Senate Standing Committee on Education

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Committee on Education. Today's Wednesday, January 28th. We are in room 229 and it's 1:03 PM. Just a note that our, we are—all of our live stream Senate standing Committee meetings are available on the Senate YouTube channel.

In case you want to rewatch this and you have insomnia and you want to, you know, make yourself go to sleep, you can rewatch our hearings.

With that, I just want to say that today's hearing we're focusing on how the University of Hawaii and Department of Education and others are working together and are using public resources to educate our local students and address workforce shortages across our state.

The Legislature has invested substantial public funds in both systems, from K through 12 through higher education, and through operating budgets, tuition support, scholarships, and waivers. These investments must be aligned; they must be intentional and accountable with a clear focus on outcomes that benefit Hawaii's community and our economy.

This Committee is interested not only in where the money is going, but how our students are being prepared. Addressing workforce needs requires instructional strategies that move beyond traditional lecture-based models and instead promote student engagement, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills for today's and tomorrow's workforce.

Strong coordination between DOE and UH is critical to ensuring students are supported along the entire pipeline from classrooms to credentials to careers. And that coordination should be reflected in spending decisions, academic pathways, and measurable results. And the Senate believes that and which is why now we have one committee, Education, and we're not splitting it up.

So, today's discussion is about accountability, transparency, and alignment, and we look forward to hearing how DOE and UH are working together to ensure public dollars are educating local students, strengthening our workforce, and producing outcomes that truly serve Hawaii. And with that, I want to introduce our Committee Members. On my left, Vice Chair of the Committee, Senator Kidani.

To my right, Senator Hashimoto from Maui. And further right is Senator De Corte from the Waianae Coast. So, we're starting off with Teacher Education Coordinating Committee, TECC. So, we have Kerry Tom, Nathan Murata, and others here, too, if you want to come up.

And can you just give a really brief, for the public that might be watching, about what is TECC and your mission, just briefly.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee. Nathan Murata, Dean of College of Education, UH Manoa. The Teacher Education Coordinating Committee, it was established in 1965 under a specific statute here, a Hawaii revised statute.

And so, for nearly 60 years, we've been an advisory committee charged with identifying, studying, and making recommendations on matters of education that are common interest to the Department and to the education preparation programs across the state of Hawaii. And we collaborate and are working closely with all the teacher preparation programs.

That's, that includes both the public, private, and alternate certification programs that are here, and we all work very closely with the Department of Education in some advisory capacity.

And how many members are on your—on this Committee?

The TECC comprises of approximately 20—20 somewhat individuals.

Okay. And they span from public education?

Private institutions, alternative certification programs. HSTA is also represented. Hawaii P20's also represented. Some invited guests depending on what the agenda items are.

Okay. What would you say has been the accomplishments and the results since the inception in 1965? I mean, it seems like this entity has been around for a long time.

Yes, it has.

And to be honest, a lot of people don't and my colleagues were not aware of TECC, so that kind of worries me that, you know, it's been around for so long, yet you guys seem to be kind of really low key.

Yeah, I can share. So, Carrie Tom from the Department of Education, Office of Talent Management. I help facilitate the conversations with TECC, as well as I'm the Superintendent Designee if he can't attend the meetings.

But we have a—TECC has a five-year strategic plan. So, we have three objectives basically, which is building teacher capacity, increasing in service teacher satisfaction, and competitive compensation incentives. Those are the three main things in the strategic plan for TECC.

So, basically, the strategic plan—the strategic plan covers what? Because you've talked about teacher capacity compensation, but I don't hear anything about teaching students and the way we're delivering them.

Yeah, I think the TECC is more of a macro synergistic kind of entity where it encompass everyone. So, all the procedures and policies from a global, more macro perspective is being introduced.

And then, it's the EPP's, educator preparation programs, such as Manoa and all the 14 other entities that are eligible to provide teacher training here in the state of Hawaii will then take the—develop their own curriculum that will do the actual teacher educator training.

So, have you folks been monitoring whether or not your strategic plan or whether or not your recommendations that come out? And that's another thing I'm going to ask. What are some of the things that have come up that have been implemented? Do you folks keep track of that and how effective?

So, we have some specific areas like for building capacity. We look at early pathways and recruitment articulation agreements between in the university system, alternative pathways from traditional. Program support and retention are some of the capacity builders that we're kind of looking at.

Yeah, but you're looking at it. But what have we got? I mean, and this five year strategic plan, you've guys been in existence and maybe not the same people, but it's been there for 60—since 1965.

Yeah.

Right? So, every, every five years, you have a new strategic plan, or you just keep building on the five-year strategic plan and move it up year after year?

Yeah, well, when I came in on as Dean eight ago, we started to, along with the, Christina Kishimoto at that time, to create this strategic plan in order to have all the EPPs sort of have a say and work closely with the Department and so that we're unified in preparation and at least having all the necessary information to develop our programs.

So, then, we actually came up with five objectives earlier and we scaled it down to these current three objectives that we find to be realistic, you know, impactful. And there are certain outcomes that we do have that TECC was part of, some recommendations that the Department has taken on, as far as teacher preparation programs, so.

And what about the Board of Education? Do you guys?

Board of Education.

Communicate with them, advise them of what you folks are doing? What's the plan? I mean, is there any kind of dovetailing coordination?

I don't know.

Not so much with the Board of Education. Well, so, because the entity is made up of all the EPPs and the Department of Education, we usually take that information back and then we go back to our respective agencies and work on the various issues that we talk about.

Whether it's Pathways Improvement, the teaching—Teacher Ed program. That's generally how it kind of works from TECC, we go back and then we talk to our fellow agencies. So, for example, some of the things that we've been trying to work on is I think for TECC, it's about getting interest for people to become teachers, especially young people.

Right? We're trying to figure out how we can attract our young people to become teachers and then mid-career changers, you know, those are some of the populations we're kind of looking at. And so, we kind of go back and that's the biggest conversation we've been having. Now, how can we partner together to build that pipeline?

Because recruitment, you know, has been better, because we've kind of streamlined our processes, but it's generating that interest. So, some of the recruitment team that I oversee, we've been going out, let's say into elementary, secondary, middle schools to start talk—having these conversations with kids and you know, with teacher pathway academies within the high schools.

We've been working on things like that.

So, have you folks been talking about how we move from lecture-based teaching to student-centered learning?

I mean, at the—on higher ed, in the education preparation programs, well, at least I can only speak to Manoa.

But it's not just in—at higher ed. But in order for higher ed to implement this, the public schools have to embrace it as well. Right? So, you cannot be putting out teachers who have this new way of teaching, but they go into the traditional way of teaching when they get out.

So, it is a connection, which is why we're here. I don't think that kind of collaboration has been happening yet. We have you, TECC, which you have both entities and others that can do that. So, you know, that's why I raised this concern.

Well, I know that at the TECC level, every year, the chairperson alternates. So, this year is—I'm chairing the TECC next year as a superintendent.

Now, do you folks actually are in the meetings, or you have your representatives?

Oh, I'm actually at the meetings. Yes.

The superintendent is at the meeting?

When he's able to, he attends a meeting. Yes.

Okay, what does that mean?

How often is that? It depends on what his schedule is, but I'm usually the designee that works with TECC.

You have a question?

Yeah. How comparable is your strategic plan to Department of Ed's strategic plan? How much of your plan do they incorporate in the overall?

Well, the two plans are a little bit separate because we're dealing with education providers.

Both public and private.

That's right.

So, I know for us, we try to align it with at least our preparation programs with regard to recruitment, retention, accessibility to get to all the neighbor islands.

And for us, it aligns with—because we're trying to fill the vacancies in the Department of Education. So, we're trying to figure out how do we build those pipelines with our EPP partners. So, like I mentioned previously, we are able to recruit and fill the vacancies, but when we look at the—there's a churn there, but we're trying to figure out how.

So, our mission is really to work with them, like I said about generating interest in our young folks. So, that's been the newest program. How do we kind of figure that out? Because it's, you know, local grown has been our focus lately.

Yeah. So, according to your report, it seems like you folks have been able to increase the teacher positions. However, a report had come out in December saying that 48% of the teachers in the classroom were not licensed. So, how does that play into your strategic plan?

Because if we're just filling seats for the sake of filling seats and then coming to the ledge, checking the box, and making it look pretty, but when we start getting into the root and weeds of things, it's like, what are we really giving our kids here?

We're giving them quality or we're just putting people in a room for the sake of coming back to the ledge during session and saying, hey, we checked off the box, where really, it's not quality.

Well, I think, you know, speaking only for Manoa, you know, I think we are delivering an excellent product. Obviously, we graduate anywhere from 250 to 300 a year at Manoa and that clearly does not suffice to fill all the vacancies.

And so, I know the Department has gone through past couple of years, streamlined their application and hiring processes, whereby now, in the past, you've heard of maybe 1,000 vacancies.

Now, I think they're down to about 100, whereby teachers, not our graduates, can actually access the schools directly and apply almost directly at the schools to find where these positions are. So, in that sense, yes, we are very much in tune with that.

However, just if you do the math, the numbers of candidates that the state produces, including private public alternatives, does not meet the, obviously, the totality of what's vacant.

Yeah. So, I'm just going to be bringing it back to my point, which is the teachers that are in the classroom, 48% of them are not licensed.

Correct.

So, why do we keep lowering the standards in the classroom just to fill for the classroom sake? Do you think that our students deserve teachers that are not licensed?

I mean, teacher quality is really important. So, where we dovetail is that—so, it's kind of like a continuum where we have licensed folks and we have these emergency hires.

What we're finding is when we've done surveys is that actually a lot of these are people who are older, so they're not going into the system as young folks. Right? They're actually—a lot of them are mid-career changers.

So, in TECC, we're actually trying to figure out how can we work and support these people who are actually showing interest. They might have been waitresses or other careers and they're switching to be teachers, but they don't have the certification.

So, that's also a key area that we're trying to work with is providing more support for these people, so they can become licensed.

Okay. Because just in my opinion, that is unacceptable to have teachers that are not licensed teaching our kids and in our classroom. So, a part of your five-year strategic plan is also increasing compensation and incentives. Now, I understand that your $10,000 a year bonus is not really an incentive for people to sign up for the jobs.

So, are you working on compensation that is a little bit more able for people to afford the cost of living here?

Well, that's a good question. I mean, I think we try to advocate every year for salaries and the benefit packages and I think the differentials for like hard to fill areas, special education, I think that's a good start.

So, when you advocate for the increase of compensation, where is there a wall? Where does it stop? So, you folks advocate.

At us. That's unfortunately.

Well, try harder.

Okay, okay, we'll try harder.

We don't give them the money. Senator Kidani.

Thank you. Basically, she asked some of the questions I had. But with the education preparation program, the EP, to hire and train more teachers. But what is our retention rate? I mean, what percentage? Maybe not the ones that are just coming in, but what percentage of teachers are we losing each year?

So, maybe we need to beef of the program, beef up the salary. I don't know what it is.

The retention rate has been about a little above 50%.

50% of the workforce.

Of the workforce, over five years.

Yeah. But you know, I can, again, speaking only on behalf of Manoa, our retention rate on our own data we have, we have a 90% retention rate at five years and beyond for our graduates that are currently still employed in the Department.

So, I think Carrie is referring to just the overall with all the EPPs and all the alternative certification programs. So, we're very proud of that data that we have. But yes, it is—the retention issue is also, so, we kind of look at it from recruitment and retention kind of go hand in hand.

You can recruit ad nauseam, but if they keep leaving, I mean, you're still at a zero balance. So, we're trying to do the recruiting, but we're also trying to address the retention issue through various means such as wage compensation, improving perhaps working conditions, things of that nature, so.

So, have you folks all these years kind of figured out why we can't retain? I mean, what is the, what is—I know it's not one thing, but there's a lot of things going on that people need. Some of it is they didn't sign up for some of their duties. Right?

They didn't sign up to be a Nurse's aide. They didn't sign up to give medication and do stuff like that in the classroom. I mean, do we know, do we know why we can't retain? I mean, we can't just keep throwing money at it.

If maybe money's not the only thing, if it's, you know, teachers' responsibilities and the workplace environment, then—what have you guys?

So, I'll tell you that our separation data shows that the majority, when you look at the data, are actually leaving out of the state. So, in terms of when we check annually, they're just leaving. Now, you know, for what reason it is, but that's the aggregate reason.

But do you guys ask them for what reason? Is it for possibility?

Transient military is a large one.

Yeah.

Sometimes they mention affordability, but generally, the roll up is like they're leaving. That's been the general reason.

So, I think the bottom line is, right, TECC is—you're supposed to be figuring out a pipeline, right? So, your bottom line problem is you just have too many teachers leaving and not enough people in the pipeline coming in.

And I think Dean Murata knows how much I've been trying to work on this issue, but I think what frustrates me a little bit is you talk about mid-career people. That's fine.

What I've been saying, what you have to do, and I don't know what the DOE is doing, is you have to get the young folks to go, right? You have to get the conversions right out of high school. How do you convince them to become teachers? And that's why.

But the DOE needs to have a concerted effort to figure out how do you make that happen. Like we talk about pathways, right? So, we go to—on Maui, we try to figure out one principle, okay? One principal wants to do a pathway, we go to another school, they say no.

Why are you guys allowing them to say no? You tell them if we, as a Department, want to have, we need a robust pipeline, right? And so, I think that—the DOE, in itself, needs to help yourself to figure out how do you create that pipeline.

You are the best, you know, system to figure out how do you get these young people to become teachers. But then it goes to UH, right, because, so, UH, has to then figure out how do we convert these people, how do we make it easy to get that teaching degree? Right? Right now, it's not easy.

That's why I've been harping on the College of Ed to make that conversion easier, right, from freshman year, right out of high school, through your four years, it has to be seamless. And it's not seamless right now. But the question is, what is DOE doing? You have early college; you have Hawaii promise.

What are you using out of those programs to recruit teachers? But it doesn't seem like it's a priority. And I get it. I support the J1 program. But let's be honest, the J1 program is a band aid. Right?

That is supposed to buy us time, but then TECC is then supposed to come in and figure out, okay, what is the longer-term strategy while we have this band aid in place. And so, when I read this report, I get really concerned that I'm not seeing that synergy or that strategy. Right?

In fact, what I'm reading is that you closed down one of your programs and you left 50 teachers in limbo. Right? Potential teachers in limbo. And that really concerned me. Right? Why are we, why are we adding barriers when I think the whole purpose of TECC is to close those barriers and gaps?

So, I don't think people are taking this seriously. Right? I have another report that I had to put a bill to get a request of the, the report on establishment expanded teaching cohort programs in each county. And I'm looking at the data with my staff today and I'm appalled. Like, this is '24-'25.

And according to the enrollment, at least at Manoa, it's only 214—or 274, I'm sorry. And for Maui, it said we only have 41 enrolled in the College of Ed, '24-'25. And it's only nine Bachelors of Ed teachers. Right? And so, I'm like. And then on Oahu, it's only 151.

And so, if you look at the data, the data speaks for itself, that we should be really, really concerned that yes, you need the pipeline in. But, but what barriers are we, are we breaking down to, to make sure that we have a robust pipeline?

Yeah, I would agree that attracting young folks into professionals.

Yeah, but what did you guys do over the last three years? Because I requested this in 2022. What have we done since 2022?

Yeah, you know, there are a lot of different—I mean, so, because he's made up of a bunch of folks, you know, like HSP is pursuing.

No, no, no, but is the DOE—are you not concerned about your teacher workforce?

We are.

But I don't see that concern happening. Right, I guess you do the J1s, but what else are you, what else are you guys doing? Like, this is serious. If you look at the numbers.

So, I guess maybe the question should be more directly is when you do exit interviews, what is the number, the top five reasons why teachers leave? You said transient, but what else? Is it a salary?

I could get that information for you about the lower level breakdown.

But I think what the question is, what is the strategy moving forward? And I don't know, like, you know, you guys are here, but I don't hear what the strategy is.

So, again, you know, we get back to the basic as to how this Committee and the number of years that they've been there is working together and you know, are you talking with the Board of Education? Are they involved?

Just because they don't have a member on this doesn't mean that there's not policies that need to be looked at for public schools as well. And so, you know, how have the activities listed in the 2023-'24 and then the '24-'25 reports impact the number of state approved teachers program students getting into education as a career?

What's been the impact and how have they influenced that?

You know, I think, you know, based on the report—is that Act 141? You know, again, you know, I can't speak for everyone, but you know, our data at Manoa over the past couple of years has been somewhat stable and sometimes even going in a lower trajectory than I care to admit.

But what we are currently working on too, with the help of others in the UH system, is a much more focused—to get to Senator Hashimoto's point about seamlessness and transitions from our community colleges to the four years.

And we've made significant progress on two plus two articulation agreements, whereby we should have a seamless process of getting students from the community colleges over into teacher pathways without any minimal disruptions and barriers.

But if university is only producing two to 300 students and the rest of the marketplace is putting out the students, it's still not enough. So, what do we do? We know it's not enough. So, what are we doing about it? What are you guys in the Committee doing about it?

Yeah, so, I mean we really are having those discussions, even recently.

But discussions and discussions and discussions since 1965. So, after a while, you know, we gotta start acting and implementing and not just planning and discussing, right? I mean, where is, where is the bold actions? Let me, let me ask DOE this question.

So, you folks made a statement, or there's been a statement, that said DOE processed 11,000 teacher applications to fill the usual 1,000 vacancies with highly qualified teachers. So, where did the 11,000 applications originate from?

So, because we had a sort of a pool-based system which was the positions where you apply for a position, right, and before, you would just be sent on anywhere it went position specific. So, not all the positions by each school is advertised that way.

When we did that, the aggregate amount that we would receive, it increased like from 3,000, it went to 11,000. So, it's just an aggregate number of how many applications went in. And of course, yes, it impacted our vacancies positively. Where we would be maybe having a standing, you know, 600 after school started, it's maybe down to below 100 now. So, it's just.

You have below 100 vacancies? That's not true. Right? The report that was shown to us was more than that, vacancies.

Well, when we talk about vacancies, these are what schools are posting. So, currently, like today, they had like 74 current active requisitions in terms of posting teacher jobs.

How many are local applicants or returning to Hawaii applicants of that 11,000?

We could, we could provide that data. We would have to look at that.

Why did only 45 candidates in Hawaii attend the teacher career fair if the goal is to attract and build teacher career pathways?

So, when it mentions about the career fair and lowering of numbers, it's because of the effectiveness of the applicant tracking system. So, before, you know, what happens is people are actually being able to apply to those jobs specifically, so they actually have a job prior to needing to do the job fair.

What is the status of the teacher apprentice program and how it's impacted teacher recruitment?

So, the teacher apprenticeship program is—I think it's going through its... process.

So, you have no data from the?

Yeah, I mean the apprenticeship program hasn't started. Hasn't started.

So, it's supposed to impact recruitment, right?

Yes.

And—what's the goal though?

Well, it's a terrific pathway in terms of it provides an opportunity for people to become teachers and they—partially financial support.

Right, right. But as far as actually recruiting them, actually getting them to?

Well, I think the current program that's a pilot, I think with the Department of Labor, a specific number of funds that's been earmarked. So, those funds would be used to pay for the salaries and tuition, I believe. So, I think depending on the funding that's available, they would be—the candidates will be able to benefit from getting their tuition covered plus some salary increases as part of per the apprenticeship program until the time they graduate.

So, there should be minimal cost to—minimal to zero cost to the candidates themselves.

Okay, so, do you folks feel that TECC has been effective, have been successful, have been impactful, and is worth going on, you know, after 65 years—or beyond 65, since 1965? Are we just spinning our wheels with another entity?

You know, I think to be, to answer the question, you know, I think we've—I can only speak for the past eight years, but I think we've, we've—the TECC, I think, is a good committee because it brings in not only the UH system program, but it brings in the privates, the alternate cert programs that really gets to see the process.

And so, everyone, all 14 of us, that are involved in teacher preparation here in the state of Hawaii, gets to hear and see what the Department is requiring, gets to see what the charter schools are requiring. And that I think is a healthy thing.

So, then, that way, our candidates may have choices in selecting potential programs. So, I see it as a benefit. This also gives myself and the superintendent an opportunity to engage bimonthly to talk about priorities for Department and my unit so that we can stay aligned. So, I personally think it's a good thing.

Nothing about what you just said actually ended in real results. It was seeing, it was talking, it was meeting, it was looking, it was observing, it was viewing, but nothing hiring, stabilizing, retention, filling vacancies.

So, again, the question is, is TECC and what you folks were put in place for, do you feel confidently that that has been accomplished and continuing to be accomplished? Because it seems like you guys are not even operational at this point.

Well, you know, I think, I would suggest that—I think there are things that we discuss and we try to implement. There are some outcomes and deliverables that we try to obtain every year.

I know we were instrumental in helping the Department trigger the sheltered instruction and I don't know, some other things, but I mean, there's a lot more we could have done. But, you know, there are—the conversations surrounding what we're doing and what the requirements are, at least from a synergy standpoint everyone gets to hear. Exactly.

And we can't control what the privates, alternative programs do. But I think, for us, I feel pretty good about having that, just the constant dialogue and conversations between the Superintendent and the Manoa campus, at least.

Yeah. What's valuable? I mean, in the conversations, like I mentioned about going from this broad-based recruiting method maybe about 5 years ago to a position specific was a really a big game changer for us in terms of recruitment.

But through the conversations with the TECC, I mean, it used to be kind of operational, where you're like, how do my people apply? They can't even see the positions. So, in terms of that feedback, we were making some changes in terms of recruitment and how we were doing things.

So, as example, through your career fairs, you folks attracted 307 school schools, but within that, 45 candidates were received. That doesn't seem very effective to me. 307 schools with 45 candidates.

Yeah. So, what I had mentioned is that in this, in the recent job fairs, because candidates could see the positions early on, they didn't attend the job fair. And that's our analysis of it.

So, you guys are having these fairs, and no one is showing up? Have you guys pivoted your approach then? How long did you realize that these career fairs were not working when it hit the 200 mark?

No, so, the career fairs we maintained, it was just that when the transition kind of occurred, we could see it. I mean, as soon as it went to position specific recruiting, we saw that the job fairs, if they had an offer, they just didn't attend. And that's when it kind of occurred maybe about a year ago.

The system's been running about a year and a half.

What would you say is your most effective recruiting process right now? Number one.

So, from my, from my perspective, it's always been this position specific recruiting so people could see where the vacancies are. That seemed to be one of the best things. We also have like a, a geomap feature.

So, now, you can kind of hover and see where the positions were because a lot of times people just didn't know like if the position's here. This is where it looks like either, you know, on an outer island or on Oahu, at least from the recruitment side.

When was that implemented?

It's been about two years now.

How many have you folks hired from that?

Well, okay, so you know, we, we have to fill about 1,000 vacancies even to this day. So, we, we fill most of them. But like the conversation earlier, right, they could be mid-career changes, emergency hires, et cetera. So, there's—it generally generated a lot of interest, but the items we talked about perhaps need more work on.

So, what would be your definition of success then?

So, I'm speaking from the recruiting standpoint. It was such a success that we actually could fill these vacancies. But as you guys have pointed out, you know, as mentioned, there's some issues around quality or the types of teachers that are going in.

So, I guess what the question is, what is your strategy moving towards—like, you know, as you meet, what is the biggest issue that you're trying to overcome right now? Is it bringing that, you know, high quality teacher in every single classroom or is it just to fill the classroom? You know, I don't know.

You gotta, you gotta kinda tell us because I think then it gives us a better idea of where we're trying to go in the teacher recruitment side. Right?

I think it's definitely teacher quality. We've had that conversation. We had an accreditation meeting with the TECC recently, and that was definitely the topic.

Okay, so, then, what are the tactics you're using to increase quality?

Right, that's true. I mean.

So I would agree.

Yeah, you discussed it, but what's the result?

So that conversation was very new as of, like, last month. In terms of. Yeah, we do meet monthly. But it was an excellent meeting in terms of. I mean, if you're asking about the conversations there definitely was around, like, teacher quality. How do we give access for especially remote and outer island areas to get access to teacher ed prep programs? That was another topic that was brought up heavily.

Only last month?

Oh, no, no, no. I wouldn't say that. But it's. It's one of the key issues that had come up during that particular meeting. I mean, it's come up before.

But if, you know that's the issue, you should. It should be a standing agenda item at every meeting. And what is, what is the progress that we're making? Right. Because I just go back to the pipeline. Yes, you can fill every seat, but if it's not the definition of what the strategy is supposed to be, then I don't know if the mission is quite there, right?

So alternative pathways programs from other EVPs are also being considered to provide that access and things of that nature.

Okay, well, I think maybe at the next meeting, you should be very clear with everybody. What is their goal here of what we're trying to accomplish? My thing is that the pipeline just gotta be robust. I think that clearly has to be what we gotta focus on. Right. What is the DOE bringing to the table?

What can the College of Ed, not only at Manoa, but West Oahu, what is Hilo bringing to the table? Right. Like, what is the entire university system, including the CCs, what are they bringing to the table to make this happen? And if we don't see the number of people we got to change, we got to pivot, right.

Because I asked, I asked on Maui, are you guys interviewing all the PALS people who run the county summer program? And they're like, what? We don't talk to each other? I'm like, what do you mean? That's your pipeline right there. But nobody's talking to them, right?

And so if you have a problem with the pipeline, you cannot just do the same thing. You got to think of other things. Right? I think it's that important that we want you to succeed. It's not like we're here to come and scold you. We want you to succeed and make sure that you're going into the right direction.

But even if we get the pipeline, you're only putting out 200 to 300 students max. And that's still not going to be enough, right?

Well, I mean, you know, we do have capacity. We could certainly increase. We accept every qualified candidate to our programs. So again, it goes, you know, to what Kerry was talking about earlier is the trying to drum up that interest pipeline thing.

So, you know, we do have programs at Manoa, like for example, Ed Rising's program, where we are actually in high schools. They're coming to campus in the next month to generate teaching as an interest profession. So we are doing little things to add to our repertoire of recruiting efforts and working closely with the Department.

But again, we've been averaging 250/300 a year pretty steadily. So clearly that's not enough to reduce to a point where we got highly qualified people in all of our classrooms. So that is the goal, that is the target, that's the standard. And getting there is taking us a little bit longer, but we're moving toward that direction.

What is your opinion of a qualified teacher?

Qualified?

A quality teacher. Let me say that.

Well, I think, you know, I can sum it up in two words, probably. Student success. Student success with regard to academic.

So if the child is reading at a third grade level at high school, that's not success, right?

No, I mean, I thought broader, like successes. Meeting benchmarks, meeting grade level criterion. I just kind of, kind of encapsulated everything into.

So would you agree that a part of the teacher quality is being licensed?

Oh, definitely.

Okay. Would you agree that a part of the teacher quality would even possibly be degreed, have experience in the DOE system.

Or just having teach an experience period. Yes. Very valuable. Yes.

Okay. I think we're going to actually need to get some real data from you folks with a real strategic plan on what that's looking like. Because if you just look at the reports, to me, it looks like you guys are just checking the box. And that's difficult because student success is very subjective. Success in What?

Working at McDonald's, being a doctor, working in the military. Success is very subjective. But we can't expect success from our students if we don't expect success from our teachers. And we can't expect success from our teachers if we're not holding them to a standard.

And it doesn't sound like you folks are pursuing this in an aggressive way and you don't even have DOE to come behind you to match that up, because we have teachers in my district that are still in a position where they are trying to go through the process to become the accredited teachers, and they've been waiting for three years.

So I feel like there's a - there's a mark here that's being missed. Meanwhile, kids are graduating in my district with fourth grade reading level. Okay, fourth grade reading level is so offensive and insulting to any parents.

And if you guys have kids, you guys should be insulted that this is what's happening on our watch and it's happening in real time. And the longer it takes you guys to figure it out, the more our kids suffer, the more our parents suffer and our community suffers.

So I'm not sure if there's just an apathetic approach to this, but the lack of aggressive effort to have quality teachers in there is so disappointing because I look at it as continual unemployment happening as soon as our kids graduate. And they real... And they wonder why they cannot just get a basic job because they don't have the basic softest soft skills or even computer skills for that matter. So I would just like to say that. Chair. Thank you.

And that takes me back to my original - one of my original questions is that how are students being prepared? Teaching is an industrial age, and we're not anymore. So we really need to address that. And that doesn't seem like something that the TECC has been addressing at all, right?

No, because it's actually the responsibility of the Teacher Educator Preparation Program. So the TECC would not dictate or mandate anything with respect to how a teacher preparation program will deliver their program. That's an accreditation issue.

It's not so much mandating. But as to the philosophy as to do we continue to teach as an industrial nation versus teaching, transforming the way we work with students. Also that affects the novice teacher coming in. The novice teacher is standing first day in front of a class of 25 students with no reinforcement, nobody to help her, nobody to mentor her in the classroom while they're in the classroom, versus transforming across the country where you're having team teaching and other forms where there's more than one teacher in the classroom, and that's how you support the new teachers.

And then they don't feel so all alone. And it's not like their first day of school is like their last day of school being in front of the classroom by themselves. So I mean, those are some of the things too, about why teachers leaving within five years.

It's the younger ones or the newcomers that probably may not, you know, while they're getting the kind of education at the college level once they get into the classroom and once they're a teacher, they may not feel that they're having a lot of support in the, while they're in the classroom.

They may be going to a lot of training, but right there in the classroom. So I think that's something that we would like to see. You know, you have an impressive group of people on this, on this Committee, right? You have Brigham Young University. Yes. Right. Chaminade University, Hawaii Pacific University. I Teach Hawaii. Kaho Iwai.

Kahua Waialoa Indigenous Teacher Education, Leeway Community College, Teach Away, Teach for America, University of Hawaii Hilo, University of Hawaii Manoa, University of Hawaii West Oahu and other entities invited to participate, Hawaii P20, Hawaii State Teachers Association, Hawaii Teachers Standard Board. UH Manoa, In Peace, of course I don't see DOE on here, but. And you folks meet monthly.

I'm not sure with this many people what exactly are coming out as a result and how many actually show up. And then you said it's good because then you get to talk with the superintendent. Right. You folks get to.

Well, I think everyone there gets to, gets firsthand information about what's happening in the Department, what's happening accreditation wise.

Yeah, but you don't have to wait for the meeting to collaborate. Right. Because a lot of it, at the end of the day, while all of these people are great to be in one group, that DOE and the University of Hawaii should be in close.

Yes, yes.

Communication on a regular basis. And dovetailing as to what we're doing. If there's other questions, let me just ask this final question. You know, the statute indicates that the Committee may include recommendations for legislative consideration. What has TECC discussed that would support the three strategic plan objectives that could be submitted for ideas for the legislative action? Have you folks submitted anything?

No, but we do invite legislatures to our TECC meetings to share.

Who have you invited?

Mostly the education folks. Next month we have Representative Garrett coming to talk to us about priorities and occasionally.. We definitely invite, you know, all the education folks.

So there's education folks on here... anybody got invited recently? I know we're busy and I know it's difficult, so, I mean, other than that, you know, what kind of bills or what kind of legislation have you folks felt that you might need to support what you're doing? Once a month.

Just once a month. And is it. What time usually?

Usually it's second Wednesday, second Wednesday of the month at nine o'clock.

When we're in here. So that's probably why we don't go. If you've invited us.

There's, there's, there's been conflicts. I think your office responded saying that you're not available because of conflict.

Well, it's hard if you don't even know you exist, though. You know, legislators when they don't even know. I mean, I've been around a long time and I've only recently learned about you guys.

Yeah, it's been there since 1965.

So. Yeah, I don't know if that's my.

Some of us weren't even born yet.

Speak for yourself.

But. Yeah, but it's not so much what we going to tell you, it's what it is that you think you need as far as any kind of legislation. I'm not encouraging you to just come up with a measure just to come up with one, but I'm just saying that is there, you know.

In the past few years, we've said that we've been trying to come up with deliverables, outcomes that we can share not only with the EPPs, but with, with everyone. And it's been a conversation and we're still trying to get to a space where we feel comfortable with coming up with legislative.

We've never done it, at least not during my tenure here, but something that we can seriously consider as a governing body, as an entity for the state that oversees a lot of these things. I'd be happy to see if we could move legislation. But I also realized too that, you know, we've got all the private sectors there. We've got everyone there. So. Want to be mindful of everyone at the table, so.

Right. I'm sure that they also need support in many ways as well. Yep. Right. So. Okay. Well, you know, we're going to, if I have anything to say about this, we're going to have you come back year after year to give us your report and so to see what your, you know, what your successes, results and so forth.

So, you know, you can take that back to your Committee in your next month's meeting and really have a robust discussion about what it is that, you know, that you can provide as far as results. Not just discussions, not just plans, but implementation and results. You can get that. I mean, we need all the help we can get, and that's why we put all these good folks on this Committee, hopefully so that we can get a nice comprehensive.

Yeah. We appreciate the help and the support on this because we will. We feel it's an important Committee and we realize the, the value.

So who administers? DOE administers this? Or is it UH?

Shared between DOE and.

Yeah, but I mean overall, who's the one point person for TECC?

This year is me.

Okay, so you, you do all the scheduling of the meeting?

Yeah. So prior to a meeting we, we share agenda.

Is there a budget? No, no budget. Okay. Just comes out of. No. Okay. Members, if there are no other questions, thank you very much. We will move on to our second. Yeah, and please look at that whole how, how teaching is being delivered to our students.

Yes, got it. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. As they leave, we're going to have and invite the University of Hawaii.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, Luis Salaveria, Chief Financial Officer.

So Members, we are talking about in General, UH budget, the AI program, NIL and CIP. I know we, we talked about some of this at the Ways and Means Committee and we didn't really get in depth to it. So today we are able to ... to be able to get more details and I guess I will start it off.

And just to ask, one of the things we talked about in Ways and Means was the 420 million dollar Tuition Fund balance. And we understand that 175 million of this is on reserve for, for an emergency, so forth.

That is correct.

So which leaves about 245 million. And I think the question back then, which I don't believe we had a real definitive answer, and I'm not sure that there'll be completely definitive, but we want to know what is the plan for these monies.

So Chair, and thank you for the question. I think you know, as President Hensel has come in and has saw that there were significant balances that were accumulating within the Tuition and Fee Special Fund. And to provide a little bit of context, the tuition and fees special Fund really started to increase during the COVID period because there was a huge infusion of federal money that came in. There was a significant amount of increase in investment returns of our balances at that period of time.

So there was a quick increase in those balances going forward. And as it accumulated, I think with President Hensel coming in, the intention really is maintaining the board policy 16% Reserve Fund in order to address major shifts and changes in any type of revenue during the year, but to also to make strategic investments in student, student success going forward.

So I think as you gonna hear from some of the people that will come up, whether it's the AI program or some of the student success programs that that Hensel's Administration wants to do it, that there's a significant focus on using that to make strategic investments into the university in order to meet the outcomes that the public and especially the Legislature want to see.

Okay. I mean, I think that's good, but can we get a little bit more details just to say that it's going to go into those programs? Like, what are you talking about? What percentage of the monies are going to go where? So that would be helpful for us, I think, to see that.

Sure. And I think that, you know, that conversation is definitely evolving and we can definitely get back to you. A lot of it also is that we have to coordinate with the Board of Regents and get their buy off on how we utilize that money within what we are calling the cash balances.

But again, I think the big ones that are really coming up are some of the issues related to the utilization of AI in our institution.

What portion of these monies are going to be used for, say, reorganization and elevating people into Vice President, Associate Vice President positions? This is something we've been seeing at the DOE level where they've created more Deputies, they've created more people on the upper echelon and the bureaucracy.

And from what I might be hearing is that the university is also looking at this in creating more Vice Presidents and more Associate Vice Presidents. And where's the money going to come from and do we want to. How does that elevation translate into student success?

That's a good question. And some of the reorganization that's happening right now at the system level is being done for people who are currently doing the job. So, you know, whether it's.

Yeah, they're currently doing the job and some of them aren't doing a good job. I'm sorry.

Yes.

You know, that doesn't mean they should be elevated. Even if they're doing a good job, elevated into a higher status. They're supposed to be doing a good job for the salary they're making now.

So that is definitely an issue that I will take back in terms of as we discuss how this reorganization is happening.

But a lot of it is to realign existing, I guess, responsibilities and accountabilities in order to create the right individuals and creating accountable people within the organization that are going to be responsible for things like, especially workforce, which is one of the, one of the areas that, that the President is looking at implementing going forward.

So, but creating those accountable individuals so that we can drive performance and that the Legislature has somebody that they, okay, well, what did you do with regards to workforce going forward? So we can definitely have that conversation on how, you know, we can proceed together in this. But a lot of what we're trying to accomplish here is listening to the concerns that the Legislature have brought forward to us over the past years.

Good to hear that. Let me ask one more and then. I'll go to Senator Kidani. And you know, you folks all know in this room that I'm very frank. And so a few years ago, when Lassner decided that he was going to give all of his Vice Presidents his five Vice Presidents, or was it four Vice Presidents a raise and they got as much as $35,000 in one swoop. And it wasn't like the only raise. We didn't see any change. And then.

And they also have gotten more, more percentage increases and they're even making more now. I haven't seen anything elevated in the delivery of service, in the delivery of impacting student success or any of that.

In fact, if anything, and I was going to point out, as we get to CIP, there's a lot of problems that have been taken place. So again, it doesn't necessarily, you know, mean that we're going to get better service.

I, I can't speak for what happened in the past, I think in my particular role as I'm coming in, but.

It'S people that's there now. You're saying these are the people you want to elevate.

And I'm just saying that and, and, and duly noted. And I will definitely bring that back. And I think the intention really is, is to drive accountability going forward. And so, and I know that that is something that has been instilled on me in, in my few weeks that I've been on the job so far.

And I think that's going to be an expectation for everybody going forward.

Okay, when you say accountability, what are the. It's one thing to keep people accountable, but what is the consequences when you don't, you don't, you're not accountable or when you don't fulfill what you're supposed to do? There seems to be no consequences.

It is, I think that is something that we definitely need to discuss. I can't speak to President, but I.

Hope that's something because of all my years here, there's no consequence.

Understood. Chair.

Senator, how many vacancies do you have?

We have approximately close to a thousand vacancies.

How many have been vacant for more than five years.

For more than 54 years. I'm sorry, for more than five years. I think close to like 800 of them have been vacant.

Why do you still need them?

So a lot of those positions, and as you know, even in my prior capacity, cleaning up rosters is a very important part of what I would like to do too as well. A lot of it is realigning because some of those positions don't have money in them anymore.

To your point, because how the state has kind of worked in terms of like budgeting for payroll. It's like we have this budgeted payroll that exists on the books at one particular point in time, but it never kind of adjusts whenever you have changes. And it could be anything. It could be raises, it could be collective bargaining.

It could be all of these different things. And so that budgeted amount, it never gets trued up. And that's something that I would like to propose as we go forward when we start cleaning up the payroll roster.

I don't disagree with you, Louis. However, these vacancies for over these numbers of years just doesn't make sense. So either you don't need them, or if you can't fill them because they need more funding, then maybe we should look at what can you get rid of so.

So we can give more funding to those positions you truly, truly need.

Definitely. We'll take a look at that. And committing to you that I will be looking at our existing vacancy accounts and FTEs and how we align that and how we become more transparent in what we communicate to you and what our payroll needs are.

So is this just a Manoa issue? That you take all the positions once they're vacant and then you release them, or does every campus do that?

I have not been able to do. And it's not. I'm. You know, I'm sorry. I was once the Director of Finance for the State of Hawaii. This is not just a University of Hawaii. I'm saying it's just government.

No, no, no. What I'm saying is my understanding, what I was told is that there's a vacancy, it gets swept into a fund and you got to request it. Right. And then it gets released. I just want to know if that's just minority. I see. Facilitating. No, it's not just Manoa. I don't know what they wanted to know, but.

As the university has a, you know, has a lot of authority, statutory authority.

Right. I'm just. I'm trying to understand what your internal policy is. Is it just a Manoa or is it System wide that every campus does.

That I can't speak.

Okay, so you don't know. Go find out and let us know. But I think the point is.

But still is shaking his head. So do you know.

And I have no problem with somebody coming and joining me up here at any point in time. By the way.

He doesn't want to come up. Chicken.

I think the point is we're just trying to understand like we look at the vacancy list. Is it just a Manoa thing or you know, you look at my home College of Maui colleges, are they more accurate? I don't know. That's what we're just trying to find out. Right.

I think these vacancies are all over the place. Manoa Community Colleges. The four years at Manoa for the faculty. We take back the empty or the vacant positions and then we reassign them according to a process, internal process we have established for strategic investments.

Now there are also apt civil services which we don't pull them back and we leave them with the units. So it depends then what position? It depends on what kind of position. Yes. Okay.

What was troubling back when those raises were given? The question I asked was where is this money coming from? And he said it's in my budget. And it's like again, you know what's in your budget? All of the vacant positions monies are in your budget. Is that what.

No, because where did the money come from then for the raises from positions that they end up to be vacant and you don't have money to the.

President'S budget to be able to.

Yes, that's on the President discretion of how the General Fund allocation of this.

Position then transforms to today. Whereas when you elevate these positions, those increase in salaries when you make somebody a Vice President or Associate Vice President will come out of these vacant savings.

Of course. So you said that the reserve started to the balloon during Covid.

A big. Portion of it started to happen coming out. Okay.

So my understanding was around that time, that's when did you guys institute that policy of taking those positions at that time or was it always there? I don't know. I would have to get back to. You when that policy was Provost, you know.

Well, let me just say that as far as I know, uh has always had a carryover balance in the tuition Fund of over $300,000. Three to 400, I mean million dollars.

Our previous CFO was a really good CFO. We miss him. So I think the previous CFO, Calvert Young, he had managed the funds of the University extremely well. He was very frugal, as most of you know him of him. And therefore we actually were and we still are in a very good financial state.

Okay, so there's no policy change then during Covid?

The reserve was always there.

I know that the reserve was always there, but when you're saying I want to know. Okay, yes, you said Covid federal funds. But did we have a. I thought that. I heard that there was. You became more strict during COVID I don't know. Were you guys more strict at that time?

Here's what happened. During COVID we received an extremely high amount of federal funds.

Yeah, yeah, no, we know that part, but I'm talking about operational.

But operationally we used the federal funds for our operations and we saved. So you guys didn't change any of your hiring policies.

And during that time too, because of the federal coming in, there was also the maintenance of effort requirement that, that.

No, yeah, we know that. Yeah. So. So then you said you had investment returns. What was that?

Well, Starting starting in 2020, the returns on the treasury. Prior to that, the returns on the treasury were like basis points. And I think coming out, coming into Covid, that's when we saw like short term interest rates rise to like almost 4%. So that's why you saw significant.

So you guys are making interest off of this?

Well, the. Every, every, you know, State Fund is making interest off of whatever balances that exist. It's the same thing with the, with the state. Shouldn't it go back to BNF?

No, but no, because you're making money off of state money. No.

Well, the university gets to keep it. But that's too tuition. That, that's tuition. So you're talking just situation. I'm just talking tuition. We don't make money. The General Fund money that we get stays within the General. Whatever interest is earned in that.

Because that state General journal Fund money. Before you spend tuition money, there is.

There is a desire to definitely utilize it. And again, because when you look at the way that, that we get a. We, our revenues come in, we get two major infusions of tuition and fees, special funds. Right.

It's during this spring and the fall where we get it and we get this baseline of General funds that we get throughout the course of the year. And so for us, it's kind of a matter of managing where our expenditure line is and where are where our revenues are coming in going forward.

So yes, so there is a desire to utilize General funds first because that is our most stable form of revenue.

So has. Why hasn't the border regents. If you feel like you need this type of reserve, why doesn't the border regions just update your policy?

Where is the Board of Regents? Here.

Nobody from the Board of Regents is here right now. But.

You have more than one person on the board, right? You had, what, 11 members and nobody could attend? The two Vice Chairs not available, unfortunately.

But they know the legislative session is from mid January, right?

Yes, they do.

And they say when we confirm them that they would be available to do the job, to do the work.

Okay. So on the policy. So, so there, so there's the Board of Regents policy. The policy that the Board of Regents has a Senator, is that the university will maintain a reserve and of, of, of just, it'll maintain a reserve. And then there is an Executive policy where the Executive policy establishes that 16 threshold for us.

So it's the President.

So it is, it is the President. It is, it's the university that establishes it through an EP. But the board says, makes the determination that you will maintain a.

So why doesn't the board codify that policy of 16 or, or I guess higher. Because it's always higher, according to Senator.

I mean, they could, I mean, they could. And, and we can definitely have that.

Discussion because then at least, you know, what, what exactly do you have to keep in reserve? And if you're gonna lapse the, you know, you're gonna, you gotta deploy the rest. Right. If not. Right. Because if you're not deploying it like, you could, you could go fund nil. Right.

And I think that's, I think that's the discussion that I kept asking and that's the discussion that I, that I'm, that, that I've been having, you know, with, with the President is that how do we, how do we use these reserves and how do we use this cash balances that have built over time to make the type of strategic investments that the Legislature and the university want to see.

And I do have to give them credit for that because in all the years that I've been asking about this overage, you know, they said, no, we need for the reserve. We, I said, you don't need that much for a reserve.

So at least you folks have brought it forward talking about it, and hopefully we're going to see some more action.

Yeah. Well, if you feel like you need that much reserve, just make a policy. Right. Update the 16%.

Right now there is some uncertainty. Obviously, we know what's happening with the feds. And so there's an exercise and there's an analysis that we need to do right now.

But then you can tell us we're going to keep 10% for the feds, we're going to do this least then we have an idea. Yes. And we can. Where you're thinking of it instead of, you know, we're doing a reorganization and we see the funds disappear.

Correct. And as we Go through that process. We will keep you informed. Share when we make those assessments.

I want to talk about your scholarship report for the last two years that you've been looking at it.

I may need a little help with that, but.

So whoever's here, welcome to come up. According to your the latest report, $208 million, 208,154 and $829 million total scholarship waivers and exemptions. That's based on what? I added up $7,007 million $70 million to 207, $383 million financial assistance to students. Was this Hawaii residents or was this everybody?

Because you have up here scholarships and then you have waiver tuition differentials. So the $70 million in scholarships, did that go to residents or resident students?

It could be to students, depending on, you know, what qualifies them in terms of either the waiver or the scholarship.

Well, that's why I'm trying to determine, because your next line, your next paragraph talks about $108 million in 2024-2025 went to non resident students. So am I to assume that the 70 million was just to resident students?

We can get back to you.

So the, you're, you're looking at the waivers. Non resident tuition differential number 108 million.

There first looking at scholarships. 70 million.

Yeah.

Okay, so is that, those are scholarships to, to resident students, local students. So there is everybody, Anybody?

It would be according to the campus. They do, as you mentioned, have their tuition, that percentage of the tuition that is returned back to students in the form of scholarships. And so campuses will decide how to allocate that to students either based on need or merit.

Okay, but is it more than just resident students? Does that also include non resident students?

I think the answer to your question is yes, it is more than just residents.

Okay, then why is the $108 million talked about board approved non resident tuition differentials waived for 9277 non resident students. Total of 40 million was waived for 404,172 non resident students who assisted. And it goes on and on about the GI Bill and everything.

So I'm just trying to determine of the $208 million, what portion of that went to local students to support local students.

We'll have to get you that information. I'm sorry, I don't have that right now.

I can look up. I just need to pull it up for a second.

Okay, so that's the one question.

But the non residential tuition differentials, the nrtds, by policy, go to specific allocated groups. And so they're outlined here, here. So for example, the GI Bill. So those folks independent of any scholarship would be getting 150%. So that's how, that's how this is done.

And that's basically all non residents in that category.

They would be those that are specifically identified by policy.

But it's pretty much as I read on and on, it's, it's non residents because it does say, it does say your heading is waivers non resident tuition. So we're spending, spending or you're giving at least $108,000,888, $492,000,000 worth of that of those waivers.

Well, it's foregone revenue. It's not giving them money.

Right, but you're waiving, it's technical monies that you would have received. Because as you go down on the bottom of that, the last line in that paragraph says tuition revenue from all the non resident students above was, was $97 million. $97.5 million. Okay, right.

That last sentence on that paragraph because I keep hearing that, zero, you know, we love to have non resident students because they bring in a lot of money because they pay non resident tuition. Right. Which is higher. But according to this, it says total revenue from all non resident students above was 97 million, $97.5 million.

Okay, okay, but if we're giving out or waiving out 108 million and we only took in 97 million, then there's a $11 million differential there. Where does that $11 million come out of for the non residents differentials?

I will have to get back to you on how that accounting of that particular scholarship and then the amount of revenue that's brought in is accounted for. I do understand what you're saying that there is.

If you're saying that you've given 108 but you've only received 97, then technically, you know, we're losing money by bringing people in to the state board. I, I think that's what.

Yes, but all these years we've been told that the non residents really support and add the money. And when I looked at this more closely and, and did the math, it shows that we're 11 million plus differential.

So I'm wanting to know where does that money, does that come out of our resident tuitions or where is that coming out of?

I, I think it comes, I, in totality, in the aggregate, the university and the amount of revenues, I think it's kind of a blended amount of revenue that comes in from different particular sources.

And I think the waived revenue, especially for people coming out from out of state, kind of gets absorbed in the overall operations of the university itself.

So I think there's a, there's a. I think we need to be clear about how we make that distinction in terms of revenue that's coming in from out of state students versus the amount of scholarships and waivers that, that we are providing to out of state students. So that is something that.

These are numbers and it's taken directly from your reports. So if you're not reporting it correctly to us, and I guess people don't actually read this, I happen to read it and compare it, and it actually shows a decrease and an increase. It shows a decrease in the amount of waivers we gave to non residents.

And there was actually a slight increase to what was taken in, but it was very small. But it was still $106 million last year and was 98 million that we took in. So it was still a differential going on there.

But, you know, the concern that I have and I know my, my colleagues share is that how are we helping our residents? You know, a lot of money is going, and we understand witchy, we understand WUI schools, we understand the GI Bill, all that. But at the end of the day, this is a lot of money, right?

$288 million going for tuition waivers. And why aren't we tailoring this to the areas of need, like shortage of nurses, shortage of teachers? Why aren't these waivers and scholarships targeting those areas which we keep getting bills for every year to support the pipeline and to support our workforce development?

I think the conversation is absolutely. You know what, the dialogue that we're having right now is what we need to hear in order to meet the kind of intention.

It's not the first time we're bringing it.

And I can only speak for a period of time that I've been here, Chair, but duly noted what you're saying, and I will provide a better account on that.

Yeah. And I think the other point that we're missing is that that money, if spent here, if not spent for tuition away, would be spent here and help our state too. So I think we have to take that into consideration.

So who looks at it on a yearly basis of the analysis of tuition revenues? Is it your position or is it campus by campus?

My position is definitely involved from an overall revenue perspective, but I think from tuition revenue or tuition pricing for that matter, I think that it's a combination of many different parts of the university to make that determination.

And I think we're kind of in the process right now to actually start looking at tuition and how much we are charging and how people are being charged.

So this is a board.

The board is absolutely involved in the establishment of tuition. But you guys don't have to bring something every year.

Or is it just when you feel like you need to bring it to the board?

Well, I think it goes on a cycle. And in my reading of the policy, there's a cycle of review of the tuition and the tuition rates. I think the intention is so that people know and understand what tuition is going to be, because you don't want to keep changing.

So take us through the last review. What did that look like?

Are you talking about our tuition procedures?

Because if it's looking like this, did anyone even notice that? Right? Like, did someone do the calculation? You're like, zero, maybe. Maybe her out of state tuition is a little bit low. Right. Sorry.

And I didn't introduce myself. Vice President, Academic Strategy, Debbie Hubbard. You want me to just.

The provost.

The provost jumps up and is willing to talk.

Shall I bring another chair? No, I'm good. So let me give you a little bit of background on that. So there is, as an institution, we provide a lot of scholarships, a lot of waivers, and we have a high amount of NRTDs, the non residential tuition differential.

So that is supposed to be monitored by the head of every campus. And they need to have a business plan of how they expand their scholarships. The NRTDS and waivers. So specifically for Manoa, since I came into that position, for NRTDS, we charge 87973 and $747.

87 million.

Yes. And then we waive 96, 125 to 57. So the NRT disk, obviously we are spending more than we getting in. This is, in my opinion, I just came into the job a little bit problematic. So this.

So when did we figure this out, though?

I figured that out like 34 months ago. Being in the job for six, we're. Losing money on out of state people. Then. We need to rebalance our strategy there.

Rebalance, okay, That's a good word.

And that actually it is part of President Schenckel's strategy when she came in and she did ask me to look into our strategy for scholarships, NRTDs and waivers. And we gonna be changing that. We, as an adminal, I cannot speak for other campuses, we are very generous on our NRTDS policies and the waivers and the scholarships.

We have to tighten it up a little Bit more because we need that revenue to run our operations a little bit better.

So what's the timeline on that? That's really this year? Yeah. Asap, right?

Yes, this is this year. We're just starting having that conversation. It's going to change also. It is a really impressive amount of money that MANOA provides in terms of scholarships, waivers and NRTDs.

So but what is the strategy though of offering that? Like, are these people staying or like.

So some of them is the wui.

But even that is not. It is what it is. I think we are a good deal for people coming in from HUI schools.

It is what it is. Right.

But we get the reciprocal benefit. We do.

But more people come in than people going out. And it is.

Keep that data. And you can limit it, right? Can't you limit it?

You can limit it and then you can change the rate. Right. We are one of the cheapest ones. 150% of our residential tuition. So some of the things we're looking do we need to go from 150 to 175 and therefore we're not losing money. Right. So these are some of the things that we're looking.

The other one is the merit scholarships. Do we need to tighten up a little bit more the criteria for that merit and be truly meritorious?

It's great that you're looking at it, but we want action. Excuse me? We want results and action, not just looking at it.

Yes, I just look at that. So I am. We have actually offered this scholarship, Senator, not taking them back.

Please don't hire a consultant to tell you what you should be doing. Okay?

I don't think I need a consultant for that.

I don't think so.

And then the board has a policy about the 10%. So there is a minimum floor on how much we should give out in need based scholarship. And that's 10% of our tuition revenue.

So let me interrupt a minute. So who is responsible for making sure that these numbers meet the certain policies?

I would say the head of the campus of each campus.

So can the head of each campus just unilaterally decide or can the President just unilaterally decide? I'm going to give this bunch of students.

It is not unilaterally. You have to have a strategy. So these packages for scholarships are put together every year, year ahead. Right.

So President Lassner went and gave all the Lahaina Luna students. Students. And I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying when he did that, did he go to the board did they. Did you first do it a year in advance? No. You didn't do it in a year. That's obvious.

I mean, it seemed like it was a spur in a moment thing he did, right?

That's correct.

Okay. Without any regard to the impact. Right. To tuition, to anything. Okay. I mean, you know, and it was a. It was a one time situation. I mean, I'm not saying that it.

Is a one time situation, but you understand, this is for four years on three cohorts. So at some point it's going to peak and we're not on the peak, and then it's going to have to come out.

See, when I heard about it, I thought it was just for the senior graduating class, but it wasn't. It was for all four. For three cohorts? Yeah, for three cohorts. And what's the total cost for that? Completely.

I can get that because I have it. I have it in my office because I've looked at it. Is that in this? It is in this. Yes, it is included.

And was that for all local? I don't think it is. Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, it wasn't, because when I looked at the thing, it didn't go up. Yeah. Okay, so what Waivers. Zero. Who's providing the funds?

These are scholarships and the cost of attendance. So not only we paid for the tuition, but also we paid for the cost of attendance.

What you mean by cost of attendance?

For the food, meal, or, you know, room and board. A. Room and board, yeah.

Wow. So. So who's paying for it again? Mano. No, she said private. The first year was private funds. Only the first year.

This is the second year. Then we'll have to figure out.

Yeah, I'm not sure what. It's okay. But it's. It's. How many years? Because you. It's three cohorts.

There are three cohorts. Yes.

So this is a second year of the first cohort.

We. We just awarded the. The third cohort this year.

Awarded the third. So now you're paying first, second, third and the first. Right. The first hasn't gone through the pipeline.

It is for four years.

Right. Did you want to say something? Foundation. Right.

Thank you, Chair. So, Tim Dolan, UH Foundation. So on that first year of private funding, $8 million was raised. Not all of that went to scholarship. Some of it went to programs at Maui College. But you're correct that we did not.

We only had that commitment for 8 million, which clearly does not cover all of the whole entire cohort. It was just the one year.

It wasn't. The Okari, as the attorney, looking at this far into the future, beyond the president's stay, what is that? I mean, and again, it is not against. Against Lahaina Luna. It's a. It's a decision. Policy.

Policy.

I think that we don't have a policy that requires the President in the, in that situation to come to the board for approval. Pretty sure the President at the time consulted with board leadership. I don't know to what detail, to your point, about how much money was.

There available without sunshine? I mean, yeah, it was decision making again. And I know you're very particular when you talk to board Members that they shouldn't be. They shouldn't be making decision, they shouldn't be meeting and so forth, but you're very. Pretty much. I hear about it, that you're pretty strict about that, so it's fine.

But then again, you look this one, obviously, if we. But there needs to be a policy, and that's why the Board of Regents should have somebody here in these meetings so they can follow up on these things. Because, again, we're talking about the budget and we're talking about, you know, potentially, this is. This is for Lahainaluna.

It could easily been for Gorman High School. Who knows where it might, you know, could have been. Right?

So I think one point at which the board gets briefed about scholarships is especially when there's fee increase request when we come. When the Administration comes in for tuition increases, Then there's, if.

If I'm remembering correctly, there's more data provided at that time.

So where is the money going to come from for all three cohorts now that the first year was paid for? Where is the money going to come from? From this.

It'll come from the tuition and fees, special funding.

So it'll come out of this 200 fees, $45 million.

That would be a great idea. But right now that is not the case. It's coming from the Manoa tuition.

And how much is in that Manoa tuition Fund? I don't know how much money is in a period in the.

In the-

Where is the going to come out of the.

There's $50 million.

There's 50 million. That's not enough to take care of all three cohorts for the next 4 for 8, 12 years.

50 million is the current balance that exists in there.

So obviously, as we continue to go through this, whatever the, you know, Vasilis is working on his particular budget in terms of, like, how he's going to make those expenditures, given the revenue that he has in any given year, and see how much he's going to have to draw down off of the. Off of the reserve.

That's approximately 8 million for one year. Just to say, you know, maybe give or take 8 million. And you have all three going through at the same time. Right. And one falls off, but you're still gonna have three. So you're talking about $24 million a year.

In a year, for a period of time until they cycle up, there's going to be a peak. And then.

So you have 24 million. 24 million at least for three years. 24 million.

That is correct.

Right. And if you only got 50 million, even though you get replenished at the third 24 million, I don't know what that's going to be. And then you're going to come to us and ask us for more money.

Understand? And what we can do, Chair, is provide you on how we plan to make those, you know, those expenditures in the, in the coming years. Because it's not all going to be like straight cash that's in. I mean, a lot of it gets absorbed in the existing operations of the campus.

Let me ask you this. How many of these cohorts, what percentage is non residents? Because they have non residents that go to Lahaina.

Right. We'll have to get back to you, but we can pull that.

And our students that come into the school after this offer was given. So say I come in as a junior this year, this past year, would I be included in that, in that cohort?

They were only distributed to the class of 2024. The impacted class. The impacted class. Right. But you're doing. And so.

But you're doing the next class and the next class.

No, it's just that set of students through their potential four years of college. So some of them are at Maui College. Some of them are at.

I thought I was told that it was the senior, the juniors, and the sophomores at the time, that all of them will get it.

That's what I thought. That's what I thought you said. No, that's correct. That's correct. Saying is correct.

Okay. See, we don't. We don't even know. But my, my question is, how many non residents gonna get this? And if I. If I enter as a junior and I wasn't part of it originally, do I qualify? Because I can imagine a lot of people might.

So I doubt that they're going to be any non resident Hawaiian residents in this cohort. How can you be a graduate of Hawaii?

No, because some of these students live. Come from Micronesia, other places. Right. And they. And they enroll at Lahaina. They bore. But they're not residents.

If that's the case, then I just.

Want to know how many. Okay, we'll get you that number.

We need to pull that information out.

And then anybody joining in on as a junior or sophomore after this offer was made, would they be included?

We can get you that. Probably they will. We didn't delineate because it wasn't brought out.

That's why when this was set forth. Right.

I gotta live with what I gotta live, Senator.

Yeah. Because it was on your watch.

My watch?

Yeah. You were there. No, no. You were there where? On the line on the salaries.

I was in a different job. I was.

But you're at the university. I was at the university leadership. One of the vice presidents.

I was one of the vice presidents, yes. For research and innovation.

Yeah. And we have all the other vice presidents here, several of them as well, so. Okay.