holders to obtain their licenses. Thank you for this opportunity. >> Thank you. Ednitsa

142Y teacher standard board not here. Okay. Um, >> sorry, Chair Mity is available on Zoom. >> I am here. Sorry about that. >> Okay, thank you. Um, nice. Aloha. Uh, chair, vice chair, and committee members. I am Mitsya, licensing specialist, speaking on behalf of the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board in opposition. I know I submitted our testimony, but I just want to point out that part of the vision and mission of the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board, uh, one of the first things that they have to do is they have to ensure that every child has a qualified teacher. When the emergency permit was started, it made three years the limit because they wanted to ensure that these people did in fact go through a program or um some of them actually com they have a J1

143visa and they might even take their practice earlier or they're from the mainland and they don't have a license but they do have the degree and so they also take the practice courses and then they're allowed to be licensed. So just going with unfortunately um the we haven't seen any empirical evidence that this that extending the permit would actually help. In fact, we actually see evidence um from Texas recently that you'll find in my testimony and you can click on it. um it has information that it's actually not beneficial and that students um quality of learning and their their learning abil it goes down. And that's all I want to say for now, but I'm here for questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm going to just ask a real quick question. This um position

144opposition, was that um agreed to by the entire board? >> Uh this is part of what their permit or I'm sorry, part of their legislative priorities. Yes, it was agreed to by the entire board. Um they allow the permitted interaction group which is three people from the board to make decisions for them but on their um legislative priorities. Yes, this was a priority that they want to ensure that um qualified teachers are in the classroom. >> Okay. So it it was the majority of the board that supported opposing this bill. Is that what you're saying? They have supported it in the past from their legislative priorities. Yes. >> No, they supported the bill. They're opposing the bill. So you >> they're I'm sorry. They're they're supporting the opposition of the bill if that makes sense.

145>> Thank Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um James Brazelton. >> Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Jimmy Brazzle. I'm the executive director of Teacher Lounge, uh the Department of State J1 visa sponsor that sends teachers to uh Hawaii schools. Um we stand in our testimony and I'm available for questions. I just wanted to reiterate that this bill does not lower standards. Um, and it aligns Hawaii with states like Texas and California and other states that do recognize that the J1 program lasting up to 5 years does make sense for them to have a longer period of time in order to meet those qualifications. I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Amy Abayani >> in support. Aloha. Thank you very much for hearing this bill.

146Um, as you know, this bill HB1840 um uh and and its companion Senate bill had a focus on the J1 visa people uh uh teachers and um this current draft um is broader. What it does is it would extend the uh eligibility for all emergency hires uh by another two years. So it would be for five years and uh that is an uh something that I think would is support I support and uh it would be it would cover J1 visa holders. Um, however, there are so many other additions to this bill that I think um I would recommend that you pass this bill and consider including a bill that you already passed before. Um, this committee already passed before called SB 2125 which just extends uh it from 3 to 5 years all emergency

147hires. So, it's a very simple bill and uh maybe if you wanted to you would um consider including that bill inserting the language of that bill which you already passed and specifying that does include J1 visa holders. >> Uh that that is a recommendation but we we do support any bill actually that does um uh um cover these people. Thank you. Thank you. Christine Andrews, >> not available on Zoom chair. >> Okay. Uh Liza Ryan Gill on Zoom. >> Also not available on Zoom chair. >> Okay. Uh Christina Sablan on Zoom. >> Also not on Zoom. Chair. >> Okay. Those are all the members that had signed up for person or in Zoom. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify? HSTA, welcome. >> Hello, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Sarah Millen on

148behalf of HSTA. Um, we we really like this focus on moving it from three to five years. My job as your teacher lobbyist is to come tell you stories from the field. So, at my school, I have an incredible science teacher who went to Shamanad, who did her practice, who's um a a Native Hawaiian educator, and she's one of the best we've ever seen, and we cannot get her license. And it's been super frustrating to watch that happen in real time because she's good for our school. She's good for our kids. She's good for our whole community and we want her as a licensed teacher. She's been an emergency hire for a few years. She needs that extra bump. Um I also have an amazing art teacher who um the art institute closed and so

149uh wouldn't give her credits. So she was actually willing to go to a private school because she couldn't handle the lensure which is sad that our kids would lose out on that teacher. Um we are hearing from members that life comes at you fast. Maybe you have a baby in that three-year piece and you need a little more time to finish it. Finances. I know myself as a veteran educator, I can't afford to pay for the PD classes to get me more money. I can't imagine paying out of pocket for these tuition courses or for um that piece. Also, personally, because I did my alternative certification with Teach for America, I was a emergency hireer myself and it was really hard to jump through the hoops to figure out how to get credit for what

150I was already doing as a teacher. So, we really support this measure and hope you do, too. >> Well, thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Okay. Hearing none. Members, we're open for questions. >> Question. >> Yes. Senator the court. >> Uh HTSB, you're still online. >> Let's see. >> Yes, I'm still online. There's turning my camera on. >> Hi, thank you so much for being with us. Uh in your testimony, you argue that this bill lowers standards. Uh but in this bill it actually adds mandatory training, requires continued progress and ties employment to lenser lensure license milestone. Uh so my question is uh how does this bill um which is adding structure and accountability lower standards? >> Well, it is adding structure and accountability. I've seen that part and we we

151did take that into account. But the thing is that a lot of emergency hires have a bachelor's degree, but it might be in, believe it or not, we have fashion design, we have other things. Um, and they so they have their bachelor's degree, but then they're going through a teaching degree, but in the meantime, they have their students, they actually have a classroom of students, so one, two, three years, and now you're saying, um, this bill would extend it to four or five. Other states have actually said that this doesn't work and it's h they actually have documented learning loss and that's how it lowers standards. It's like we we don't want to do a disservice to our students. And I looked up our legislative priorities because of Senator Kim's question and it says they

152voted on lowers or changes the quality of licensing and permitting requirements as required by law and this bill would fall into that. um this bill would not fall into it just because of its specific policy that again adds mandatory training, requires continual progress and ties employment to the licenser uh milestones. So I think there might be a conflict with your folks comments to this bill saying that it does lower standard because in fact it does increase um because what we're finding in some classrooms is that there is no teacher at all. So currently we have students that are going to the cafeteria learning nothing. So don't you think it's more uh beneficial that we have unllicensed teachers that are in the process of getting licensed than no teacher at all? >> Well, that's why we've

153been trying to recruit our um national apprenticeship program through using EAS through the grow your own program and trying to expand upon that. There's about 200 EAS on the Leeward coast that are willing to go through that program and then we would pay their tuition, take away some of those financial barriers so they could in fact become teachers and come from our communities and stay in our communities. So we we are aware. >> Go ahead. Thank you. And I appreciate the effort that you folks have made with the 200 students, but we currently have over a thousand vacancies right now. So to be fair, I don't think that that's enough. Also, uh, in your testimony, you shared that emergency hires were meant to be temporary. Uh, and that has been pretty much the backbone in

154our hard to fill schools. So, again, uh, do you believe that the standards board is not keeping up with the reality of where our classrooms is at where we have no teachers in classrooms and this is actually a process that is moving our classrooms forward? Well, that's why at the end of our testimony, we do list things that we are trying to do again to help with teacher retention because if you can keep your teachers, you're not going to be losing your teachers. You're not going to be hiring 10,000 every year. Um, even when I worked back for HSTA, it was the amount of you can't if you keep your teachers and if most of the majority of your teachers over 50% are h are not staying beyond five years, that's the problem. So the

155work on the retention that's the pay the benefits the micromanaging whatever it is that's going on that's what we need to do and financial barrier is part of it and that's why we go for the for the apprenticeship model so that we could actually pay their tuition and that's why the standards board fought so hard for that is that we want to do that so that their tuition is paid because that's a huge barrier financial a lot of parents are telling them not to become teachers because they don't want them to have a student loan we want to take away that financial barrier here. >> So, if you agree that the five-year mark is pretty much a goal that we can all agree on, wouldn't this bill justify both of our goals is keeping them

156in at least 5 years? >> No, actually, we're going with three years as is the original intent of the emergency hire permit. I think the stability of having the consistent teachers in the classroom for not three years but a minimum five years at least that would be what uh my community would be more aligned with is having stability having the same person in the classroom uh rather than trying to continue to funnel and this revolving door of maybe new faces that have to get used to our kids and our culture and our community. Um, so, uh, with all due respects, I don't agree with your testimony and opposition because this has actually been working for my community and the longer we can keep the same people in the same positions would provide stability for my

157community. So, thank you, uh, Mitsy and thank you, chair. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Members, >> questions. Senator, >> um, this is a question probably for DOE. I'm not sure. uh Sean if you have it have the answer but maybe Mitsy you can also chime into the question. So has DOE looked at other possibilities um with the teacher shortage like making larger class size so instead of 20 30 students with another teacher and possibly a student teacher or a teacher >> yeah a substitute teacher something that may work >> I think Senator I think one of the things you know we we have looked at you know there are the schools have the ability to have educational assistance in their classrooms to have additional support for the teachers in their classrooms. I think

158m Mity mentioned about the educational assistance primarily a majority of those are helping with our special education students but not all. Um I think you know research does show that smaller class size sometimes does help you and I think if we're going to look at ex making class sizes bigger. I don't know if that's the direction that the department would not just saying making it bigger. I'm saying making it a little bit bigger. So maybe increase it >> 10 15 students more. But add another teacher. And that teacher could be a part-time teacher, a substitute teacher, a teacher that is not yet credentialed in Hawaii, something different. Just try it. I mean, we're we've been looking at this for years. >> I've been doing this for years and we haven't found the answer. Are you

159guys looking at other states that may have the same problems and have found the answers? And Senator, I think one of the things that we're really looking at is majority of our emergency hires are local individuals. And I think what we are seeing with some of our data is is that if we can hire local, the likelihood that they will remain in the position, remain in Hawaii is much higher than what we're seeing that those sometimes that we would recreate would that we would recruit from the continent or other locations. So I think that's what we're looking really is is how can we support this group of emergency hires that are local individuals give them the additional supports and time necessary to hopefully see them be successful to become a licensed teacher in our schools.

160I mean currently right now with our emergency hires there is a process on an annual basis that they have to show active pursuit that they are working towards lensure getting their practice they those positions also on an annual basis do need to be posted for tenure teachers to have an opportunity to uh have an a chance at those positions. I think what we're really looking at at this point is what would be the alter alternate if the these people get to their three-year mark and they're close but maybe haven't gotten to that that final finish line. We would have to basically at this point release them and then we'd either start over with a new emergency hire or we would do a day-to-day um substitute teaching. >> I think that's my point. What you guys

161have been doing for years is not working. So, can you try something new by looking? I'm not saying a larger classroom with just a single teacher. I'm saying a larger classroom with maybe an additional teacher. And it may not be for all classrooms. It may be for certain classrooms, but something different. I I'm just exhausted with with this topic. And I think we we haven't tried every avenue yet. And I'm just saying, have you guys looked at this? It's something I can take back to our team and look to see if you know other ideas. And I mean, we'd like to try to solve this and work together closely with the legislature and our community partners and figuring out how we can best solve this teacher shortage as we move forward here. >> Thank you.

162Okay. You know, to just to add on to that, I think ideally we all want to have local teachers, teachers from our community, but in light of the fact that no matter the efforts that you folks have put in, that we have a shortage and we're not able to get as many locals uh in there and those that we do have, we are training them or you folks are training them and and encouraging them um as emergency hires to become full-time in the class. But in the meantime, as the senator raised, we we need to start thinking outside of the box and what exactly can we do because it's either a qualified teacher or no teacher. Um, you know, so that's not acceptable. Um, so something has to give and certainly, you know, we're we're

163looking at all areas and we had hope that you folks will too and not just say, well, you know, we just want to we rather have these long-term residents stay here. Yeah, we do too. And you might try by looking with a teacher that may be from here that is thinking of retiring. So just the idea if you did a larger class with another teacher, would they consider staying on a number of years? >> Start somewhere. >> Yeah. Or group teaching. Group teaching, team teaching. They're doing that across the mainland now, especially in Arizona. have been to those classes where you have a brand new teacher come in and she teaches with two others that's probably veteran teachers and they have a class three classes combined in one but divided up into different working groups

164that you get some of that >> and so you know those kinds of areas but one of the problems is is our facilities is not conducive to having these kinds of three three classes and that's why it's so important as we're building new facilities or or renewing our facilities that that kind of thinking has to go into it instead of building the same old type of classrooms that we're used to to because it's just not conducive to futuristic type of teaching because the industrial mode of teaching is no longer relevant in the classroom but we're still teaching it. >> Okay. Senator Court, >> if I could pose the same question to you with regards to the standards with this bill adding the mandatory training continue with progress and do you believe this bill increases the

165standards? >> I think as one of the other testifiers had mentioned there was another bill the 2515 I believe that bill that you had previously um this committee had passed. Um it really it simplifies the bill. which basically just changes the 3 years to the 5 years. We're currently already providing some practice help to u some of our J1s and other emergency hired teachers to help them to pass the practice and get through those those um stumbling blocks. I think we're also using some of our title 2 monies right now. Should an individual pass the practice, they can work with their school administrator on getting reimbursement for some of those costs. Um, so I think those are some of the things that we're trying to help through this process and really I think just changing

166the three to the five years it's really a no cost item to I think the department or the state. It's just giving the resources that we need to these individuals that we've already invested three years into. Um hopefully many of them do pass, you know, and complete what they need to within the three years. But if they do, if the life approaches them, if they do need those additional year or two for additional assistance, that's what we're really hoping for with this bill. >> So, you are familiar that there are classrooms right now without a teacher and they're pretty much being unattended in the cafeteria. >> I wouldn't need to get exact exact examples of that if you wanted to share some. >> Sure, I can share that information with you. Um, so do you

167believe that it's better to at least have an quote unquote unlicensed teacher that's in the process of receiving its license than no teacher at all? >> Definitely. I'd rather see somebody that is in a program and showing progress and motivated to get to that finish line than not having a teacher out. Definitely. >> Thank you. Thank you, chair. >> Thank you. Questions? So, so you probably know that in section four which is the department of education shall provide training to assist emerging hires in passing the practics examination and this shall be mandatory for emergency hiring individuals fourth and fifth years but I guess do we know that the practice is the issue in in in a lot of these guys because some of them they they just need to get their potentially a degree right

168and so it's not necessarily just the practice >> it could be a multitude of things yes it could be practice it could be just them working towards their final degree They may, you know, depending on which institution they are currently enrolled in, the availability of classes, sometimes they may have to wait a semester uh before a certain course is offered to them. >> So, we just got to be careful then if we're going to say mandatory because it may not it might be the wrong remedy for some of these people if we extend it for fourth to the fourth or fifth year. We got to we got to leave that to you guys, right? >> To figure out what what what is the remedy to help >> agree with that, Senator? Yes. So maybe we

169got to make it a little broader >> in terms of identifying the DOE needs to come up with a plan or something. >> Well, I think kind of what we're looking at is if you're are on years one, two, three, four, possibly four or five, they do need to demonstrate to us that they are continually, you know, working towards that. They're showing us their transcript with additional courses that they've taken, practice. I think each person is in a different boat and I think we need to be able to have that flexibility to make sure that we can ensure that they are on progress to getting to >> where we need them to right. Okay. Thank you chair. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Thank you. Are you here for the next item

170as well? >> I'm here for the next item. Yes. >> Okay. HB2293 House draft House draft two is for the registry relating to harm to students clarifying the scope of the Department of Education's harm to students registry by excluding K through2 students and by providing that contractors and volunteers are included only if their roles involve interaction with students. So go ahead with your testimony. >> All right, good afternoon chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Again, Sean Bacon on behalf of the department. The department supports uh House Bill 2293 to really refine the harm to student registry by limiting the scope of our contractors and volunteers to just those that have close are in close contact with our students and also exempting our students that are in our K12 uh that are currently our K12

171students. Uh if you have additional questions, I'm able Thank you. >> Can you say that again? >> Okay. So currently right now the harm to student registry it states that if you're in close proximity to students that you should be scanned against the registry. What we are trying to do with this is limit that to just those that have direct contact with students. So we may have a contractor for example that is on the roof installing you know some solar or something. They may not even be close to students but the way that it's written right now we would need to scan them against the registry. So, what we're trying to do with clarifying this language is is if you are a contractor or a volunteer and you're sitting next to a student providing direct

172instruction or direct support to them, those would be the people that would need to be scanned against the registry. Also, we have some of our student helpers and some of our students that are in our K12 settings right now. It would this would also exempt them from being scanned against the registry. Why why wouldn't those that come into contact with children from K through2 be exempt? Is that what you're saying? >> So the change in the language now would exempt our current students that are enrolled in our K12 schools. whether it's an active student and if they are going to then do like student helper work or whatever they wouldn't have to be scanned against the registry because they're already covered under chapter 19 and other current rules. >> So these are current students at

173that school >> current active students that are in our schools that are working towards graduation. Correct. So you talking about older students or you're talking about K to 12 K K through 12 all the students I'm confusing myself. >> Sorry. Hi San Elizabeth. We're talking about our existing department students. So some of them may be volunteer like we have high school students that volunteer at the elementary school to reading. Um, we're asking for our existing students who are um, either kindergarten through 12th grade that may be volunteered or employed for them to not be screened by the registry because right now the way the statute reads, it just reads um, volunteers or contractors in general. >> If you have high school students tutoring elementary students or you have students working in the cafeteria, volunteering, giving

174out food and stuff like that, that may not be scanned. >> Correct. Correct. >> Yes. Our existing students. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. >> Sorry about that. >> I was thinking that if there was harm to students from K through 12, then these people wouldn't be on the >> correct. So >> yeah, it's just um clar making that clarification so it's clear that's in our implementation. >> That's in the bill right now. >> That's in the bill. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions members? If not, thank you. Thank you. That is the end of our agenda on all agendas. So we're going to recess into decision making. We are back into order. The committee on education apologize for the delay, but as you can see, these are not decisions that we just make

175willy-nilly and certainly want to discuss it. So, um, with that, I'm going to start with today's 111 agenda. Starting with House Bill 1970. This is relating to the University of Hawaii Cancer Center appropriating funds. The recommendation members is to pass uh with amendments that also clarify the purpose of the funds which was kind of unclear. We'll try to do it based on what was was mentioned and also this is going to go on to ways and means so we can clarify that language further. We will um also uh amend the means of financing it and we will state instead of the general fund that it'll be from the uh tuition and special feeds account any and any um technical and non-substantive amendments that needs to be and then a defective date of July 31, 2055.

176Any discussion members? Not the chair votes I on Senate House Bill 1970 House draft 2 with an SD1 to >> pass with amendments. >> Yes. >> Chair votes I. Vice chair votes I. Senator Kumoto is excused. Senator Hashimoto >> I. >> Senator Deort >> I is adopted. Madam Chair, >> thank you. On House Bill 1896, House draft one. This is uh relating to community schools. Uh while I know the positive uh comments from from those that testified, uh I think that this requires more discussion and a lot more thought being that it will really change our idea of academic schools and public schools. Uh I am going to however keep moving this measure on because it needs more discussion and but I wanted to put into the committee report that discussion that we had regarding

177whether or not the this is the mission of schools or it should be called something else or we have to really uh rethink this through. Uh but uh with that we're going to defect the date to 731 2055. Any discussion? Not. Uh, chair votes I. HB1 1896 with an SD1 >> pass with amendments. Chair votes I. Vice chair votes I. Senator Fukunaga excuse. Senator Aimoto. >> Hi. >> Senator Dori. >> Measures adopted. Madam chair. >> Thank you for house bill 1891 house draft 1. This is the dyslexia sensitive linguistically appropriated universal screenings. Uh the recommendation is to amend uh to an SD1 uh with uh effective date of July 31, 2025, I mean 2055. uh and also would like to put into the committee report that the DOE is certainly encouraged to look at universal

178type screening for all schools and that um we need to have accountability as to the programs that is in fact um determined and also hopefully that they will be able to give us the data as to what schools are are actually implementing uh these screenings that that they propose. So with that members any discussion hearing none uh chair votes I >> house bill 1891 to pass with amendments chair votes I vice chair votes I senator fuka excuse >> okay on house bill sorry >> thank you members getting ahead of myself the hour is late uh HB1 1840 U this Does the uh charter school hire an unlicensed individuals as teachers on emergency basis for five rather than three years? The recommendation is to insert is to do an SD2 insert new section into the bill

179that amends section 302A- 802. This new section will add a requirement for the Hawaii Teacher Standard Boards to develop an alternative pathway for a visiting international educator permit. This is similar to the language that was in the original draft of the House Bill 1840 and that we are going to further amend uh 1840 on page 9. We're deleting the section three starting on line six on page nine all the way to line 17. And that in the next line, section four, we're going to amend that to say the Department of Education shall provide support instead of the word training support to assist emergency hires in meeting requirements of teacher licenser. And the support under this section shall be mandatory for an emergency hire in the individual's fourth and fifth years as an emergency hire. I

180think is that entirety? Yeah. So any discussion members? Oh, also we are going to further defect the date to July 31, 2055 and uh any technical and clarifying amendments uh that need to be done. >> Yes. And we're striking out on page 10 line one everything after the word hire to the period. Okay. Any discussion hearing? None. Chair votes I on House Bill 1840 and SD1. >> Chair votes I. Vice chair votes I. Senator excuse. Senator Hashimoto. >> Senator Dakota. Hi. >> Measures adopted. >> Thank you. And the last item on this agenda is House Bill 2293. This is the registry to harm students. Recommendation is to amend and defect the date further to July 1, 2020 2055. Uh, and >> July 31st, >> I'm sorry, >> July 31st. Sorry. Thank you. July 31st, 20

18155. And if there's any any clarifying amendments that as well. Uh, any discussion? Hearing none, chair vot2293. Chair, vice chair, senator, excuse. Senator Hashimoto, >> hi. the court. >> I just adopted. >> Thank you. We will now go on to our agenda deferred from Monday, March. >> Sorry. >> Yeah, March 23rd. No, today is March 23rd. Um when when was the date of this? >> 18th. >> The 18th. March 18th. Okay. March 18th agenda. Okay. So we are starting with House Bill 2172, House draft 2. This is the employment of retirees establishing a five-year pilot program to authorize Department of Education to rehired uh retired teachers and educational officers and hard to staff positions. And the recommendations is we amend to Senate draft 1. Uh proposed amendments in page three section C add the AG

182amen recommendation of incorporating more objective standards such as requiring that a position be advertised for a specific minimum period using DOE standard recruitment efforts. Insert on page three in line 1617 section A. The department shall conduct at least two career fairs and within a 60-day period has actively advertised a position as part of a good faith recruitment effort. Page 414 lines 14 to 15. Remove the words remove for eligible for another differential and annual amount of $3,000 or more established by the department. So, we're taking out the differential. uh also that the in on page five lines six and seven add the AG's recommendation regarding that there shall be no agreement by the retiree prior to a retirement um and that we will remove on page five in 8 through 10 the department shall contribute

183the required percentage of compensation to amatize the employee's retirement system unfunded actual occur library those are being removed page 28 lines 8 to 11 C that will also be removed. Each employer shall contribute to the pension accumulation fund. On page five, add the language from Senate Bill 2872 SD1, which says, "A retirement hired after June 30th, 2026 shall receive the entry-level salary for the teacher or administrator position as negotiated in the collective bargaining unit contract for that position and shall not be eligible for benefits typically afforded to active employees pursuant to chapter 78. So with that said, members, any discussion? Anything else we need to add in there? If not, chair votes I. >> Repeat what you said. >> Okay, let's go back. >> Kidding. >> I know you are. I was afraid you were

184gonna ask that. >> Chair votes I on uh SD1. >> House Bill 2172 HD2. >> Uh HD2, but it's going to be SD1. >> SD1. >> Yeah. >> Chair votes I. I senator excuse senator Hashimoto hi >> senator court >> hi meadows >> okay thank you house bill 1785 house draft one on the student transformation I'm going to defer to my colleague from Maui since it's his passion >> great thank you chair um we're going to um recommend that we uh make amendments so in the amendments we're going to remove the governor from the contract suspension process This ensures the superintendent of education retains proper statutory authority as the chief procurement officer for the department. We're going to restore the financial penalties for contractors who fail to deliver service. However, we're making the assessments of

185these penalties discretionary. This provides the Department of Education with the necessary leverage to hold bad actors accountable without forcing rigid punishments that might exacerbate our current driver shortage. We're going to align the statutory language with how the department actually procures services by changing the term contracted routes to contracted service capacity. And we're going to protect the integrity and transparency of competitive bidding by reducing the exemption for interimm agreements from 30 months down to 12 months or the remainder of the current academic school year. Finally, we will add language to explicitly harmonize this new flexibility with the existing state procurement office rules regarding termination for default. Um and I'm not sure if you want to um defect the date further. >> Yes, was defected to July 31, 2055 to be consistent. Any discussion members on that?

186>> Hearing none, the chair votes I on House Bill 1785 uh SD1. >> Chair votes I. Vice chair votes I excuse >> I adopt. >> Thank you. House bill 1780, House draft one. This requires Department of Education to establish a student bus fair system that includes free bus passes. The recommendation is to amend to an SD1 and to amend the language to include the word school before the reference to bus passes as was brought up by the AG and insert the defective date of July 31, 2055. Any discussion hearing? None. Chair votes I. SD1 for House Bill 1780. >> Chair votes I. Vice chair votes I. Senator Another excuse. Senator Ashimoto. >> Hi. >> Senator Dory. Hi. Measures adopted. >> Thank you. On House Bill 1870, House draft 1. This is the early learning apprenticeship

187grant program. Uh recommendation is to amend to an SD1. Recommendation is on page 7, lines 10 to 11. We remove the words general revenues of the state of Hawaii. Replace it with uh tuition fees and special fund. Defect the date to July 31, 2055. Any discussion hearing? None. The chair votes I on House Bill 1872 SD1. >> Chair votes I. Vice chair votes I. Senator excuse. Senator Hashimoto. >> Hi. >> Senator Dort. >> Hi. >> Thank you. On House Bill 1889, House draft 1. This is relating to school psychologist. Recommendation is to defer. Any discussion? Hearing none. Items deferred. On House Bill 1893, House draft 2. This clarifies the public charter school teachers are eligible for incentives under the teacher national board certification incentive program. Um the recommendation is to amend to an SD1 to

188keep the original dollar amount of $5,000 on lines one page one line 11 page two line four uh including each public school teacher has was already included in the bill so we don't have to revise that. So that language stays in and insert the defective date of July 31, 2055. Any discussion hearing? None. Chair votes I on SD1 for HB1 1893. Chair votes I. Vice chair votes I. Senator excuse. Senator Ashimoto. I senator Dori. >> Measures adopted. Madam chair. >> Thank you. House Bill 2344 House draft 1. This is established temporary public school realignment closure commission to develop and recommend a comprehensive package of school consolidations. Recommendation is to insert a defective date of July 31, 2055. Any discussion? Hearing none, chair votes I on SD1 and HB 2344. >> Chair votes I. Vice chair

189votes I. Senator Fukumo excuse. >> Senator Hashimoto. >> Hi. Senator Decort. Hi, measures adopted. Madam Chair, >> thank you. House Bill 23, House 2300, House draft 1. Uh, this is relating to procurement uh for the Department of Education. Uh, recommendation is to amend to an SD1 on page two, line 21, change the amount from 250,000 to $2. Oh, no, wait, excuse me.$200,000. >> Just thought I'd do that for >> Insert the defective date of July 31, 2055. Any discussion members hearing? None. Chair votes I on House Bill 2300 SD1. >> Chair votes I. Vice chair votes I. Senator Ashimoto. >> Hi. >> Senator Decort. >> Hi. >> Measures adopted. And that is all.