House Standing Committee on Education

Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. This is your Committee on Education.

Today's date is February 3rd, 2:00pm and this is room 309. We have a dozen proposals on the agenda today. But first, it's superintendent's birthday. 1,2, 3.

Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday dear Superintendent. Happy birthday to you.

What's your birthday wish?

Not for the grilling. Okay, so we're going to go into our first agenda item. That's HB 1895. This is with regards to education of worker protections. First up, we have HDE Superintendent in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, members of the committee. Sean Tajima Assistant Superintendent testify on behalf of the Department of Education. The Department stands on his written testimony in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you so much for being here. Next we have HSTA offering testimonies and support in person.

Aloha Sarah Milianta-Laffin on behalf of HSTA and President Osatou Jr. We support this measure. Thank you Chair and Vice Chair for hearing the bill. I'm here as your teacher lobbyists session; the way that this works is I'm here to talk to you as a practitioner, someone actively in the classroom.

So, if there are questions you have, please let us know. We know, since COVID, issues have increased when it comes to harassment. Anyway, so it's really important that we're talking to teachers about what's going on. We also know that bills have come previously in previous years that want to make this a big issue.

And we hate that it had to be on the news to be addressed. But it's something that we're glad we're taking that decision.

Thank you for being here. Next we have HGEA offering testimony and support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, members. Nui Sebas here with HGEA. I will stand on our on our testimony of support. I just do want to mention that we represent thousands of employees within the department and every year we do get calls from employees of them experiencing harassment or assault.

So, we appreciate the attempt of this measure and we hope this serves as a further deterrent against bad actors. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next we have Kanell Hay, elementary school principal, offering testimony support. Not present. We have UPW, testimony and support. And then we have four individuals all offering testimony support. Is anyone here wishing to provide testimony? Any individuals, please come up and state your name.

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Aloha. I'm Tiffany Edwards Hunt. I'm a student activities coordinator at Keaau Middle school on the big island. And I'm here to testify on a number of legislation.

So we're just doing right now HB 1895.

Okay, so regarding HB 1895, I just can't speak more in favor of it. And I want to explain to you that Millie is correct. The harassment and assault of educational workers is very real.

As a student activities coordinator, I have had to kick students out of a school dance for vaping and then have their parent right in my face screaming and yelling. For me, I can handle it. But other teachers have been so traumatized that they're then afraid to chaperone.

We'll break up a school fight and then the parent is in our face screaming and yelling, threatening to sue us. So, this is so real and so important. Yes, I have so much sympathy for the coverage on the news. And yes, I guess it took that that to bring it all to light.

But we are dealing with some really scary times, where people just do not have decorum anymore. And it's so important that we have those safeguards. Thank you for the opportunity. Aloha.

Thank you so much. Anyone else wishing to provide testimony, please come up.

Hi. Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. I apologize. My name is Haley Chang. I'm the First Deputy from the Office of the public defender. I do believe we submitted testimony, but I apologize, it may have come late. I do first want to introduce myself.

We don't appear in front of this committee very often, as we are the agency that represents indigent individuals and criminal matters throughout the state. And we did submit opposition to this bill, but I do want to caveat the reason why. We absolutely support the sentiment and the purpose of this bill.

But our job as advocates in the legal system are to highlight certain issues that we see with any proposed criminal measures. And we do see that here. We absolutely understand and support the necessity of protecting and maintaining the safety of our educational workers. But we question whether or not this bill actually does that.

This bill does not achieve that purpose in our opinion and opens the door to several significant and major constitutional challenges, including the freedom of speech and the over broad and vague nature of the bill. I want to focus particularly on Subsection G, which adds additional conduct to the offense of harassment.

And it states that harassment can be considered disruptive or did any behavior that disrupts or interferes with the administration or functions of any school, school administration, or school board.

From a legal standpoint, that language is not going to withstand constitutional muster and the legislature would not be doing anyone favors to pass a measure that would not achieve its intended purpose. Disrupts or interferes, specifically, is a especially problematic. Is a parent interrupting an educational worker during a discussion disruptive or interfering?

Is that the purpose of this bill? Is a parent repeatedly calling the school office disruptive or interfering? Is a guardian showing up without an appointment disrupting or interfering? And we understand some of the egregious behavior. And that's not what we're speaking to.

We're speaking to some of the flaws that are potentially here because of the way that the bill is worded. As written, this language of this bill risks criminalizing ordinary parental advocacy, potentially student speech, and sometimes normal, not egregious, but normal, emotional responses to school situations.

The preamble to this bill says that this is not intended to restrict good faith communication, parental advocacy, or participation in school matters. But in our opinion, from the legal standpoint and from the agency that defends criminal matters, it does not achieve that purpose.

So, we again support the spirit and the intent of this bill, but we do not believe that legally this is the way to achieve it. I appreciate the opportunity to comment and I will be available for any questions.

Thank you for being here. Anyone else wishing to provide testimony on HB 1895,-? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? I have a question for the Public Defender. So when you say that it's a potential violation of freedom of speech, what do you mean by that specifically in the legal sense?

Well, there are - the case law, both at the federal and state level on the freedom of speech is very clearly articulated. And what we don't want to do is potentially cause civil right of action or violate someone's constitutional right. So, if you're asking me generally what is an infringement on the freedom of speech -

I said specifically in the bill, what what violates freedom of speech, from a legal standpoint?

Well, again, from a legal standpoint, the language of disrupts or interferes. A disruption or an inconvenience does not mean that you, or maybe I should characterize it as an inconvenience, a potential inconvenience or a disagreement or a different vantage point or a different opinion or viewpoint does not necessarily mean a disruption or an interference.

And you are constitutionally allowed to share those opinions in an appropriate way.

So, how should we structure the bill to meet that constitutional standard from your perspective?

Well, I think as what's been highlighted by the testimony of some of the others in support, the really egregious behavior is what we were concerned about. It is, as the one testifier said, the screaming in a parent's face, which we believe is already articulated in the harassment statute as indicated in the measure.

You can see all of the different categories of behavior that already constitute harassment: strikes, shoves, kicks, insults, taunts or challenges. Those verbal and physical responses are already levels of harassment. I know this bill is seeking to elevate the offense from petty misdemeanor to misdemeanor. That is a different conversation.

But in terms of what type of behavior or what language can be used in the bill to make it so we are appropriately punitive. I think the measure already, the existing statute already covers that.

So, if a individual says to an educator, "You know, I don't like what's going on at this school, therefore I'm going to come to your house and kill you," is that covered under freedom of speech?

No, that's not, and there are criminal statutes. There's, I mean, again, it's a very legally complicated hypothetical you gave. But for example, there is a terroristic threatening statute on the books, which is a criminal offense. A verbal threat that puts someone in fear legitimately is a misdemeanor already.

And we already have an elevation to a felony offense because educational workers are already an articulated protected class of individuals. So, that behavior as you just described is criminal and, I don't want to say blanket across the board because legally there's a lot of nuances, but no: you cannot threaten an educational worker meaningfully and that is put protected speech.

Is the example that you gave, is that under state statute or is that federal law?

Terroristic threatening is a Hawaii revised statute under Chapter 707. And there are two levels, second degree and first degree. And normally a threat without a dangerous instrument is a misdemeanor. But educational workers are already considered a protected class of individuals.

So, if you were to do that to a number non-educational worker or a non protected class, it would be a misdemeanor. But for an educational worker or other protected class, it would be a Class C felony.

Okay, thank you. Members. Any other questions? Please go ahead.

HCE. Oh, I'm sorry, HGEA. So, you said you guys have a bunch of these come up every year. I just sat at harassment training and I was blown away with how simple a word could be construed as harassment.

What type of training does your, you know, the people you guys represent, teachers, administrators, and the likes of, what kind of training do they have? Because there's - what I'm afraid of, if we fast forward two bills, I support those assaults and those 100%.

But when it comes to harassment, given the training I just sat through a few days ago, I'm afraid that passion can be mistaken for harassment.

I'm afraid that if there's a history of children going through the same school that, because you dealt with the older brother and the younger brother's coming in, that teacher may already not like that family. So, now there is a possible retaliatory situation.

So, help me understand what kind of training that they go through and if maybe your training is similar to ours.

Representative, thank you for your question. I think in terms of training, I would need to defer to the Department of Education as their employer that is tasked with providing the training. Thank you.

DOE. So, same question. How do you guys decipher the difference between passion and harassment?

I think it is very subjective. I think some of the, when we read the bill, I think with the new language that's being proposed, the department appreciates and agrees with that language.

And I think it, when it becomes very disruptive to operations and when it's excessive and repetitive. I don't have a straight definition of what makes it cross over, but I think it, when it meets that threshold of becoming excessive and repetitive, we will condole that as harassment.

So, like the public defender had said about some vagueness raising their voice in a meeting: is that harassment?

I think it could be, depending on the degree that is raised.

That's kind of where my question is. If I raise a voice because I'm passionate, because we're talking about my child or anybody's child, the Chair had brought up if they make a threat. That's clear and cut, you know, it's black and white.

But now if they're not intending to harass or harm you, but they're passionate about what they're trying to get across to you, what's to say that an individual on the administration side is not going to just walk away and say, I feel harassed. What protections are there or what is there for them?

I think for school level people, I think, for the most part, we're very - the process allows us to be very inclusive for parent voice. And we do understand that parents are passionate about their students. And I feel that a threshold is, for the most part, pretty high with that.

I think if it gets to the point where maybe the volume might be disturbing or bothersome to somebody, I think at that point what's usually done is the person is redirected and asked to lower their voice. And I think if at that point it continues to escalate and at that point maybe another route needs to be taken.

But usually it'll be addressed to ask somebody to please lower their voice. Because sometimes we all might raise our voice, depending on what's going on. So, it takes a reminder to lower it.

And I think if the person responds to that, I don't think there's any issue beyond that because when they're not responsive to it, then it becomes an issue.

So, check if I'm out of line, please stop me here. But there's a situation right now, ongoing. I'm not going to mention the school, but the teacher fell asleep in class. Two students took a picture of it. Parent called the principal, had a meeting.

Now this teacher is saying the parent is harassing the teacher and making these false accusations. Photos were then provided. I was told I cannot get any info because it's a personnel situation, which I completely respect. But I don't want - you see where I'm going with this. That teacher can say that she's being harassed, but it's not harassment.

It's care, it's passion. It's trying to say something. So, at what point does it become - I want to protect the teachers at all, at all costs. Our teachers need it. But I just want to make sure that the parents can get what they're trying to say across as well, without harassing, assaulting, or endangering teachers.

But if I get a little loud because I care and I don't think you're hearing what I'm trying to say, I don't want the parent to have that fear of having to give up their fight because they're gonna get hit with a harassment. Does that make sense?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rep. Members, any other questions?

I have just a quick question for Haley.

Thanks Haley for your assessment of this legislation. Do you think that it would be better suited, instead of including this subsection within harassment and the broader general harassment statute that it would be a separate stat, a separate section, or including it where we're supposed to specifically saying harassment, however it's titled?

But then, we can go into detail about the elements and even defining terms? Because I see what you're saying. The vagueness is because we're trying to include this in the general harassment statute. What are your thoughts on that?

Well, I think the measure as written does clarify that the disruption, disruption or interference is specific to education workers. So, I would say that not another complainant or victim could argue that a disruption or interference is harassment.

But I think if the committee's intent is to focus on some of the behaviors that are unique to school situations, unique to maybe the parent and teacher dynamic, then perhaps a separate statute that can better articulate the behavior that we're speaking of with some clarity might be more prudent because what will happen is this is potentially compromising the integrity of the entire harassment statute.

There are, like I said, are already measures where education workers are classified separately, where there are enhanced penalties. So, perhaps building on that or doing something.

But again, I think more of a focus on the specific behavior that you're trying to criminalize is going to be important because when we get into not only the freedom of speech, but the vague and over breath of language and statutes is another constitutional challenge that can invalidate a law completely. So, I agree.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for that question. Members, any other questions? Especially if you have like testimony about legal advice, please submit that on time so we have time to digest it. We're not all lawyers here and so we need time to assess.

No, and I apologize, Chair. Our office this week alone has submitted over 50 bills. So we're trying our best to keep up. But I apologize. So we will try our best to.

Thank you. Okay, moving on to the next bill, HB 1592. This is with regards to educational workers and sports official protections. First up, we have DOE, offering testimony in support.

Aloha, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members of the Committee. Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, testifying on behalf of the the Department of Education. The department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. Thank you.

Next, we have testimony from Dr. Noh, Charter School Commission, offering testimony support in person.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ed Noh, Executive Director of Charter School Commission. And we also stand in support on this measure.

We have HGEA offering testimony support in person.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Nui Sabas with HGEA. We'll stand on our testimony in strong support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next we have HSTA offering testimony support in person. Thank you. We have Lānaʻi High School and Elementary offering testimony in support. Mr. Boyer via Zoom.

Aloha, Chair and Members of the Committee. Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay. My name's Doug Boyer, and I'm the principal of Lānaʻi High and Elementary School. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to talk testify in strong support of HB 1592, also known as Natalie’s Law. This bill is just not a policy. It's a necessary response to what educators across Hawaii are facing today.

In the past five years alone, I have had, as a school principal, I've had to contact law enforcement three separate times because of their serious threats and aggression towards me in my role as a school leader. In one incident, an individual held a stapler to my head in front of students.

I have been threatened with retaliation, including being told someone would have their sons come and find me. I've also endured repeated harassment from anger from an angry parent to the point when the parent came onto campus in an aggressive manner. I had to hide in an office that was not mine and Maui PD had to come and ensure the school safety. As I've heard, no educator should have to experience that.

As a principal, I've also had to remove individuals from campus who are threatening staff, and I've had and I have dealt with parents entering athletic practices and yelling at coaches. In my years of being a principal at school athletic events, I also had to remove spectators from harassing officials and coaches. In some cases, police department was involved.

These situations just don't affect adults. They also affect children. Educational workers are also increasingly confronted outside of school. Educational workers have been verbally harassed by community members in public spaces, at the grocery store, at the post office, at the beach while they're just doing their, going on with their daily life.

Harassment and threats do not always end at the end of the school day. I've also experienced threats from community members who have made statements about coming onto campus to harm students. When schools are forced into lockdowns or emergency action, the trauma impacts the entire school community.

I also want to acknowledge the support I've received from the Hawaii Department of Education during these difficult and traumatic situations. DOE leadership and staff have worked with me to ensure proper safety procedures are followed, to provide guidance, and to support our school community when incidents escalate.

Even without support, those experiences demonstrate why stronger legal protections are needed so educational workers are not left vulnerable while serving our students. This environment is driving educators across the nation out of the profession. Increasing threats and hostility are contributing directly to staffing shortages and openings across our school system.

If we want a stable, safe schools, we must protect the people who serve in them. HB 1592 provides meaningful accountability for strengthening penalties for assault and threats against educational workers and sports officials. I would strongly urge that when violence or intimidation causes a school to activate emergency procedures, these acts should rise to a felony level seriousness.

Natalie’s Law sends an important message that Hawaii will not tolerate violence against any educational workers, their sporting officials, or the school communities they serve. I respectfully urge you to pass HB 1592. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you, principal. Next we have Principal Minakami from Kāneʻohe Elementary School in support. We have testimony in support from Hawaii Roosevelt High School. Also Waiakea High School Athletics in support. Moanalua High School in support. UPW offering testimony in support. Individual Hawaii High School Athletic Association offering testimony in support. And about 14 individuals, all offering testimony support. Anyone else wishing to provide testimony, please come up.

Aloha again. Tiffany Edwards Hunt from Keaau Middle School. I'd like to talk about passion. So I'm a very passionate person. I'm also a parent of athletes, both in high school. I have two sets of pom poms.

I go to all the games and I consider it my duty to turn it around when it starts getting really negative. Like, I'll say, okay, ref, we accept. Because you can feel the crowd turning on people and it gets scary sometimes. And so, yes, my children are deeply embarrassed by me bringing the pom poms.

But it has, for my daughter, it's been four years. So now the whole school is used to it and my son's now getting used to it. But it's strategic. It is to try to keep it positive at Keaau High School. That's not my school where I teach. But at Keaau Middle School, I want to tell you something.

As a teacher, you can hear moms screaming and, yes, the whole family, a line of children. And I know that woman's passion. But when she's calling people f-ing B I T C H and scaring office ladies.

And then when the guy is showing up from the backside of Hawaiian Acres calling my principal a fat blah, blah, blah. Like, here's the thing, I am a big proponent of free speech, First Amendment rights. I have a background in newspaper and journalism. We are on a school campus trying to teach children.

Many of our kids are coming from homes of trauma. So we are trying to reprogram them that this is not how we resolve conflict. And when you have to steer your class away from an area because a parent is going off the Richter, that's where we're crossing the line from free speech.

And so I really need everybody to understand, like, what kind of environment we teach in. And the office ladies, that's HGEA, the principal, they're having to deal with these people who are unreasonable to the point of scary. Then they'll go online and yeah, they'll take that picture of the sleeping teacher. They'll blow it up.

And then someone's threatening them at Food Land when they're just trying to shop. So things are out of control and we need to reel it back in. Thank you so much. And yes, I have a lot of passion.

Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else wishing to provide a testimony for this measure? HB 1592. Seeing none. Members, any questions? Please come up.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. And again, our apologies. I believe our written testimony did come in a few hours late yesterday. But thank you for the opportunity to comment. Similarly to our last testimony, we do want to just be very clear.

The Office of the Public Defender unequivocally supports our teachers, our educational workers, our sports officials, and that is not the reason for our opposition. Our testimony does highlight and we just want to make sure that the committee knows that there are already existing offenses.

As I referenced in my last testimony, what would normally be a misdemeanor assault or a misdemeanor terroristic threatening is already, under our current statutory scheme, an elevated class C felony if it is committed against an educational worker or a sports official. So we do have these laws, and maybe it is a matter of educating our community so that deterrent factor that we've already previously legislated is better advertised.

We also believe that we should be mindful of the fact that we're dealing with the aftermath of the conduct, and it really sounds like what the goal is here is to be more preventative. Increasing penalties or adding new laws, especially when we already have similar ones on the books, may not be the best way to achieve that. So I will be available for questions and we stand on our written testimony, and thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you for being here. Anyone else? HB 1592. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Public Defender, please. Hi there. You just closed by saying this bill is not the best way to address the situation. So in your mind, what is?

Well, I think, as we indicated in our testimony, in being responsive to what it sounds like the community, and without being presumptive, what the committee is trying to address is prevention of this behavior.

Because by the time it gets to us or by the time this bill matters, an alleged crime has already taken place. Meaning a threat has already occurred, an assault has already taken place. And we, as we did cite in our written testimony, creating new offenses has very little deterrent effect. Studies show that.

And again, like I said, it doesn't sound like it's widely known, which is understandable because most people, as the Chair pointed out, are not lawyers, much less criminal lawyers. But there are already statutes on the books.

There are already criminal offenses in place that have recognized exactly what the committee is trying to do, which is to protect our educational workers and now by extension our sporting officials. And there's already a statute that we've referenced in our testimony that does that as well.

So if it's deterrence that the committee is trying to achieve, perhaps education or sharing with our community members about the existing enhanced penalties for these offenses may be a start.

We've also just anecdotally, we are not in the business of this, but just as community members talking about more prevention steps, you know, education and security and de-escalation. Because like I said, by the time it does get to us, something has already happened. And it sounds like what everybody is in agreement on is that we don't want to be in this situation in the first place.

Sure. Okay. I know you cite a lot of like criminal justice theory in your testimony about deterrence and whether it's effective or not. I think I'll just put that issue in the parking lot. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. But when you talk about, you know, there's already enhanced penalties available.

This is a class C offense. Walk me through the courtroom, like, say there's, this is a first time offender, commits this assault. You guys charge it as a class C offense. They have no criminal record. What are the chances that person is going to serve jail time? Maximum is five years in that setting.

Right. So there's so many factors that if the prosecutors elect to charge an individual with an assault and the complainant is identified as an educational worker who is covered by the existing statute, there are, it's a significant difference than being charged with a misdemeanor. Misdemeanor offenses carry a maximum penalty of up to a year in jail.

Generally you can get a deferred, what we call a deferred acceptance of a guilty plea for a misdemeanor assault. For an assault in the second degree, which takes it to a felony offense. And without getting into the weeds of how different and how much more serious a felony conviction on somebody's record would be, first of all, an assault in the second degree is not deferrable.

Meaning unless there's an amendment given by the prosecutor's office or you go to trial and you prevail, you cannot keep this offense off of your record, so it will be a lifelong felony conviction. Secondly, you could get probation if you have no record.

But again, I'm hesitant to give blanket answers because there's so many nuances to that the court is required to assess when imposing a sentence, but it can range from, to be candid, no jail. But as at a minimum four years of probation.

The minimum probation for a felony offense is four years, and it can be five years in certain situations. As a condition of probation on a class C felony, the court can impose up to one year of jail. And when we say jail, we're talking about our community correctional centers like OCCC.

Alternatively, the only other option for a court, if someone is not deemed eligible or appropriate for probation, they would get what's called the indeterminate five year term, which means under our sentencing scheme, you will get an open five year prison term.

The paroling authority will decide how much of that you must serve before you can become eligible to ask for parole. But yes, you could serve up to five years. And anytime that you serve that you maybe are granted parole, if you serve two and are granted parole, you will be on parole supervision for the remainder of that open term. So it is drastically different from a misdemeanor.

Sure, understood. I appreciate you explaining that. I wish we had someone from the prosecutors to share their perspective as well. But are there times where there is a class C charge pending and the defendant decides to try to get a plea bargain? And if that's the case, is the likelihood that there's not going to be any kind of jail time? And I'll explain to you where I'm going with this after you respond.

So the plea bargain process is an integral and necessary function of the criminal system. Of the thousands of cases that our office handles, and I would say that the criminal system handles, a very, very, very small percentage of those cases actually go to trial. So plea bargaining and resolving cases short of trial is a necessary function. What I can tell you is that a full plea agreement can never be entered into without the agreement of both parties.

So if I as a defense attorney have a client who's charged with an assault second degree and I seek a plea agreement in order to resolve the case for my client ahead of a trial, I would need the consent and the agreement of not only the prosecutor's office to agree to whatever agreement I'm asking for, whether it's an amendment of the charge, a reduction of the charge, a guarantee of no jail, or a guarantee of a certain amount of jail.

And then we also need the court to bind itself to that plea agreement. So it is a multi step process that we as the defense attorneys and the defendant cannot achieve on our own. We need the cooperation and buy in of the prosecuting agency.

Okay, thank you for that. And I know as a matter of principle, your office is going to be opposed to mandatory minimums. I recognize we have overcrowding in our jails as it is. You want to give the judges some discretion with sentencing. I totally understand that.

But even if we could agree that enhanced penalties don't deter every offense, like, what kind of message do you think we're sending? Like, I don't want to reference the Moanalua incident specifically because it's an ongoing case, but what kind of message would it be sending if that assailant serves absolutely no jail time for that horrific assault?

I think that there is a lot of different possible messages. There are so many nuances. And again, to every single criminal case, right. The act itself is obviously incredibly problematic if it reached the level of criminal prosecution.

But widely, our general oppositional to mandatory minimums is it does not take into account what we call the big picture and all of the underlying factors. This is not to excuse the behavior, or doesn't mean that it will result in not guilty of the behavior.

But the reason that we're oppositional to mandatory minimums is that it binds the judge's hands. Sometimes we have complainants, which I know the committee may find hard to believe, but I've been doing this for almost 20 years now.

Sometimes complainants don't want our clients to serve jail for a variety of different reasons. Because the defendant has either availed himself of treatment, of therapy, of rehabilitation, has a family, a job, small children. And going to jail for 30 days, as this measure proposes, would disenfranchise that individual and put everybody, perhaps, off in a worse place.

So we want the court to have the discretion. The court could give 30 days or five years. That's not to say this person would not get jail, but we just want the court to be in a position who actually sees the case from start to finish. Felony cases go on for a very long time, sometimes months.

And for the more serious offenses, years. And in that time, the judge gets to know the defendant, the complainant, the case, the facts, and all of the circumstances that would lead our courts and the judges that we have faith in to render an appropriate sentence.

Okay, I guess my concern, again, is just as a society, like, what kind of message are we sending? Like, say, this case, you know, again, this case, hypothetically speaking, runs its course. The person serves no jail time. And this has obviously gotten a lot of attention, right?

So if people are fans and they know, oh, this guy committed this vicious thing, caught on film, and then he essentially served no jail time, like, what does that say to sports officials that are out there, educational workers that are trying to do their job? When they know that someone that just committed this horrific act served no jail time. There's no deterrence in that sense. It just seems to encourage this kind of behavior that we don't stand for as a society.

And I appreciate the comments and the question. And I think, as you said, we may disagree on some of the elements of deterrence. But I think what I can say, and one of the goals of our office, which is hard and really is something that takes exposure to the system, is the penalty for a felony offense is not limited to jail time.

Sometimes we have clients who want to go to jail because it's easier for them. Probation for four years, being a convicted felon, limiting job opportunities, housing opportunities, education opportunities, custody issues, divorce proceedings, the list goes on and on. Citizenship issues, deportation, immigration issues.

The punishment for a felony offense and other offenses generally, in our opinion, is not limited just to jail. That is a punishment. That is an easily recognizable punishment that our community understands, but that is only one punishment from being a convicted felon, which already exists for educational workers.

Okay. Well, I appreciate you being here and showing your perspective.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Please go ahead.

Thank you. For HSTA.

Thank you so much for your testimony and to the teachers and admin staff who also testified as well. I understand the importance of this legislation.

I think it also opens up a question to what is being provided for teachers, as far as de escalation techniques or potentially safety plans, prevention, any type of preventative measures that are being taught to teachers or being created around teachers to assist with maybe trying to stop some of these things before passion takes over.

Well, one thing I will say is teachers like we are skilled in de-escalation because we do it all day. That is something that we have to do. So, definitely for rising to this area with what we're encountering, we're trying those tactics. We're getting our administrators involved.

I know I'm very lucky to work at a school where my administrator has my back. If I say I'm uncomfortable as a parent, if I say I'm feeling threatened, we'll make a plan and put it together.

But I will say, as library chapter president, I supervise 3,000 teachers from Akaha to Pearl City and that your mileage may vary on how that support is given in that space. We are given all teachers take a one hour - it's not one hour. It's - how long is the little YouTube video?

It's like a harassment training every year to start the school year that we watch just to kind of remind us of that piece. And I also think it's been important a focus on mental health and social emotional learning. So, I think these skill sets, you know, I can take my breath in a conference.

But I will say when I say you have to hear from practitioners, the game has changed since COVID. Like, I've taught for 21 years and I feel like a brand new teacher in dealing with some of these post-COVID realities. That I've supported teachers who walked into a conference with a parent says, "I'm getting fired today."

And I'm a professional with a degree and a master's degree, very good at my craft. But just the idea of that idea that you could walk in and do that or expect that, that's the reaction you get. Yeah, it's a different ballgame.

Okay, thank you.

Members, any other questions? Go ahead. Department of Education, please. Thank you, Superintendent. And again, happy 40th birthday. Yes. 25. You know, obviously that incident happened on a campus of a DOE school, Moanalua High School. What steps have you taken to try to rein in unruly spectator behavior at Hawaii sanctioned events?

Thank you. Let's see, administrators, school principals, with the athletic administrators in OIA , they're review their safety plans. That's one thing, I think statewide. Our athletic administrators and our principals have a good sense on the cost of the school.

If they are, they have the flexibility during preseason games to get additional support if they need, whether it's security, contracted security personnel, or law enforcement if need be, as well as doing regular games. So, if things come up during the course, before the game, if they hear things, they're also able to get additional security personnel.

So, those are some of the things. I think also, not only in the OIA, but across all leagues, there is discussion going on related to spectator, what's appropriate spectator behavior. And as the administrators folks see things starting to escalate, what are the next steps that they're going to take?

And so those discussions are going on not only in OIA, but actually across all leagues. Because I think what's important is that once consistency is set for all spectators across athletic events, that's really important. I think expectations are also really important to have in place for those who come in, observe our students.

You know, we really emphasize to our student athletes, and to all of our students, that we're accountable for the choices that we make. Teamwork is important. Sportsmanship is important for all of our students.

So, it's really important that the adults also exhibit those behaviors because our students are watching, you know, and when individuals choose to cross the line and start to get very emotional to the point where they basically do something else, I think kids are - students are watching.

Not only our high school students, but other students, elementary kids who come to the events. You know, so I think it's really important that expectations are set. We hold our adults, especially to a very high standard because that's important for all. That consistent message is important for all of our students.

Thank you, Supe. Is there currently a code of conduct that governs spectator attendance at these events? I mean, I assume they don't have a right to attend.

We still have. The department does have. We have a visitor code of conduct. The code of conduct, though, is only as good as we can enforce it and that there are expectations for individuals that attend the events.

Parents, for example, all of our student athletes, one parent is responsible for attending a meeting with the athletic administrator or coach to be sure that I believe they still watch a video on what is expected and what is good parenting - not...check that out. Rephrase that.

Not good parenting, but what's expected of parents in supporting their student athlete. The thing, though, is that many individuals who come to athletic events are not may not be parents. It may be an uncle or an aunt. It might be a community member that didn't have the opportunity to participate with the athletic administrator.

So, it's important that we have the guidelines and then appropriate consequences to deter behavior that is not appropriate.

Is the department considering, like, is there signage posted at like a gym, for example, saying, you know, "By entry and you agree to abide by these conditions, this is a zero tolerance environment?"

Yes, I believe there is signage, especially our visitor court of conduct. And only in one league, it was at one point - I'm not sure it's still there since I was a principal, it was let the players play, let the coaches coach, and let the officials officiate, you know, and let's have a great game and, you know, show them sportsmanship. But since then, we revised that and the visitors code of conduct is posted in the FAA facilities.

Thank you. One of the suggestions that the public defender made was just to increase security at these events. What are you considering or is the department or even the board considering with regard to hiring private security or other things to assist.

When the administrators deem that there is a need for additional security, you know, that flexibility is there for them.

However, that does come at a cost, you know, and there are different costs associated with different types of security that you request. Contracted security might be one amount that you pay. The county police is another, you know, and it's very different. And so there are definitely costs associated.

But if our administrators are really good, again, getting a sense of host of the school, and especially if there are events that perhaps emotions run high because of, you know, they're friendly rivalries between schools.

But I think it's really important that we set the expectations for the spectators that come and, you know, they are guests who want everyone to enjoy themselves.

But when it gets to the point where folks are becoming verbally abusive or, you know, lead to other things that just cannot take place at high school events or any kind of school events.

And each school would pay for this out of their own budget?

Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Superintendent. Thank you.

Yes.

Any more questions from members?

Sorry, one more. Superintendent, one more quick question. Happy birthday. If it's your birthday, Happy birthday.

I guess my question, kind of following up on the line of questioning that I asked HSTA, it seems like a lot of the professional development or training and support that's given to teachers is done at the school level and they are required to bring it in. They are potentially required to pay for any of that extra training.

At what point does the department step in to provide any of that extra PD or support or specialized trainers?

For Teachers or for?

For anyone on school campus that is dealing with whether it's a parent that's coming in or it's at a sports activity?

There are trainings, different kinds of trainings. I believe for our school administrators, for certain teachers, special needs teachers, there is de-escalation, QBS training for the counselors. That's on a request by the school. And again, any kind of training that's brought in, there's a cost for that.

And that cost comes out of the school's budget or does the department cover any of that?

It might depend. It might be at the school level, it may be at the complex area level. It depends on what kind of training is involved.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I have a question, I have a question.

So we're talking about security and how it's up to the schools to kind of determine. Is that what, is that what you just stated?

Correct? Yes.

If they need to basically ramp up their security, right, and so I guess my thing is that because of the high profile events that have just, you know, or this, the most recent one that has taken place and you know, this is obviously a really big issue.

In the meantime, while we're trying to pass legislation, this is already a liability for the schools because you're basically put on notice, right. That these things are happening and we obviously need to address it.

So, do you think that there should be some sort of a, I guess, school wide policy or something with security as far as keeping the premises safe? Because I don't think that passing legislation such as this, even though it's considered a deterrent or not, is going to solve this by itself.

I still think that we need to keep our school ground safe, especially when it comes to our gyms and you know, where all these things are taking place. So, I don't think it's one or the other. It needs to work in conjunction, and would you agree?

I think, you know, looking at the - as I share the administrators working with the school communities, working with teachers, coaches, our school personnel have a pretty good sense on the pulse of the school. So, I would say that our schools are safe.

I think that there are situations though that may arise that, for example, related to athletics that an individual may choose to.

Yeah, I just, yeah, I don't mean to interject. Just to clarify where I was coming from as far as, you know, the policy, because it's like, I feel like a lot of the burden is being put on the administrators to and they're doing an excellent job, you know currently with trying to manage.

But I just feel like you know, say for instance if there's a big football game, special duty police or you know that that sort of thing right where it's policy across the board. And so, just a thought that that's maybe something if you guys are not already currently doing some sort of blanket policy.

So, as right now the discretion is left up to the school principal. As a former high school principal, you know we did have games that we would work in conjunction with community policing that you know, maybe there, there's things happening or might be happening.

You know, we would bring work with RSR; police officers did come in and support the school. Thankfully nothing happened. You know. But not for everything because, you know, it depends.

I think as a principal our principals have a good sense on and our athletic administrators on what if there is an event that we may need, I can secure security. That that definitely is their call to me and they've been. They've been doing a really good job at that.

Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. We're going to go on to the next bill. HB 1888, Educational Worker Safety. This is our third bill thus far. First up, we have DOE offering comments.

Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members of the Committee. Sean Tajima testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands on his written testimony which provides comments on this measure. And we request one additional amendment that was not in our written testimony.

The department request that volunteers and contracting staff be removed from the definition of educational worker to allow the department time to put procedures and training in place for the DOE staff first. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on HB 1888.

Thank you so much. Next we have AG's Office providing comments.

Good afternoon, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members. Anne Horiuchi from the Department of the Attorney General. As we noted in our testimony, the department was concerned by the language assist educational workers with any legal actions that that could be construed as providing legal assistance, which could include civil lawsuits relating to harassment. So we provided a clarifying revision in our testimony. Thank you. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you so much for being here. Next we have Charter School Commission, Dr. Noh, offering testimony providing comments.

Hi, good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Ed Noh, Executive Director, Charter School Commission. Appreciate the opportunity to be included in this measure, as charter schools are part of the public education system, and providing safeguards and measures for educators so they can be deterred from the harassment. Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Next we have HGEA offering testimony. Thank you. Next we have HSTA offering testimony in support.

Good afternoon again, Chair and Vice Chair. We stand on our written testimony, but we'd like to specify that in this bill, what we appreciated was actually, like, the steps that would be taken. I think about myself as a teacher. I can't afford to retain a lawyer.

So the idea of knowing what would happen next in that space I think is really important. And I also think it's important that this has been brought back year after year by some really strong advocates who believe in it. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Next we have individual testimony from Inger Stonehill in person.

Aloha. Aloha, Chair Woodson and Vice Chair La Chica. Here we are again. So as a teacher, I'm always having to pivot. So I sit here. I had my written testimony that I was going to read. But after hearing some of the things that have been said, I'm pivoting. So excuse me while I read my phone.

So some of the discussions and questions that came up I wanted to address. And I'm going to start off with something that Chair Woodson had said a few years ago when we were here in this space and said, what will it take? Does someone have to get hurt? Well, here we are.

So from my own personal experience, I was not physically injured, but I was harmed. My mental health suffered tremendously, and that harm has been long lasting. I wanted to address something that the person from the courts addressed. I'm living proof of what happens when that line is ignored.

I have a pending criminal trial against my harasser since 2024. It is 2026. So for two years, I've continued teaching. I carry on because that's what we do. But it's constant uncertainty for me. It's like waiting for the other shoe to drop. That ongoing fear is its own form of harm and trauma.

I also wanted to just address just a little bit about passion and harassment. Passion is advocacy. That's what I'm sitting here doing is passion. Right? Harassment is intimidation. And I feel like that is at the core of it. The difference between that two. Passion does not create fear. I'm not yelling, I'm not calling anybody names.

Harassment does. And that's a big difference. And yes, I've been a teacher 20 years. Of course, students and parents have the right to be passionate about their kids, as well as I've been passionate about my own daughter. So I wanted to address that.

So just to round it out, I just, this bill has been here a couple of times and I really hope that we can try to address some of these issues and make things accountable and have something in place so that it doesn't happen to other educators. I may not still be at the same school that it happened to me at, but I'm still suffering and I want to have other teachers not have to go through the same thing. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have individual testimony from Mrs. Chambers in person.

Aloha, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members of the Committee. I just want to thank all of you, especially Representative Woodson, for introducing this bill again, now for the third session. When people ask me about what I went through with the harassment, the threats, the TRO hearings, and ultimately the ongoing institutional betrayal by the DOE, I tell them I felt like I was drowning in the deep end of the pool.

I could see everyone watching and I could see the life preserver hanging on the wall behind them, but no one was willing to throw it to me. What I realized as I was drafting testimony for today is that someone eventually did, and that was Representative Woodson.

For many of us, this work is about turning survival into something bigger by helping others and trying to prevent the same harm from happening again. At its core, HB 1888 does three important things. First, it creates a clear response system, an actual process so employees are not left guessing what to do in moments of crisis.

Second, it ensures accountability and follow through. When behavior escalates into threats, stalking, or intimidation, it cannot be treated as a private matter that employees are left to handle on their own. And third, it creates consistency. Safety should not depend on which administrator someone happens to work under.

HB 1888 matters because it shifts us from reacting after someone is hurt to being prepared when harm occurs. It is worth noting that the Judiciary's legislative package includes bills that authorizes public employers to petition for TROs and injunctions against employment related harassment, citing the rising threats targeting public officials.

These proactive bills cover state leadership like the Governor, department heads, judges, and lawmakers. It does not include state workers like educators. I hope it's something we can consider whether it's this session or next for those working on our front lines, like all of you. HB 1895 and HB 1592 provide important legal protections for educational workers.

But this bill, HB 1888, completes that picture by addressing accountability. Existing laws cover harassment and assault. Yet without a clear DOE process to respond and to hopefully pursue elevated charges when appropriate, those protections fall short. I also want to acknowledge the Senate for introducing a similar bill, which I referenced in my written testimony.

Given the 80% similarity in language found in SB 3179 compared to HB 1888, it shows a shared recognition across chambers that current DOE systems are insufficient. And I just want to close by thanking you for continuing to move this bill forward and for giving victims a seat at the table.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your advocacy. Next, we also have individual testimony from the principal of Kāneʻohe. Not here, but in support.

Another principal from Moanalua High School, also in support. And notably individual testimony from Catherine Payne in support. I see late testimony, not late testimony, but from UPW in support. And several individuals all providing testimony in support. Is there anyone else here to provide testimony measure? Please step up.

Please state your name and your affiliate. Okay, if you could come up and just say that first. No, first. Because the microphones are directional so we can't hear you.

So sorry. Tiffany Edwards Hunt, and I support it. I just need you to know I support everything on this agenda today, but we're at the secondary schools conference and we're running out of time so we're trying to stick it out to testify on everything. But in case we don't, I emailed you to say we support for every single thing on this agenda today. And thank you so much for helping us.

Thank you. Please come up.

Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES in strong support. So helping educational workers handle harassment requires clear documented procedures and a plan of action to help create safe environments while providing training and guidelines.

And so, you know, when things escalate in a high energy environment, especially at school, it's maybe because teachers and their friends didn't speak up for each other. So you know, having like counseling between teachers as a first step to facilitating drama at school can also be very helpful because at school we need healthy relationships to get to our goals together as a community. Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Vice Chair.

For the DOE. I'm going to read to you a portion of the testimony from Ms. Iwamoto from Moanalua High School. In the aftermath of this incident, I found myself navigating a complex legal landscape entirely on my own. This included interacting with HPD and detectives, researching TRO, providing seeking legal counsel.

While DOE is supportive, there is currently no formal procedure or roadmap for employees who are targeted by outside actors while on the clock. Similarly, we've heard and read testimony that echoes the sentiment that it almost feels like in that environment, once they are threatened or no longer feel safe, that they're left entirely to navigate this alone, like almost solitary.

So what has the department done in terms of a safety plan in looking at the current structure and looking at staffing to make sure that this is more department led and supported, to ensure that no employee should have ever have to feel like they can't, they can no longer do their job in an environment where they feel threatened?

Thank you for that question. The department has developed a standard of practice for workplace harassment by non-employees, and we have it drafted and completed. It's currently a consult and confer. So it does include procedures such as that when there is an incident, incident that happens, the department would provide guidance on how to access a TRO and create a safety plan for the individual.

Can you explain to Committee Members what the consult and confer process is? And when is the plan going to be either made public or distributed to all the marketing units or all the employees?

Hopefully soon. So the consult and confer process is we provide the document to the unions to look at to give us feedback. So once everything is agreed upon, then we can share with the public.

And do you have an estimated timeline as to when you would like the safety plan completed by?

Estimated about a month from now.

HSTA, have you been able... Can you come up please? Thank you. Is the current safety plan, has it been shared with you? Are you able to provide input on?

I think that would be something for negotiations, but I can check.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Members, any other questions? Question for DOE. Is the DOE aware that for certain state departments they have legal advocates that help their employees with technical assistance like getting TROs that they need? Are you aware of that?

I'm not aware.

If that's something that you can verify to be true, would you be amenable to also incorporating that into your practices?

That would be to have a legal advisor?

To have an advocate that helps with employees acquire things like TROs because the paperwork could be quite tricky sometimes.

So the other departments that have the advocates, they worked in, they all may ask in what capacity. Or we can look, if you let me know which departments, we can go reach out to them.

Well, there are, there are departments that work with families and sometimes they're tricky situations. And so in those instances they have advocates to help their employees receive the type of legal protections that they need.

If I might, I can ask maybe after the meeting if I get some more information, we definitely can reach out.

And so if that's seen to be accurate, is that something that you would support incorporating into your practices?

I think we would need to take a look at the scope of what their, how they're interacting with the folks that they represent. I think the department is always open to looking to support our employees, but I would just need more information before making a commitment. Definitely looking to support our folks is important.

Okay, thank you so much. I had a line of questioning, but if you're not aware, then I won't continue, but thank you so much.

I have a quick question, Chair, if you don't mind. Just a quick question. Superintendent. So do you guys have in house attorneys within the DOE or do you guys rely on the Department of the Attorney General to provide legal counsel?

Yeah, Department of the Attorney General.

Okay. Okay. That's all. That's the only question. I do have a follow up for the Attorney General's Office, if you, if you're okay with that. If the Attorney General... Thank you. So I know one of the, one of the... Thank you so much for being here.

One of the criticisms, I think, you know, not to address the specific facts of the current case, the high profile case that's going on. But one of the criticisms from HGEA when that happened was that the Department of the Attorney General was not stepping in to also advocate for the administrator.

And so what is the Department of the Attorney General doing generally to keep our administrators safe or if a situation like this occurs? How are you guys stepping in to advocate or even advise the DOE on matters such as liability?

Because I do feel like just hearing some of the testimony today that they're trying their very best to facilitate this and come up with a security plan or... That's not even what was said, but I'm thinking that's probably the thought process from what they're saying.

And I feel like there needs to be some sort of legal intervention as far as advising them on these matters because this looks like tremendous liability for the state just based off of the current situation. And so do you have any status updates as far as what the attorney...

This might be just a very big question for your purpose for this bill, but maybe if you don't know the answer, just if you could take that back to the Attorney General. And because I am concerned about maybe potentially the lack of advising and just the lack of interaction and engagement maybe, so I would really, really appreciate that. Thank you.

I will certainly take it back and get back to your office. Actually, I can provide it to the entire committee.

Yeah, that would be great. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none. We're going to go on to the next bill: HB 1825. This is for emergency higher licensure. First we have DoE providing testimony and the support.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, I'm Tammi Chung, Deputy Superintendent. The Department of Education supports this bill. I just wanted to give a little bit of background information about emergency hires that you - that are not commonly known. The department hires emergency hire teachers when a licensed teacher is not available.

But always search first to fill the positions with a fully licensed teacher or a provisional teacher with a provisional license, which would be a new teacher in the first three years. Emergency hire teachers have a bachelor's degree and, while in the classroom, the teachers receive support for our induction and mentoring program for new teachers.

They participate in professional development and they receive an annual evaluation. The teachers can be renewed from year to year based on satisfactory performance, and if a position is available once we've tried to recruit a licensed fully licensed teacher for the position.

Emergency hire is an important way to meet immediate needs for the classroom and it is also a pipeline for our residents into teaching. Since a majority of our emergency hires are hired locally in state. This bill extends the number of years that someone may teach as an emergency hire.

Currently it's limited to three years and someone must can no longer be hired the conclusion of three years unless they obtain their license at that point. We have a recommendation that is not included in the written testimony and that is to strike or amend the requirement for active pursuit of licensing in each year of employment.

Currently, the requirement that a teacher show evidence each year that they are actively pursuing a teacher license is burdensome on the teacher, their administrator and the office of talent management. The department recommends removing the requirement entirely or requiring that the teacher demonstrate active pursuit after a number of years rather than annually. I'm happy to answer additional questions.

Thank you for being here. Dr. Chun. We have HSTA offering testimony and support.

Thank you.

Hello, Chair. Vice Chair. Sarah Milianta-Laffin on behalf of HSTA testifying and support.

Actually 2017, when I was hired, even though I had 11 years experience, I was emergency hired because it took me a long time to prove that my Texas teacher's license, even though I had taught for several years. So, I understand what emergency hires go through. We're all here fighting the teacher shortage crisis.

That's what we're working on and this is a bill that can go ahead and help and support that. I will also say again, in my capacity as labor and chapter president, we have a ton of emergency hires on the coast because we're trying to get people into classrooms. We want to grow our own educators.

I will also say I see especially Hawaiian Immersion teachers struggling to finish their program in time and we know these are areas that we want to go ahead and fill. Myself, I'm a computer science teacher. We're kind of hard to find, so we want to make sure that we can go ahead and get people into these spaces.

I have an incredible science teacher at my school who did Shaman's program during COVID and we're still trying to fight to get her license.

So, it's a thing when we have people who are willing to do the work, who are good, the kids love, we want to keep them, and if extending this timeline helps that, we're all for it.

Thank you for you testimony. Next, we have Hawaii Teacher Standards Board offering testimony and opposition.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Felicia Villalobos. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaiian Teacher Standards Board. Testifying on behalf of the board, the board submitted written text testimony in opposition of HB 1825.

The Hawaii Teacher Standards Board respectfully opposes HB 1825 due to concerns about its duration and the learning loss and academic gaps experienced by students taught by emergency hires who lack full preparation and credentials.

Long-term reliance on emergency hire permits allows positions to be filled with the credentials, training, and experience necessary to protect instructional quality and student services. Emergency hire permits are intended to address short term urgent staffing needs when no qualified candidates are immediately available. Extending these permits to five years fundamentally changes their purpose.

A five year time frame is not an emergency measure. It effectively functions as a permanent appointment similar to HTSB's five year standard license. While many emergency hires are hardworking and well intentioned, limited preparation can result in less effective instruction, weaker classroom management, and reduced ability to identify and address student learning needs.

This concern is especially significant given that there are over 1000 emergency hires which most emergency hire positions in Hawaii are currently concentrated in K6 elementary and SPED. Where students are at critical stages of development. In the elementary grades, foundational skills such as reading, writing, and math as particularly vulnerable.

Inadequate instruction can lead to regression or learning loss rather than progress over multiple years. This learning loss compounds and can have lasting effects on students academic growth, especially for students with disabilities who require specialized instruction legal compliance and consistent highly trained teachers.

Research consistently shows that licensed teachers are associated with higher student achievement and stronger long term academic and social emotional outcomes, often equated to substantive yearly gains. Research further indicates that months of learning loss can accumulate into years of academic delay when students are taught by unlicensed teacher over multiple years.

In practical terms, a kindergarten student with under a 5 year emergency hire permit could be assigned an emergency hire teacher for most of their elementary education, while a middle or high school student could experience an emergency hire teacher throughout their entire academic career.

Approving a five year emergency hire permit sets a troubling standard by normalizing temporary measures as a long term staffing solution rather than addressing root causes such as recruitment, retention, compensation, workplace satisfaction, targeted supports in high needed areas, and additional supports needed to transition emergency hires into fully qualified teachers.

For the past three decades, the teacher shortage has been a long issue. The emergency hire permit predates the establishment of the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board. In the past three decades, what supports our employers and key stakeholders who provided testimony today providing these educators?

Greater emphasis should be placed on assisting these teachers who already hold a bachelor's degree and love the profession of teaching in completing an 18 month or 2 year licensure program, instead of adding another band aid to our crisis that will ultimately impact the learning of students for generations to come.

Thank you for your commitment to maintaining high standards and protecting the educational needs of all students.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have testimony from the Executive Office of Early Learning providing testimony and support in person.

Aloha Chair Woodson Vice Chair La Chica and Members of the Committee. I'm Yuuko Arikawa Cross, I'm the Director of the Executive Office on Early Learning. Thank you for this opportunity to share our support for this Bill.

Thanks to the support of the Legislature, the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor and already Keiki Partners, the number of public Pre K classrooms has grown rapidly over the last several years. Highly qualified EOEL Public Pre-K teachers must have graduated from a state-approved teacher education program or SATEP and hold a teaching license in early childhood education.

This is a unique set of qualifications for which there has been no significant demand prior to the expansion of the public Pre K program.

As the system adjusts to these new opportunities, some candidates, some of which who may hold a Bachelor's or a Master's in early childhood education from a non SATEP program, encounter challenges obtaining an initial early childhood license due to limited number of approved pathways and the timing of enrollment of opportunities for existing programs.

We appreciate that this Bill addresses current challenges while maintaining a defined time limited structure to ensure that emergency hire permits serve as temporary bridges to full licensure, not as a parallel or permanent hiring pathway.

Thank you for your testimony. Next we have testimony from the Charter School Commission offering comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ed Noh Executive Director of the Charter School Commission in addition to the comments which we submitted, we definitely appreciate the urgency. The issues of having shortages and issues that derive from that. However, our comments are focused on the fact that we do recognize that it.

Can impact your quality student outcomes and defer to the standard. Thank you so much.

Next we have testimony from the Hawaii Coalition of Immigration Rights offering testimony in support in person. Hawaii J20 in support Ka'u voices one island chapter in support. And we have individual Indivisible Hawaii in support several individuals, all offering testimony in support. Anyone here wishing to provide discipline on this measure, please come up.

Hello, my name is Haley Swanson. I am the English teacher at Kealakehe. I just completed my licensure. I was an emergency hire until December of this year or last year. My school has incredibly high turnover. We're on the Big Island, and mostly due to the cost of living.

If we lose teacher mid year or if we do not fill a position, our students are stuck with a long term sub. We have many many emergency hires, like I said I was one of them, people who want to teach. We're people who are working towards licensure. We want to be there. We're working hard to be there. A sub isn't.

What's really impacting our students learning is having a sub who doesn't care. I have several students who for several months were without an English teacher or without teacher. Right. These are kids who want to go to college.

That puts an undue burden on our students, whereas we could have teachers who want to be teachers filling these positions. So thank you so much.

Thank you for that testimony. Anyone else, please come up.

Aloha. Tiffany Edwards Hunt, Keaau Middle School. We have a teacher shortage in our school as well. We're anticipating vacancies, and here's the reality. I totally appreciate what the standards board is saying, but there is, like, the hope, and then there's reality. And Haley is absolutely correct. You can't.

If you don't have an emergency hire, you're gonna have sub after sub after sub. And these kids suffer. And the teachers who have consistency and routine, we end up suffering because we're like, hey, that behavior is not acceptable in this room.

And so we're constantly having to fix things as a result of someone else not having that position filled. The other big thing to understand is that some of our charter schools. I worked in a charter school, so I was interested to hear what the charter commission had to say.

If they don't have the ability to get a sub, they will put an educational assistant in the room in order to cover a class. We are in a critical stage where we need to make it attractive for teachers to live and work in Hawaii, and this needs to be part of the package.

And yes, as the teacher standards board was saying, there's other fixes, but we need everything, because boots on the ground will show you that there are people that are in our classrooms that do not give our kids the care and concern because they're in one day out the next.

Super important that we make it possible also a lot of educational assistants do not have college degrees. And so they need to get a college degree in order to get a teaching certification. So it's very complex. If we give people more time that they'll be able to follow all of the hoops that we put before them.

So thank you very much for the opportunity. Aloha

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to provide testimony on HB 1825? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Chair, I had my hand raised. I didn't know. Sorry. My name Doug Boyer, Principal, Lanai High in elementary school. And being in rural Hawaii, we. We do find a teaching shortage. Right. And I understand that though teachers might have a.

They have a harder time to access various campuses and it actually takes longer for them to earn their teaching degrees or their credentials. Right. And I am in support of the five year extension for emergency hires. Because at Lanai High and Elementary School, we have to rely heavily on the J1 program.

And with that J1 program, as teachers have been working towards getting their teacher certifications where Hawaii is three years. But if it's extended to five years, that will help us fill potential openings we've had. Since I've moved here, we have been 100% fully staffed due to the J1 program.

And we are looking at J1 teachers who are, they're coming in with doctorate degrees, master's degrees 10, 15 years of experience, master teachers in the Philippines. And with that being said, they are providing a great educational opportunity for our students here on the island of Lanai.

So with that being said, I am in 100% support of this Bill.

Thank you for your testimony, Principal. Anyone else? We have 22 individuals all providing testimony and support. Okay, seeing none Members. Are there any questions? Go ahead.

Department of Education, please. We just have a series of questions and I just want to preface it by saying that I fully recognize this is a supply side issue. That's not the department's purview or Kuleana directly.

But I am very sympathetic to HTSB's arguments about every student deserving to be taught by a highly qualified teacher in the classroom. And the part that pains me is the fact that a lot of these unlicensed teachers seem to be in Title 1 areas, rural areas where academic achievement might lack in the statewide average.

So I just want to set that out there. I recognize this is beyond the DOE. How many emergency-hire teachers are there right now?

There are currently 1054.

Okay, how many licensed teachers do you folks have?

We have about 13,000. 13,000 total teachers. So that would be. We're at about 99% teachers being licensed.

99%.

Sorry, just we went over this earlier. 96 or 97. 96 or 97 are fully licensed or have a full license, a provisional license.

I'm sorry, does the mathematics say there's.

A thousand emergency higher teachers out of 13,000?

Isn't that like 7%? We get the idea. Yeah. The question I guess I have is just generally speaking, at what point does like an emergency, emergency teacher, this emergency workforce, become just part of the overall structure no longer really an emergency.

So maybe emergency hire is not our best description of what we should have, what we're really looking at here. So let me start by saying we would. Our goal is to have a licensed, highly qualified, effective teacher in every classroom. So there's no dispute about that. Our hiring process is structured to recruit those kinds of teachers.

So we are, we only hire under emergency hire when a licensed teacher is not available. So for example, if a classroom is currently taught by a emergency hire teacher this year, we will post that position for next school year to recruit a licensed teacher for.

So the position would only be filled by an emergency hire if we were unsuccessful in recruiting a licensed teacher. So then the question becomes what's the alternative? If a licensed teacher is not available, the alternative becomes having a substitute teacher. And that is not a no dis on substitute teachers because they're really important important to our structure.

But you really we're looking for more consistency for our students. And also when a. If you have an emergency hire teacher, they're receiving support and training throughout the year as opposed to substitute who just come in for the day and not participate in that longer term planning and training. So we will. The question is what's the alternative?

What the Bill proposes is to extend the potential for these teachers to continue. And when we can extend it, it means that someone who has knows the school has been performing and been trained, had received training but not yet licensed, they would have.

We could, they could potentially be renewed for additional number of years rather than having to recruit a new emergency hire teacher who is brand new and has to be retrained. So there, there would be. So in that those cases you're hiring someone who has a known record of their performance.

And we do want our teachers to become licensed to speak into the supply side issue. And so I think maybe that answers your question for now I have more I could say.

But yeah, that's fine for now. And you know, as someone who moonlights as a substitute teacher, I take no offense by your statement. Aim a little bit higher. Perfectly fine. What kind of measurable progress do you folks require of these unlicensed teachers to make progress toward that licensure of the thousand that you have?

So currently the law requires that every year the teacher show that they are in active pursuit of their teacher license.

So they have to show evidence that they've been accepted to a program and our transcript work that shows that they're making progress toward the certificate, either the post baccalaureate certification or some kind of master's degree or something in a state approved teacher education program.

So that has to be provided annually from to be able to continue their emergency permit.

Okay, and how do you define progress? I mean do they have to. Are There certain benchmarks you folks require of these unlicensed teachers besides just enrollment in a program.

So there's two parts. One part here is that the teachers I would I think we should let the Teacher Standards board speak to the active pursuit criteria. O Assistant Superintendent Sean Bacon is going to come up and explain.

Thank you for the question, Representative Garrett. Sean Bacon from the Office of Talent Management. So currently, right now, on an annual basis, teachers have to show what their it's called demonstrate active pursuit.

So what they do need to show the Department on an annual basis that they are currently enrolled into a program and are continuing enrollment in that particular teacher preparation program or if they may need praxis testing types of things, they would show their praxis scores that they've either attempted the practice and have not been able to complete it or have actually showed us a complete that meets that requirement too.

So there's different measures that we are looking at depending on each individual situation.

I guess we should also say that one thing that's required of a re emergency hire for continuing is that they're evaluated. And so they have to actually show that their performance in the classroom is meeting expectations. Correct.

So and part of our teacher assignment and transfer process every year that happens too, that's part of the HSTA collective bargaining agreement is that if there is an emergency hire in that classroom, we do post that position for all tenured teachers to have an opportunity at that position first.

If there is no then applicant, then it's up to a principal's decision whether or not to look at extending that emergency hire the teacher or not.

Okay. Have there been times you've turned away an unlicensed teacher, say from year one to year two because you've determined they haven't made sufficient progress toward licensure?

There are opportunities, yes. When if a person is not performing well, the principals have let us know that they plan not to extend that person beyond that first year.

Okay. I guess my concern is extending this from three to five years. It just kind of embeds this temporary workforce within the structure. And again, I recognize this is fully a supply side issue. We need to do more to encourage developing this teaching profession.

But my concern is that people are just going to procrastinate and rather than year to year make progress, recognizing that the Department needs teachers, there might not be a lot of scrutiny as to that level of progress and we're just kind of extending this out.

And as I said at the beginning, the onset, the concern is that the areas that need highly qualified teachers, the Most are not getting it.

So we are currently surveying all of our emergency hire teachers, the surveys in the field right now. But a third responded quickly.

And of the 1/360%, or about half or more than than half, said that they would need, they need more time would help them to complete their license and also that it and reasons are the cost of pursuing their license. So they have to pay for courses, for example, or the workload.

So they're trying to juggle being a new teacher and taking courses at the same time. So 40, like about 50% said they would be more likely to complete their license if they're able to have a little more time.

We do know of cases where very people have been infected in the classroom just haven't been able to complete by the third year and have had to be let go.

Okay, then over time, is this emergency workforce growing or do you see like it kind of stabilizing?

I think we have seen the numbers increase over the last few years of emergency hires. I think it's a nationwide issue of teacher preparation programs around the nation are not putting out as many teacher candidates. But I think really what we're trying to do here is really grow from our local pipeline here.

And I think as we mentioned, many of our emergency hires are coming from our local communities. We want to see what we can do to better support our local communities and hoping that this can be an option for some of our administrators.

You know, the goal is hopefully they don't have to use all five years, but if we get to a point where they do need that additional time, that's what the hope of this Bill is for.

Okay, thank you for the background. It's very helpful. We'd understand challenges, challenges you folks face. And again, I recognize that this isn't entirely a situation of your own making, but thank you for the background. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Members. Any other questions? Quick question for first. I guess how many substitute teachers do you have approximately any given time? I need to look up that number. I don't have the number off the. Top of my head on this percentage thousand emergency hires. How many substitutes do you have any given day?

Are you talking about ones that are being used on an annual date or. Just how big the entire pool in the classroom? We definitely have to look.

Yeah, I'd have to get that information. I don't have the number on. Does anyone know? No one knows. Okay. All right, thank you so much. I have a question for the standards board, please. Actually, Doe, I have one quick question. You said that you want the provision regarding active pursuit to be taken out of the proposal.

What is the reason for that? Regarding? That's the provision that states that the emergency hires should be pursuing their licensure through the course of their of their time teaching.

So just to be clear, we want our emergency hires, who are going to be teachers, to get their license and in a timely way. I think the issue is with the requirement that it be provided annually, the evidence be provided annually.

What is the issue with that? I think sometimes on the annual basis, it can be sometimes of a burden on the teacher or also it puts an additional workload on the office of Talent Management team, sometimes at the time that they're trying to provide their active pursuit. It's right in the middle of our busy hiring season.

It sometimes can put a delay on having these teachers hired. But we do understand the quality and we would like to do what we need to do to ensure what's best for our teachers as we move forward here.

Okay. I appreciate the honesty, but I'm not sure that's a good reason. There. White teacher standards.

I appreciate your testimony, I agree with a lot of it. But to play devil's advocate, what about these substitute teachers? Or what about emergency hires that are showing to be effective, loosely defined, but then after the three years they leave the classroom, it's replaced by even less qualified and experienced emergency hire or substitute.

Does the devil even advocate? I'm just kidding. No. Good question. So I think it comes from two points here. We have about 20,000 licensed teachers under the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board. And as you heard, there's about 13,500 teachers with Heido and charter. Why are they weak? So we've been on national conversations with other licensing agencies.

It's a retention issue at this point. So when you ask about numbers and, and they're growing in emergency hires, teachers are leaving. And I can give one scenario because I taught elementary for 15 years on the island of Hawaii.

When there's an emergency hire or more than one in your grade level, guess who gets to take care of them? Guess who gets to support them? Answer their questions when their mentor's not around or the principal is busy.

So it's another burden on the teacher that now I have to prepare this emergency hire so the numbers may be bigger. As she said, we don't certificate substitutes. And right now to be a substitute, all you need is a high school diploma.

So with the emergency hire being at over a thousand, then you add in the substitutes and long-term subs. That's a huge number amount of unlicensed teachers in the classrooms. So what can we do to support someone who we found?

Unfortunately, recently within the last few years, when I took over as Executive Director, people were calling us saying I only had three years. No one told me. Wait, what do you mean no one told you? Our licensing specialists get phone calls saying, oh, I thought, you know, I got it until I got licensed. No, it's three years.

You renew it every year. We're not renewing. You apply for a new one every year. So that monitoring factor is very important. So we actually put safeguards in our application process or congratulations, you're on your circuit.

Emergency hire permit, you only have one more left to notify them that they should be enrolled in a program because some of them didn't know they had to be enrolled in a program.

Pretty much year one again, they have a bachelor's degree, so it's an 18 month program or a two year program if they're getting a master's degree. We understand that life happens.

There is a suspension of the rules and our administrative rules that allow for we have people with emergencies, like medical emergencies, they're allowed to get another fourth emergency hiring permit. So what are we doing to support our teacher candidates? And this is something we have to bring back to the board.

And educator preparation programs. What wraparound services are we providing these teachers? And maybe it's a test. Not all educator preparation programs require testing. Some of it is content knowledge through coursework. They get the 30 credits and they get a degree in that content area.

What are we doing to support the teachers if an educator preparation program does require testing? Are we providing support and testing? There's a lot of testing services out there that do tutorials. Are we paying for the practices for them because we covet them so much? We want them to be a part of our school community.

We'll pay for the practice exam. I'll pay the 20 bucks to get them tutoring. What are we doing together as stakeholders to help these folks navigate college so they graduate on time, so they finish their program in time? Sometimes the educator preparation program has to be a little more flexible.

What we notice in preparation, if I wanted to be a teacher today, some preparation will allow that open enrollment, that rolling enrollment, I can enroll and start class tomorrow. Some of our institutions have not that flexibility. They go, well, that course is not going to happen until every even year or every odd year.

So that's where that three year permit.

What jurisdiction are they doing those prescriptions that you have articulated?

Say that again.

What in what jurisdiction? You said that you attended a lot of national conferences. So are they doing any of that stuff anywhere.

For the five year or supporting?

About any of the solutions that you intend to support.

Some of them have about 200 preparation programs in their state, which makes it taxing for the state agency to monitor all those. They're looking at the for profits that are popping up that are asynchronous online. Can you get your license with $500 as quickly as possible?

Now they're saying research is showing that those are leading to non retention. Because when you face a classroom, it's not asynchronous. It's live humans eyeball to eyeball. And if you don't have the strategies, you're not going to last in the classroom.

So other states, I'll give an example, Maine, I just found out, took away the practice exam. Now we have a mixture. You can either take it or not, depending on your program.

They took it all away and now they're looking at putting it back in because the quality of the workforce has gone down and it's been five or six years. So when we talk about other agencies, I talk with accreditors and all of us at state licensing agencies go on these accreditors' monthly calls.

We also go to conferences and talk from licensing agencies and educator preparation program. We all kind of bounce ideas. What is happening? Just today I was on a call with one of the states, I believe it was Ohio. How can we get our EPPs more online with what is needed in there in a quicker fashion?

Because sometimes the review process of an educator preparation program can take a while because you're trying to match national standards. Do they have everything in place? Is it clinical there? Are they in the right situation? Are they meeting the state standards? Every state has their own standards for licensure. So the conversations happen nationally with different agencies.

We're not unique to the United States of America. However, I've never, I haven't seen a lot of states go five year emergency hire.

So are there any jurisdictions that are doing what you're prescribing because you're making the argument that it's better not to have these emergency hires because of these other solutions are available. Are there any jurisdictions actually taking advantage of any of those type of solutions that you're.

Two things. Each state is run by districts. Usually because we're one mid district, we're going to be unique. So it's going to be up to that district and that admin in that district of how they're preparing the workforce. Some of them are becoming their own educator preparation programs and they're actually training them at the school.

They actually develop their own EPPs. And so that's another national conversation of as let's say in Tennessee there's a school district, there's a high need of emergency hires somewhere in a rural area. They're actually building their own educator preparation programs to train the teachers for that community, for their need. And it depends on the state.

Sometimes that license is a comfort to that district area. So they can't move it around because they don't want to spend all this money preparing a teacher and then they just leave to another district or state. So that's one solution I've heard. Another one, again, the conversation is apprenticeships. Apprenticeships.

Because when you pay for someone's education, that is usually a barrier for a lot of the EAs or people from the community to go back to school and pay for a master's degree or a bachelor's degree or something else. So they're finding that again, we just got back from the National Registered teacher Apprenticeship conference.

I went to at least 10 or 12 different states. 90 to 91 to 93% retention rates when they put in a registered apprenticeship program within the university.

What is the issue with our apprenticeship program that we're trying to stand up?

Say that again.

What is the issue with our apprenticeship program?

I believe we just finished. Not we, the Department of Education and the union just finished our consult to confer. So I haven't heard yet. I haven't heard next steps just yet. That was just recent. So hopefully we hear something back soon.

Thank you, Members. Any other questions?

Quick question. So thank you so much for responding to our data request from our January 15th hearing. I know you sent that in yesterday, so the data is kind of in different tables, but what I was able to gather, and if you just respond to this, if this is correct.

So we have 7520 licenses and permits, the applications that were submitted in the 2024 to the 2025 school year to HTSB. Among those, 2000 or so were licenses and 1900 were permits. Among those that were approved. So Sorry, among the 7500, we have 2000 licenses and 1900 permits were approved to about 3900, which is about 52%.

So to make it easy, let's say 50%. So only 50% of applications are approved. How are we then? Are you currently working then with either the Department or what are you doing with kind of this data to for us to be able to see that?

Okay, one in, one out of one out of every two applications results in some type of denial or some type of failure. And if we have 1,000 to 2,000 teacher shortage, but we have 7,500 applications, it seems that there's a lot in the pipeline who are willing to become teachers. And so what are we doing with this data?

Yeah, so there's no denial. Denial actually goes through a misconduct in administrative rules, Chapter 90, all that stuff. There's actually a hearing and I gave you the numbers. There's been nine denials of applications since 2008, I believe. So the applications you just mentioned are the new ones that came in.

Again, we still have about 20,000 active licenses right now and permits. And that means some teachers already have a license that wouldn't be of that number because they're in their term of 5, 10 years, three years. So that's the renewal process. I did not include the renewal process in that.

Like right now we have about 5,000 standard license renewals. I believe that standards in advance renewals right now so that's it could hold a license from the Hawaii teachers stands for it as long as they meet the requirements.

What happens to the 47% that do not result in a licensure permit? What happens?

That's not a number because the number I gave you is the new ones that applied. When people don't apply, they don't get a license. So those are all the applications processed and resulted in a license now?

Yeah. So 7500 applied. Out of those, 2000 resulted in a license. 1900 resulted in a permit. So the balance, which is like the difference, which is about 3,500, what happens to them?

There should be a difference because again, there is any denial would be a sanction would have to go on the website. So there's no denying. Unless someone is waiting for documents to be turned into.

Maybe I'm reading the data wrong. But like if you can tell us among those that applied.

If they're licensed, if they haven't granted a license.

Yeah, because obviously you're not approving or not. Let me rephrase it. It's not resulting in 100% of applications resulting in a licensure or permit. So what is the percentage of folks that you're either failing, falling through the cracks, or for whatever reason else?

And assistant superintendent, can you please come up and you can just let us know if. Do you work with HTSB on like tracking this data?

So at least we know how certain things are either designed or currently designed to unintentionally, you know, become a bottleneck for some of the folks who are in that pipeline and trying to get to licensure or getting to a permit. Do you get this data at all?

So I think what we provide is our office provides the amount of emergency hires we hire on a monthly basis to the standards board so that they're able to get that information and be able to track that information. I'm not 100% sure on your question. Can you explain what you're trying to say?

Okay, so everyone has about six months to apply. It's because of the professional fitness questions. Those might expire. So we ask like you, have you ever been convicted of a felony, misdemeanor, so on and so forth. So if application is pending, it may expire, but not denied because they're gathering paperwork. Sometimes this happens with reciprocity.

If someone from Florida has a full license in Florida, but we need documentation to prove that. Sometimes them getting a hold of that state agency in Florida takes a while.

They currently work with teacher standards for to track all these root causes of where people are not able to. It's kind of impeding their process to get a licensure.

I don't think we've had those in depth discussions with the Standards board on those types of issues yet.

Okay, thank you. That's it. Okay, I know we're running a little over, so we'll just. Members, are there any questions for this? Okay, we're going to move on to the next item on our agenda, which is where are we on our agenda relating to the education?

House Bill 1893 clarifies that public charter school teachers are eligible for incentives under the teacher National Board Certification Incentive program increases the certification incentive from 5,000 to 10,000. So first up, we have Department of Education in support.

Good afternoon. Vice chair La Chica and Members of this Committee. Sean Bacon testified on behalf of the Department of Education, we stand in support of this and any questions we're ready to answer. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We also have Executive Director Vilialobos, Hawaii Teacher Standards Board and. Yeah, you're able to. We want the testimony. Sorry.

Good afternoon, Vice chair, Committee Members. My name is Tracy. I'm one of the licensing specialists at the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board, a National Board-certified teacher. I've been a teacher since 1982, and I've been a national Board-certified teacher for over two decades here in Hawaii.

I know firsthand the difference National Board certification makes for both our teachers and our students. And I'm testifying today on behalf of the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board, which has submitted written testimony in support of House Bill 1893. The majority of my career has been spent at Aiea High School as a high school English teacher.

That's my heart. And I believe that I was a good teacher before I became a National Board certified teacher. But I know without question I was a better one after. The process changes you as a teacher, what you learn, what you understand, how you think changes. Research confirms this.

Research shows that National Board certified teachers improve student learning outcomes and also contribute to stronger school communities. That's why I've been involved in in candidate support and expanding National Board opportunities since I first certified in 2004. It's about making a difference. Now, there's two aspects in this Bill. One is the financial, which of course is important.

We want to recognize our teachers. But I do believe that the most important aspect of the Bill deals with equity for our public charter schools. Currently, Hawaii of education schools receive dedicated funding for their national board bonuses. They don't need to use their per pupil funds to finance the bonus.

Charter schools, however, have to use their per pupil funds in order to pay their national board certified teachers that bonus. That's not equitable because this has the unintended consequence of discouraging our charter school teachers from pursuing national board certification.

One charter school teacher who I know was so excited when she achieved her certification a few years ago when she went to talk to her principal about the contractual stipend, he told her if he paid her, he would have to close a school program because that $5,000 a year that would go to her would impact the funding for this very tiny, small charter school.

She left the school. She didn't want to hurt the school, but she also knew that she was entitled to that funding. And our charter school teachers need our national board certified teachers as much as all of our Hawaii DOE schools. NBCTs make a difference in our school.

And on behalf of the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board, I respectfully ask for your support of House Bill 1893.

Thank you so much. Members and our guests in the audience. We have about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. So we're trying to get through the rest of the agenda. If you can please keep your testimony brief, we would really appreciate it. Sorry about that. Next we have Hawaii State Teachers Association in support. Thank you so much.

We have Office of Collective Bargaining in opposition. Anyone here. We also have a Public Charter School Commission in support.

Chair and Members of the Committee, Ed Noh, Executive Director, Charter School Commission in addition to the support, just again wanted to echo what was shared earlier. I really appreciate understanding the complexities and the inequalities around this particular provision. And again highlighting the fact that this is.

We humbly request that as we move forward with this that the Committee will consider amending the measure by including a separate appropriation. As you heard it does come out of the our pupil which is the only real funding source. So really again, strong support and ask that we could look at a separate appropriation. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Director. We also have five individuals submitting testimony in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1893? Seeing none. Members, questions? Okay. Seeing none. We are moving on to House Bill 1890. Collective Bargaining Annual salary step increases. First up, we have Attorney General offering comments. Oh, okay offering comments. Next we have DOE offering comments.

Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee, Sean Bacon testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. We stand on our written testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We have Director Colby, Budget and Finance in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. The Department stands on this written testimony as opposed to this. We're open to any questions.

Thank you so much. We have HSTA in support.

In strong support.

Thank you so much. We have Office of Collective Bargaining in opposition. Not present and sorry, did you want to testify for you the Attorney General's office? Yes, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Jeff Kent, Department of the Attorney General. Vice Chair. You have our comments. They said we have some concerns about how the Bill will affect why we revised statute Chapter 89 and collective bargaining structure. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We also have Kulani Hako High School in support, United Public Workers offering comments, and a number of individuals and teachers also offering testimony in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1890? Seeing none. Gonna pass it on to chair to manage questions.

Thank you. Vice Chair. Members, are there any questions? We've already had these debates, so seeing none, we're going to move on to the next Bill which is HB202 with regards to community literacy labs. First up we have is Superintendents Office, Department of Education offering testimony and opposition it looks like.

Aloha, Vice Chair Teri Ushijima, Assistant Superintendent representing the Department of Education. We stand on our testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Next we have Hawaii State Public Library System offering comments.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. We stand in support with intent and stand on our written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And we have testimony from two individuals, both in support. Is there anyone else watching to provide testimony on this proposal? HB2012, seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. Moving on to the next Bill, we have HB 1887. This is regarding artificial intelligence and education.

First up we have is AG's office offering comments.

Good afternoon, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair and Members. Anne Horiuchi from the Department of the Attorney General. As we noted in our testimony, we pointed out some areas in the Bill that we believe that more clarity is needed. And we've also provided some clarifying amendments in our testimony. Thank you. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have testimony from the Department of Education offering comments.

Teri Ushijima. We stand on our written testimony.

Thank you so much. Next, we have Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression offering testimony in support via Zoom.

Yes, Chair Woodson and Members of the Committee, thank you. My name is John Coleman. I serve as a legislative counsel for the Foundation for Individuals Rights and Expression. We go by FIRE for short. We're a nonpartisan nonprofit that defends free speech rights of all Americans. We're headquartered in Philadelphia.

We support this Bill because it takes a careful approach to AI policy and we hope it helps students better understand that what AI can do and what it can't do, and that it will help show that human judgment in content and responsibility still matter, especially as AI increasingly becomes part of everyday communication.

AI is an expressive tool and the people who develop and use it retain their First Amendment rights. And the First Amendment limits the government's authority to regulate how people communicate ideas and First Amendment principles have long adapted to new technologies, from radio and television to the Internet.

And this means that people using this technology are often engaging in expression like sharing or seeking information. Just as educators teach students how to read critically, write clearly and judge the quality of information, teaching students how AI works is absolutely a step in the right direction. And for these reasons, FIRE supports this Bill and its passage. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony and apologies. I have the Board of Education offering comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members. Capsun Poe, Executive Director of the Board. I just came up to say that we stand on our written testimony, but it's my first appearance I want here in person. And the primary note is that the Board, its constitutional responsibility is state policy.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here. We have testimony from the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus offering testimony in support. And we have testimony from three individuals, two in support and one opposition. Anyone else? HB 1887, seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Question for DOE, AI is becoming increasingly a part of most of our lives and curious to know like what the DOE is doing about preparing teachers to face this new reality.

And you know, we're seeing, you know, the use of AI for things like drafting papers or giving speeches, students giving speeches and so curious to know like what your thoughts are just in general.

So thank you for that question. Since the onset of AI when it first came out, the Department put together a cross office group together from Office of Technology. We have our curriculum office as the lead and we've also included other offices.

And we created staff guidance first because adults kind of need to know what's appropriate and what's not. And then we came out with student guidance. We've also done some. We've also done numerous trainings. We have an online introductory course to AI that's on our AI website that is open to all employees.

We have done two summers of AI summits. The first summer we had about 750 people and this past summer we had about, about 950. We also do reach out to complex areas, even schools. And we've gone to, I think we touched about 7,000 instructors.

We also have started vetting tools, appropriate tools, because safety is our first concern for students. And one of our pilots has been Magic School. And with the Magic Schools. Let me see my numbers. Well, I think it's, how many teachers? About 1700 teachers.

And so this program trains teachers and it also has modules that they get trained on so that they can start teaching students on how to use the AI appropriately. We also have Digital Magazine that we get hits from around the world, actually. So we encourage all of you to also subscribe.

We publish some of the latest information or tools that are coming out for AI. And our goal is to have someone from every one of our schools, schools or at least 90% subscribe to this communication that we publish.

And when you say that you offer student guidance, can you go into a little bit of detail as to what kind of guidance you were providing to students regarding AI?

Yes, I'm going to ask Director Nacapuy to come out. I meant to put that in my binder, but I don't see it.

So the guidance for students are. Okay. So the guidance for students centers around. So there are five areas that it centers around. Seeking permission to utilize AI when it's appropriate for obviously not all homeworker tasks. Students should be using AI

When you say seeking permission from the teacher, you mean.

And also we have policy where if this. Well, we just have general policy and technology. So parents have to give permission for that. The second area is private personal information share with students. Try to train students on when they should share that. When they should share and shouldn't share personal private information with AI.

We also make students aware of bias in this information. Also sending around our fourth area of safety and transparency and citation when they use AI in their role.

How do you ascertain when there's bias in the AI?

So that. That's a tricky question. Our bias. So I guess it's the. It's in the way that the students utilize the questions that they ask. We try to have our students be. So always check the information that AI gives them to verify that it's true or not.

And hopefully they're checking all information to see if it's true or not. There's biases more so in humans, I would imagine. Okay, thank you. Members, any other questions?

Yes. Do you require parental permission before students use AI in classrooms?

So we have.

Or just teachers.

So we have a general truck and a truck form technology responsibility use form and the technology responsible guiding, user guidance.

So it's in the packet of papers that got assigned at the beginning of the year. Okay, okay. Good enough. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative. Any other questions? Seeing none. If I go ahead and go on to the next Bill which is HB 1770. Department of Education and bus drivers. First up we have Department of Education offering comments.

Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members of the Committee Sean Tajima testifying on behalf of the Department of Education, Department stands on its written testimony which provides comments on this measure. The Department is fully supportive of any measures that are working towards increasing the number of bus drivers.

For the past six years we've seen a decline of 230 bus drivers from last year to this year, it was the first time we saw a reversal in that trend with a gain of 69 bus drivers.

We realize this is not enough to completely cover our inactive routes, but it does provide us with a positive trajectory that the financial incentives provided by our bus companies is making an impact. We realize that there are unique challenges for our neighbor island and rural communities.

In particular, we're committed to working with impacted legislators and community to find a way forward. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Next we have AG's office offering comments.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair Members Anne Horiuchi because the Bill creates a grant program, we suggest that the Bill be revised to include appropriate standards to address that grant program. Also for the repayment of grants and signing bonuses. We provided some suggested language and we found some other technical amendments and also testing our custom.

Thank you so much for being here. Okay. And we also have testimony from the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus offering testimony in support. We have three individuals offering testimony in support. Anyone else wishing to provide testimony, please come up.

Angela Melody Young testifying in strong support. I think perhaps the legislation could consider an amendment to work with Director Sniffen's the Department of Transportation Office to see what is the best plan of action to move forward with addressing transportation needs in the school system. Or consider an amendment to include the Department of Transportation Services.

Because when you have offices that are working together, we can help each other navigate these procedures that that require similar resources. For example, with the establishment of the School Bus Driver Outreach and Pathway Program, if you consult with DCS. The bus driver training is very similar.

So for example, both drivers need a commercial driver's license of the appropriate class and a passenger endorsement to operate a vehicle designed to transport 16 or more people, including the driver. And so however, drivers who transport pre primary primary and secondary school students to school related events must also have a specific school bus endorsement.

So it's a additional licensing requirement. And so by incorporating including in this legislation a collaboration with other offices that have similar priorities. It can help you get to your goals. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Please note that the Department of Transportation is working with the DOE and they have been detrimental thus far. Anyone else wishing to provide testimony, seeing none, Members or are there any questions?

I have one question.

Go ahead.

And I apologize. I'm shooting from the hip here because my computer took it down. So it's being fixed. But do you folks have guardrails in there to prevent should they go through this program, get their grant, get their license to prevent them from leaving?

As we know, scuba drivers don't get paid very well when compared to a tractor trailer. There's no difference in license except the school bus driver. CDL has an S endorsement, but that same license, he can go out and get another job delivering pork chops or hauling aggregate for much better pay.

If they went through this program, is there a mandatory minimum time they'd have to stay with the program?

According to the Bill, it's a expectation of three years.

I saw the three years, but it's, is it a mandatory thing? And if they leave before, do they have to repay the program to the DOE and or the grant? And again, I apologize. I had it. I have the questions on my computer. Took a, took a spill. Yeah.

Referencing the Bill that, that's included in the Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you Members. Are there any other questions? Please go ahead.