House Standing Committee on Education

Good afternoon, everybody. This is your Committee on Education. Today's date is the 19th of February. It's about 2:00 in Conference Room 309. We have almost a dozen bills on the agenda today. First up, we have HB 2485, cardiovascular screening at Department of Education. First up, we have superintendent offering comments in person.

Good afternoon, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members of the Committee. I'm Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. We stand on our written testimony offering comments with what we're current, we share what we're currently doing, and then we just have some concerns that were listed. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have the Department of Health, also offering comments in person.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Lola Irvin with the Department of Health, and the Department of Health offers comments. We appreciate the intent of HB 2485. We agree that early intervention and screening is important. We do want to point out that physical exams are required and that cardiovascular health screening is part of the well child exam.

The physical exam that the Department of Health partners read on Department of Education is upon entry into the public school system, and so usually that's kindergarten. And then there's a seventh grade physical exam. It's also a timely period for the comprehensive wellness child exam, which would include then that cardiovascular exam.

Also in terms of catching up with any immunization schedules and also screening for emotional and mental health. And so, while we support the intent of HB 2485, we do think that a lot of that is already built into the schools that exist. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you so much. We've received your testimony. Next, we have AG's office offering comments in person.

Good afternoon, Chair Woodson and Vice Chair La Chica, Members. Anne Horiuchi from the Attorney General's office. In our testimony, we noted that clarification is needed in certain sections of the bill. For example, in new section 302A-A, clarification as to whom the screening results would be submitted as well as who performs the screening to avoid confusion and to align with what's set forth in 302A-B. We provided some language in our testimony that we think would provide clarity.

Also, with regard to the student athletes who are screened and receive positive findings, we think there needs to be a definition of what positive findings means, and identifying the person responsible for referring the student athlete for further evaluation and testing. We have a concern about the Department of Health's requirement to compile and publish a report.

Depending upon what the intent is here, I think we believe that a process needs to be set forth in the bill to establish how that will be accomplished. And, also just as if the intent is to have the DOE hire qualified health care professionals, then there should be an amendment to provide an appropriation of funds for this. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. We have the American Heart Association providing testimony in support in person. Mr. Gomez.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Lauren Simpson-Gomez. I'm with the American Heart Association. The American Heart Association stands in strong support of HB 2485. This important bill would ensure student athletes are assessed for heart conditions so they can be diagnosed, monitored, and treated as early as possible.

Since student athletes routinely undergo sports physicals, these visits create an efficient and cost effective opportunity to conduct the in-depth in-depth heart assessment that can reveal conditions requiring further evaluation. The heart is a complex organ and there's no single test that can detect all indicators of heart conditions. That's why the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology support evidence based layered approach.

One that surrounds young people with protection by checking for problems early so they can be monitored and treated as early as possible and being prepared for emergencies. HB 2485 places emphasis on student athlete safety because athletes face the highest risk during strenuous physical activity.

Sudden cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death among student athletes and research shows that nearly 40% of cardiac arrests in young people occur during sports. These facts reinforce the importance of comprehensive screening and emergency readiness in every school and athletic programs.

Studies consistently demonstrate that such comprehensive evaluations during sports physicals or well visits are the most effective means of identifying serious heart conditions that can lead to cardiac events. This evidence based approach empowers families and health care professionals to decide together what's best and help every child stay healthy and safe.

It is for these reasons we strongly support and urge the committee to pass HB 2485. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. American Heart Association volunteer Dr. Bigelow will also be providing testimony and can answer questions regarding heart conditions and screenings. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have Hawaii Public Health Association offering testimony in support. We have Dr. Bigelow in support via Zoom.

Not present.

And then we have a couple of individuals offering testimony in support, one individual providing comments. Anyone else? For testimony for HB 2485? Seeing none. Is there any questions, Members? I have no questions, we're gonna go on to the next bill. Next, we have HB 1889.

This is with regards to school psychologist working group. First up on our list, we have Department of Education providing testimony support in person.

Department stands on its written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have DCCA, Board of Psychology in support in person. Thank you so much. Next, we have Hawaii Psychological Association offering testimony providing comments. Please come up.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Alex Lichton. I'm the legislative chair for the Hawaii Psychological Association, HPA. HPA supports the licensing or credentialing of school psychologists. We are an important stakeholder in the process, but we're excluded from the proposed working group in HB 1889.

We were included in past bills, which did not pass. Therefore, we are asking for an amendment to include HPA in the working group. Given the position by the school psychologist that they're part of the same profession and should be licensed under the Board of Psychology, that very much affects us. We merely wanna make sure that the school psychologist scope of practice is consistent with their training.

It is premature now to decide the appropriate regulatory mechanism, which should be consistent with the scope of practice once that's spelled out. HPA did meet with the school psychologist several years ago. Unfortunately, it came to an impasse when we did not agree to regulation under the Board of Psychology. Including us in the working group is the ideal process for resolving the impasse. The failure to license school psychologists means that some children in Hawaii are not receiving needed services.

That is a tragedy which should not happen. All of us need to work together to fix the problem. In recent years, HPA has joined a coalition with three other mental health professions in Hawaii to share lobbying resources towards increasing access to mental health services. In that spirit, we would look forward to collaborating with the school psychologist to increase access to their services. Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have the Hawaii Association of School Psychologists offering testimony support in person. Via Zoom. Yes. Please go ahead. Okay.

Hi. I'm Leslie Baunach. I'm the legislative chair for the Hawaii Association of School Psychologists. I want to first start off by saying I stand on my written testimony and then offer comments on what was just said. The Hawaii Psych Association does not include school psychologists.

Therefore, they have been considered adversarial in the past. They continue to perpetuate information that goes against what the American Psychological Association has put out against the Model Licensure Act, and that is why we came to an impasse. Their testimony talks about only two states that were licensed under in health. California and Florida are also included. So even their testimony that is offering comments is not accurate information.

I'm not gonna waste any of the legislature's time on this, but this is really between us and DCCA, which they're, so no. We do not think HPA needs to be part of this at this time, as we are not even allowed to be members of their organization. Again, I am available if there are any questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your testimony. Next we have HCAN Speaks! offering testimony in support. Not here. We also have individual testimony from Alec Marentic in support via Zoom.

Aloha, Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I stand on my written committee, but I want to underscore that the purpose of this working group is to establish title protections for school psychologists to make sure that those that are working and practicing as school psychologists have background training in that area. Not doing so is akin to letting a cardiologist run an urgent care or critical triage unit. It's a mismatch of training if other specialty areas are working in school psychology that they haven't been specialized under. So thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you for your testimony. We have nine individuals all offering testimony in support for this proposal. Anyone anyone else? HB 1889. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? I have a question for HPA and the Hawaii Association of School of Psychologists together. You indicated in your testimony also verbally that there is an impasse. Hawaii is the only state in the union that does not have licensed school psychologists. Can you explain what the impasse is from your perspective?

The disagreement is they insist on being regulated under the Board of Psychology and wanted us to agree to that, and our members have concerns about that. We did propose, you know, that they'd be open to other forms of regulation, such as what is done in most states, credentialing by the Teacher Standards Board. And we did provide the website.

I if I could just respond, I think our testimony is accurate because we provided the website where we got that information on Texas. And that's from their website, the National Association of School Psychologists. We do allow, you know, they said other things I can try to claim, but hopefully I've answered your question.

Thank you. Hi. Do you have a response to that response?

Yeah. Like I said, that's a that's a minimal list. We're and more and more states are adding us especially as we have a PSYPACT agreement through the National Association of School Psychologists. Previously, we were meeting with Lesley Slavin, Jill Elliott. There was a handful of women who were leading HPA and were agreement with us.

They were supporting us. So there was actually a change in leadership in HPA, and that is when the impasse came. They were going back to the APA Model Licensure Act, which basically says that people with a master's degree can't use the title of psychologist, that American Psychological Association since 2010 has been countering that. So a lot of so it's actually a split in their membership, which, again, we're not included in that membership, and that's why we just wanna move forward with this.

We don't think it should be a back and forth between two organizations. You know, we're a nonprofit. We represent school psychologists. We're interested in getting credentialing for the consumer protection of Hawaii's children. As far as I know HPA as an organization doesn't have any say over the Board of Psychology. That's a government entity.

So that's why this continues to be confusing why we need to work with a this. It's like saying we need to work with the school counselors association because we have some overlap. Like that's we're not going to bring in every single organization that represents similar folks. We're not bringing in the marriage and family association, you know, a therapist association either.

As the school psychology reciprocity is passing in multiple states that's where we're seeing where school psychology credentialing can be under multiple things. We have explained to HPA time and time again after meeting with the HSTA, after meeting with Hawaii Teacher Standards Board, after meeting with the previous superintendent.

We've talked to all these people directly and a move in order for Hawaii to license school psychologists under Hawaii Teacher Standards Board it would actually require a union change. We would have to be moved into HSTA which is a labor law change so it's not that simple and they know that. The most sense that it makes is to credential us under the Board of Psychology, which like I mentioned more and more states are doing.

I believe Alec has that list or he might be driving, to put him on the spot, but we do keep a list of which states that we can be credentialed in. Like I said, Florida and California were conveniently left off that list, which are two states that are very large. It's not just Texas. So, again, I'm here to answer any and all questions. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna go on to the next bill, which is... Let's see.

HB 2445, HD 1. This is standardized emergency responses. First up, we have is Department of Education offering testimony providing comments in person.

Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members of the Committee. Sean Tajima, assistant superintendent, testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. Department stands on its written testimony which provides comments on this measure. The department feel this is extremely important to assure the safety of our students and staff, which led us to roll out our law enforcement guidance policy in March 2025. This was for all law enforcement, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

We only feel this measure is not necessary because we already rolled out guidance for this. The department has specific concerns about the language to respond to activity within a thousand feet of public schools as public schools do not have authority or control over activities outside school property. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. We stand by for questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here. And apologies, we have Mr. Chairman, Chairman Takumi from the Board of Education providing comments in person.

Oh, is it déjà vu? Yeah. I echo, the board echoes the comments of the department, and you had my written testimony in front of you. I think the committee has to weigh certain factors when you look at this bill. Now, the department stood up its own policy. And by the way, Members, if you would like, deputy superintendent, I'm actually more than willing to email you the current department's policy when it comes to immigration enforcement. It's not readily available on the website.

Most documents of the department are not available on the website per se because these are internal documents. But the Members want to see that, and I think if you read it, you'll quickly see that it's a pretty rigorous protocol to follow when any law enforcement personnel appear on the campus.

So but there's two questions with this. The question is whether or not the committee wants codify what is the policy. And it does it has happened in the past, but in general, policies usually prevail. The reason for that is quite simple. Laws tend to be pretty static, and policies and rules and regulations tend to be a little more nimble.

So the question is rigidity versus agility. You know, so because given the current political climate, as you know, when the current president issued the executive order, basically eliminating safe places for immigration enforcement. Historically, it's been schools, hospitals, and places of worship. So right now, there's a green light for immigration to enter what was historically safe places. But that policy changes literally daily.

And I think if the legislature were to pass a law, and the four corners of the law have to be followed and something changes in federal policy, it's very difficult to respond with an amendment to the law as opposed to an amendment to an existing policy. The other concern, I think, is about the 1,000 foot buffer that was mentioned by the department.

And I have two concerns about that, operational and the implementation side. On the operational side, the department doesn't have full time topographers on staff. And so what the bill would require is to map out the thousand foot buffer around 258 schools in our state and submit that to every school.

The bill is silent as to how you define that 1,000 foot buffer. Is it from the property line? Is it from the offices and classrooms itself? Is it from the fence line? How do you measure that? We do have buffer zones, obviously, policy, you know, gun free buffer zones or, you know, when anti abortion advocates show up at Planned Parenthood, state, many states implemented 1,000 foot buffer zone for that sort of thing.

But the just to lay out that, so my suggestion would be that perhaps if you are inclined to pass the bill out, to put in the committee report that the Judiciary Committee ought to look at more clarifying definition of what what do they mean, what the bill means by that thousand foot buffer. And the other was alluded to by the department as well. It's very difficult for a school principal to know what's happening a thousand foot outside of that school campus.

And they obviously have no jurisdiction over private property. So if there's an ICE raid in a residence 800 feet away from the school, the bill deciding as to what action should be taken. Should the school be locked down? Should what? You know, what's the remedy for that? And again, most principal, not most, but all principals are not trained or equipped to deal with that kind of situation.

But I hear what the committee's concern is. You know, the example last year where ICE raided an apartment building across the street from an elementary school in Denver, and the following day, the enrollment dropped by half. You know? So that's a real concern, obviously. It just begs the question as to whether or not in the four corners of the school campus, you can expect the administrators to do something outside of that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next, we have testimony from Council Member Kagiwada, Hawaii County Council, offering testimony in support. We have Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights offering testimony in support in person.

Hello, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. We're thankful for this bill moving forward. I think we're trying to figure out the right policies to meet, as the Board of Education mentioned, a very rapidly evolving situation. On January 2025, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded the memo on sensitive locations that they had for 20 years beforehand reopening these spaces. When we looked at a similar bill, HB 440 last session, we had not seen incursions on the campuses.

That has changed, and since this is a federal agency we presume that we will see the same types of policies be happening. I think one conversation that we've continued to have with the Department of Education is the change of the nature. You know, since since the last policy came out, since last memo came out in March 2025, the types of incursions onto campuses that we've seen is not a agent coming to the front desk asking for a child. They're coming on to campuses and near campuses and obviously that really impacts enrollment and the whether or not families feel safe.

So we're open to continuing to work with the Department of Education to figure out, first and foremost, how to keep all of our families safe, within the law, and we're continuing to have conversations with the Attorney General's office. We have seen similar bills passed in Colorado, in Illinois, in New York, in California. So we're looking at where our legal grounding is that we can take that for here in Hawaii.

And then secondly, we also just wanna make sure that all staff, not principals or not just principals, but also that teachers and administrative staff feel empowered to be able to handle a situation. Because, again, the the likelihood is that, it will not be a direct communication with the principal, but that it will be a staff member that would have this interaction. So we're here to continue to be collaborative and on the best way forward on this.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next, we have Roots Reborn Maui offering testimony in support via Zoom. Not present. We have The League Clinic offering testimony in support. They are here.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members. Good afternoon. Tina Sablan from The Legal Clinic here also on behalf of our, our board president Amy Agbayani in strong support of this measure. TLC is a non profit that advances immigrant justice statewide through legal services, advocacy, and education.

We did submit written testimony in support of this bill. And just to briefly touch on a few points, last year, as has been mentioned, the federal administration rescinded long standing protections that had generally shielded schools from civil immigration enforcement. And since that rescission, we have seen increased ICE activity at or near schools and other places where children and families gather.

Civil immigration enforcement has taken a really troubling turn nationwide, marked by racial profiling, violence, disregard for constitutional rights, and a surge in detention and deportation of children and families. Hawaii is not insulated from these national trends and neither are our schools. And as with any crisis or disaster that we can see coming, we do have a responsibility to prepare.

I do wanna say on that note that we do appreciate that the Department of Education has issued internal guidance last year that generally addresses law enforcement presence in schools, but as other states have recognized, general internal guidance is not enough and not the same as a comprehensive response plan or protocols required by law. Mahalo for hearing this bill, and we urge you to support.

Thank you so much. And we are in receipt of your testimony. Next, we have HCAN Speaks offering testimony in support. They're not here. We have the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus offering testimony in support. We have Fujiwara LLC offering testimony in support. ACLU of Hawaii offering testimony in support. We also have Mr. Andrews offering testimony support via Zoom. Mrs. Andrews.

Aloha. Thank you so much, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Christine Andrews from Maui. I'm an attorney and a volunteer know your rights educator. I have conducted dozens of free know your rights trainings for hundreds of people statewide. I wanted to supplement my written testimony to respond to the written comments of the DOE that they believe this bill is unnecessary because they currently have procedures in place.

I respectfully disagree. I think that minimal steps for an appropriate response should include know your rights training for all staff and students, and then practicing response at schools like we do with fire drills, implementing private area signs. Again, private areas, they need a judicial warrant to go into. So for all non public areas of the school, including putting like private around fences and gates in closing the schools.

Then a policy for accommodating distance learning or truancy forgiveness for students afraid to go to school, ensuring parents and guardians update their contact information to have an alternate pickup or drop off person, so there's no one at risk at detention then going to the school.

And then when agents arrive, having the agents wait outside the school fence or gate, a process to alert family or guardians of their presence, and then alternate implementing some kind of alternate pickup or drop off program. And then a process to alert constitutional observers or community members to observe at, like, bus stops or escort children.

So I understand the concern about the 1,000 foot barrier and how do we protect that, but also the practice we've seen is agents coming and kind of waiting for children to get let out of school or having parents to come up. And so there is this nebulous area outside of school where administrators and staff would be able to see their presence and can take positive action to protect their students and staff members. Thank you.

Thank you, counselor. Next we have individual testimony from Mr. Badua via Zoom. Not present. We have testimony from Mia Nishiguchi offering testimony in support via Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Mia Nishiguchi, and I'm a senior at Kalani High School and strongly support House Bill 2445. Earlier this month, the Hawaii State Student Council held our annual secondary student conference, which brought together 165 students from 34 public schools across our state.

After debating bills from this legislative session, students voted House Bill 2445 as their top priority, reflecting the greatest urgency and concern among their peers. That decision was student led and student driven. I'm simply here today to reflect the vote and the voice of our students. When students are worried about what might happen to themselves or their families, learning cannot come first.

Students have noted that a transparent, publicly available protocol would reassure them that educators are prepared and that classrooms can remain focused on education, not on uncertainty. We have seen in other states how fear can impact attendance and engagement, and Hawaii has the opportunity to be proactive and ensure that families continue to trust our schools in safe and nurturing environments. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Kaili Swan offering testimony in support via Zoom.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Kaili Swan. I'm a very strong supporter of this measure because school safety is a must, paramount in a DOE setting. Back when I was in high school, there was there was a school shooting at high school that I graduated in 2012, but the shooting took place in 2014. So if this emergency procedure is in place so students can react and know what to do if it's an emergency, especially if there's gun shooting or hostage situation, etcetera. So please let me know if you have a question, and thank you for allowing me to testify.

Thank you for your testimony. We also have testimony from 20 individuals, all in support. Anyone else wishing to testify? HB 2445. HSTA. Please come up.

Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair. Sarah Milianta-Laffin on behalf of HSTA. We know our members are continuing to ask questions, and there's nothing I can say that would be better than that student. That student says the forefront of her education moving forward. We know our kids are worried about this. We know our members are worried about it. We understand that there's documentation, as we've heard from other testifiers, but it's still not trickling down to our membership.

And I'll say that because we get questions on Instagram. I get texts, like, okay, Mili, so if an agent comes to my classroom door and I protect kids inside, is my job at risk? Like, we're still getting these frontline questions from our members because we are seeing across the country, there were kids tear gas in Minnesota and teachers had to protect them.

There are families organizing in Chicago and in North Carolina having to have whistles for walks home and all of these things going on, on top of all the stuff that we have to teach and do already. So there's still an issue if we're saying we have these protections, how do people know?

How has the training been implemented? And how are we making sure that schools are safe for everyone? I think it's really, really important that we keep this conversation going because it's not right now, it's not if, it's when, something goes, a situation where this is important. So thank you for listening.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else? HB 2445. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

I have a quick question for the department, Chair.

Rep. Kapela, please go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you folks for your testimony. I think, can you potentially respond to what was just brought up by HSTA? Because I think that's one of the biggest issues, I think, around the response that you or the testimony that you folks have provided.

And I can say as a legislator from a community that is deeply impacted by this specifically, and having had to hold different trainings with school members, with principals who are calling me because they don't know what to do. Had we literally pulled over and had to had to bring in the Hawaii Immigrants Rights Coalition to come and train some of our members of our community at schools right after incidences like the one in Kona that was referenced in another testimony.

Teachers don't understand, I think, what has happened, and there's not enough training that's being provided for them when they are on the front line with their students or half of their class is empty because their parents have pulled them out because they're afraid to send their kids to school. How is the department responding, I think, to HSTA and to teachers?

So first off, offline, if you can let me know the principals that weren't familiar with the process, we can address that. As far as the staff understanding the process, the department rolled this out back in March 2025. And so given the recent events and the feedback that we've gotten during the session so far, we have reflected on that feedback.

And I think one thing that we realized was that times are different now, and, you know, law enforcement doesn't always check-in at the front office. I think in our experience, they've always done that, but again, this is a different time with a different situation. So we have looked into those situations if law enforcement or immigration enforcement does come onto campus without checking in at the front office. So we're currently working with the complex area superintendents to add to our current guideline to have a procedure to address that.

We do need something that is effective but easy to follow from all staff and for students. So we don't have anything formal to share right now, but I can share with you the general idea that we're working through right now, which is for staff, they would be informed that if they site a law enforcement coming out to campus without going to their front office, they're to direct them to their front office and notify administration immediately.

For students, they're gonna be directed to not approach any law enforcement, to go the other way, and to notify a staff member as soon as possible so that we can address it. When administration is notified or aware that there is law enforcement coming up to campus and they haven't checked in at the front office, we would look into implementing a lockdown procedure.

So we just wanna make things that implement things that are easy to follow and effective. And so we don't wanna introduce another procedure for this. We feel that we already have a procedure that would fit into this, which is if an unwanted, uninvited person comes out to campus and presents a threat, which would be a lockdown drill for that.

I will note though, just even from what you've just mentioned, that that aligns with kind of what's here in this bill. So this bill would just be an addition to some of the work that you folks are already doing. It wouldn't be in opposition I don't I really don't think.

No. Anyway, the only part that we have specific concerns about is the thousand feet. But I think our testimony is just that we had comments on it because we have things in place. So it wouldn't it wouldn't change anything that we're doing. We're already beefing up and supplementing the procedures that we rolled out. We're just trying to come out with additional guidance that's easy to follow and will address the situation.

Thank you so much, Chair. I will also note that we have pesticide buffer zones around schools, so it's not like a buffer zone is difficult, I think.

And I think with the thousand feet, like, if administration notices activity outside of the school, they would address it, they would address it by calling the appropriate authorities. I don't think I just don't think it's fair for us to be held accountable for what happens off campus. But we would address it. Similar to if there was a fight off campus, because that's not our jurisdiction we can't physically go and intervene, but we would call HPD to address it.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Rep. Members, any other questions?

Maybe for HSTA because... Yeah. HSTA.

So you heard what the Superintendent just said. So just so I understand this a lot clearer, you guys aren't against ICE coming in and doing their job. If they come in and they do their job the right way by going through the front office, identifying themselves, and establishing what they're here for, and if they did do that, are your teachers then instructed to comply with that, or are they still going to be defiant?

Teachers understand that the procedures are followed. Yes. I think the concern is about safety. So, safety.

I get it, and I'm for safety as well, as a parent. Sure. But if ICE does come in and they follow procedures, then staff and administration are directed to also follow procedures. Correct. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative. Members, any other questions? Vice Chair.

It's the Board of Education policy to really stand by our immigrant families, and that we need to offer our school and our facilities as a safe place, as accessible, and something that they don't have to worry about in terms of reporting back that information on their status. I kind of have a distinction between: do we have what is called guidance, or do we have a response plan? Like, do people know if this happens, this is the action that they take?

So that would be, I guess, the response would be a lockdown drill if they came on uninvited and didn't check in at the front office. I think everybody is familiar with the lockdown procedure at the campus. So if we did implement it, staff would already know that we can't let anybody into their classrooms.

Do we have what was mentioned by the other testifier, things like in place, like, one, a process to notify families and possibly have identified if translation is needed. I think the other one was identifying families who may not have an alternate family member or guardian for pickup in the event that the family member is taken by ICE.

So we do have procedures for that outside of this situation. In the case that law enforcement comes on campus to talk to a student, our current procedure is we have to attempt to notify the parents multiple times. But maybe prior to that, for this particular procedure that we just rolled out, basically the administration would address the officer, ask for proper identification, something in writing to state their purpose of being there.

And what we would look at is, specifically, there would need to be a warrant that's signed by a judge that would indicate that this has to occur at a school. But the principal wouldn't be vetting all that, so they would basically take the documentation, forward it to their CAS, who would forward it to the Attorney General, who would basically give the advice from there.

But we wouldn't allow them on campus until we're cleared. But if they were cleared, we would make an effort to notify the parent.

And I know you have concerns on the buffer zone, but what about when kids are engaged in out-of-school activities, events, I think school buses in this field. What if that occurs?

No. So we're looking into extending the guidance to that because the school bus itself is our jurisdiction. The bus stop is not, but the school bus is. So we have to work with the bus companies on what to do for that. And then for school events that are off campus, again, it would depend on where it is, and the facility would have their own guidance for that, but we would have our own guidance for our school teams that are on-site.

So everything with the exception of buffer zones are pretty much things that you either already have in your guidance or you're planning to include in your updated guidance? Yep. Including training up once it's finalized, updating folks on training.

I think the training would be, basically, we don't want to launch a full complicated training for this. It would basically be like a quick, here's what you do in this case. So basically for the teachers, again, it would be do not allow them, direct them to the front office, notify administration immediately. For students, it would be do not approach the law enforcement, notify an adult as soon as possible. And again, that's not formal guidance yet.

I'm still working with the CASs on this to formalize it, but those are the ideas that we're throwing off in this.

Oh, thank you. Thank you, Chair. And then one follow-up question, quick, for Tina, please. So we know that ICE is here. We know they're recruiting. We know that they're present.

We don't know the extent of what the impact has currently been. Do we know, or have you heard of reports or folks reaching out to you, that they are in these, what we consider, sensitive places, like schools and churches?

We have had reports of ICE activity at and near schools, churches, courthouses. So these sensitive locations that had previously been covered by the federal sensitive locations memo. So, yes. And, you know, these are places, like, families go to courthouses, they will sometimes bring children, right? And so, yeah, we definitely have reports like that.

And have you seen in other states how the Department of Education has responded in ensuring that we're doing everything possible to make sure it remains a safe place for students? Yes. Like the guidance versus, like, an actual plan?

Yes. So there have been a number of states that have adopted statutes, passed statutes, that are very similar to what's before you today. They don't oppose the Department of Education guidance. They do supplement them. They strengthen them.

I think what's important is to codify the guidance. Mandatory training is a really important component of this, as it is in other statutes. And, you know, laws are harder to change. Internal guidance can be revised, it can be rescinded without any legislative oversight. And one other important component of this bill is the reporting to the Legislature, on an annual basis, on how this comprehensive response plan and the policies and protocols required are actually being implemented.

Okay. Final question is, have you reviewed the current guidance that the DOE has? And is there currently any type of coordination between your organization and the Department of Education to provide feedback or comments?

Not currently, but I did make a note in my head to reach out to you, sir, because there are best practices for comprehensive response plans that school districts can and are adopting, and I can send you some responses for that.

You can please work together. I think the last thing we want is having to react to something when we could have prevented something from happening.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Question for DOE? So in your testimony, you indicate that there is a current communication structure in place that involves legal counsel. Is that correct? And do DOE employees know the difference between a judicial warrant and an administrative warrant?

They would. So they basically ask for the paperwork that states their purpose, and they would forward that to the CAS, which will go to the AG, and the request would come down from there. So the flowchart is just so that internally, we know that principals have that paper also, but we don't expect them to just search for that themselves, which is the reason why we want this to talk about.

Is the interpretation that an administrative warrant is insufficient?

Yeah. Basically, well, the way the Attorney General is going to authorize it is if it's a warrant signed by a judge that indicates that it has to happen in a school.

Okay. So that's a judicial warrant signed by a judge. Okay. And, per the testimony that the lawyer brought up, is there any type of familiar rights training or guidance?

I'm not aware of any. Alright. I think we'd like to hear more about that.

Okay. And what about, like, if the example was given, if there's, like, agents on the periphery or on the other side of school property, what does the Department let the employees know they should be doing in that situation?

I think if I'm just talking about if there's an actual scenario like this. We don't have any set procedures for this, but I think if we visually see activity off campus, I think we gauge the level of activity and we'd probably call HPD for support. And I think if we felt that it was going to be a threat to our campus, we'd go into a lockdown for that.

Again, that's not a formalized procedure, but I think case by case, as a former administrator, that's probably what I would do. On another event, if we couldn't visually see anything, if we got a call that somebody suspected ICE agents to be off campus and we didn't visually see anything, I think we'd encourage that person to contact those people themselves.

But if you're envisioning this, we use our discretion to address it. This is important to all of us. I didn't want to come across as this is not important. We're just saying that we have things in place, and we're going to continue to refine it.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing that, we're going to move on to the next bill, which is HB 2415, HD1. This is with regards to the Safe Routes to School Program.

First up on our list, we have the Department of Education offering testimony in support in person.

Chair Woodson, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Shanta Jima, Assistant Superintendent, testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands on our written testimony in support of this measure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We stand by for questions.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have the Department of Transportation offering testimony in support. Director Snippen, not here. We have Council Member Tupula offering testimony in support. It's not here.

We have testimony from Ms. Amanda Mahelona, in support here in person.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Amanda Mahelona, and I stand before you not only as a community member, but as a mother whose life was forever changed by the loss of my daughter, Tayah Mahelona. I humbly submit this testimony in strong support of HB 2415, HD1, and its intent to improve pedestrian safety across Hawaii.

Every day on our roads, especially along Farrington Highway and near our school zones, I witnessed vehicles speeding, darting in and out of traffic, ignoring signals, entering our community streets like a racetrack or freeway. These are not isolated moments.

They are consistent behaviors that place our keiki, families, and pedestrians at risk. The absence of physical safety measures such as bollards or protective barriers near high traffic crossings and schools leaves people exposed and vulnerable. The surviving victim, who was with my daughter, shared that in the early morning hours, drivers often blow right through that area without slowing down. There were no protective barriers to shield pedestrians.

I carried a heavy belief that if stronger protective infrastructure had been in place, my daughter Tayah could have been saved.

Hundreds of children cross that same crosswalk where she was killed, yet cars continue to pass through at unsafe speeds, often ignoring the presence of pedestrians. I would like to encourage continued collaboration between the Honolulu Police Department and the Department of Transportation to utilize data that supports this measure. Enforcement is important, but follow through within the judicial process is equally critical so that accountability and long term safety outcomes are achieved for our communities.

As a mother, I cannot help but think about how different things might be if stronger traffic calming measures and protected infrastructure had been installed. This bill represents more than a policy to me.

It represents prevention. It represents a chance to slow drivers down, create safer crossings, and ensure that no other family has to endure a loss like ours. I respectfully ask the committee to continue supporting efforts that prioritize pedestrian safety through thoughtful design, including raised crossings, visible intersections, and protective barriers where appropriate. Infrastructure sends a message. When roads are designed for safety, people will drive differently and lives can be saved.

Mahalo to the Chair and members of this committee for scheduling and hearing this important measure. I appreciate your time, your compassion, and your commitment in honor of my daughter, Tayah Taimane Lealoha. Mahalo.

Thank you for your testimony, and please know that we grieve with you. Your testimony is impactful, and it's making a difference. So thank you for being here. We have testimony from 34 other individuals, all in support. Anyone else like to testify on HB 2415, HD1? Please come up.

Aloha. My name is Andrea Morrill. On 02/19/2018, my 23 year old nephew, Daniel Moro, and his friend, 21 year old Donna Ragsdale, were tragically killed by a drunk driver. The driver had no regard for the precious lives of these two young men. Jonah Ragsdale was killed immediately.

Died several hours later at the Waianae Coast Comprehensive Health Center. These young men had a bright future, but we will never know the impact of their lives. Our families have felt heartbreak, pain, disbelief, sadness, and anger. It is my hope and prayer that no one experiences this type of grief. This is why I support house bill 2415.

This bill, in honor of Tayah Mahelona, appropriates $5,000,000 for the Department of Transportation to install pedestrian safety improvements, such as all way crosswalks and raised intersections at locations near school properties, with the flexibility to consider other sites as well, prioritizing areas with high pedestrian activity or crash data, and utilizing national design standards to ensure effectiveness, with the funds to be expended for the fiscal year 2026-2027 and the act taking effect on 07/01/3000. Thank you.

Thank you for being here, and we're so sorry for your loss as well. Thank you. Anyone else like to testify on HB 2415? Seeing none, members, are there any questions?

Some questions, sir. Superintendent, I know how we do our budgetary process, but when you're looking at schools that have non state owned roadways, how do you folks work with the counties on those kinds of projects to identify safety measures?

For roads outside of school?

For this measure and other measures, we have the interagency collaboration between both state partners, which makes it much easier, right? But there are roads that exist for state facilities that border county owned roads for the purpose of maintenance and construction. When you folks are working with county partners, what has that process been, and what is it like?

Hello. Jesse Suki, Deputy Superintendent of Operations. So that question sort of falls within the whole of the Office of Facilities and Operations. So the funding we get for schools cannot be used outside.

So if we are building a school that has a regional impact on infrastructure, we work with DOT on those issues. For example, the new Kamehameha School that's being built on Maui, there's infrastructure for that larger project that's going to be happening. And so conversation and coordination is going on with the counties and DOT about how to address those issues, and we at DOE focused on just the schools. So there is that collaboration as those projects come online, but we don't lead or have jurisdiction outside the campus area.

I think what I'm asking though is, has the county been ranked? I could think of several schools that have been built pre anything and the roadway conditions no longer match the use and design. So when you folks are raising concerns about traffic safety in relation to a county owned road, are the counties addressing and responding to your folks' needs?

I haven't heard that they're not, but we can look at that. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Members, any other questions?

For DOE, please. Thank you for being here today. I would love to direct my question to DOT, but they're not here, so I'll address you guys instead. As we all know, going to school should not be a game of Frogger, yet in my district with Kūlanihākoʻi High School in South Maui, students are required to cross essentially four lanes of traffic through a roundabout. Although there is a little tiny sign that says no crossing, students are still doing it.

So the LUC mandated a grade separated pedestrian crossing for that. Now DOT is saying, oh, it's safe, it's safe, but they can't seem to produce any traffic studies or any data to back that up, and students are running across the highway there daily. What do we need to do to get a commitment that DOE will fulfill their Land Use Commission requirement to build that grade separated pedestrian crossing?

I'm familiar with the project. I grew up on Maui, so I know where it is. I know it's a busy highway. I also am aware that DOT is working on a study that looks at the safety of the traffic circle that was installed subsequent to the LUC decision. And so we're waiting for that to come in and see what the results of that are, and I think they can make decisions about what the next steps are.

Okay. When is that traffic study expected?

I don't know. I can't speak for DOT, but I know they're working on it.

Would you please coordinate with them so that they can hurry up and facilitate and provide us with that information?

We'll follow up.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, Chair.

So there's no pedestrian bridge that's going to be built over the highway for that school?

Not at this time, no.

Members, any other questions?

Chair. Just wanted to tag on to what Representative Amato was saying.

When you're doing these check ins, can you also check on Waianae Elementary, Waiʻanaeʻiliʻili Elementary, and Makaha Elementary? These are things we brought up to both the city and the state DOTs, requesting crosswalks and all of these safety measures because these are all busy streets that our students are having to cross to get to school.

I'll follow up.

Just another question, kind of along the same lines. Does this department have a priority list of traffic safety concerns or issues around certain areas? And if you were to get funding, hopefully it's more than what's being requested in this measure, regardless of the budgetary issues we're facing. I think there are students that are dying, and it's tragic all across the state.

But if you were to get this money, do you have a list of what projects you're going to address first, based not just on how many people live in a certain region, but the actual issue of concern, whether it's students running across a highway, or just how you would prioritize that? Because I would hate to see money go to this, and then for it to just be spent in, like, the urban core of Honolulu where I think some of the bigger issues are on neighbor islands.

Or in rural communities or communities that are not necessarily a part of the urban core.

Right. When DOT gets that money, we'll be coordinating with them on that for sure. And I would think that part of the process would be prioritizing areas that really need attention.

And does the department have a list of concerns? I'm sure parents complain to the schools about traffic concerns. And it would be really interesting, I think, to see what schools have the highest number of concerns and what those concerns are.

Yeah. We don't have a prioritized list of that, but I think with the perspective of school bus, we try to provide routes to areas that don't have safe sidewalks to go to school. So we don't have a prioritized list of all schools, but we do have schools that we identified that have certain pathways to school that are not safe to walk.

Okay. Is it possible to share that with the committee so that members can see that as well? Thank you.

Thank you, Representative. Vice Chair.

Are you familiar with the Safe Routes to School program, the state and the county? Does the DOE currently have a member that's on the Safe Routes to School Task Force? Safe Routes to School Committee?

Yes. Our transportation administrator is part of Safe Routes to School.

And I think a follow up to Representative Amato's question. I think the frustration is we work directly with the schools, but then once it's outside of the state jurisdiction, because I don't know how much percent, but 90 plus percent are on city or county roads, we are unable to either directly appropriate resources, or we're basically at the mercy of the counties and waiting for them to take action.

And frankly, I'm so tired of having to follow up with them multiple times. Like, in my district, where there's a marked crosswalk and the students who have to keep walking, my own vice principal serves as the crossing guard, and he's gotten hit twice. It's like, they've had to figure out their own way of making it safe, but it's still an issue.

And the counties keep issuing us, at least the City and County of Honolulu keeps giving me these letters that say we've done a traffic study, there's not enough pedestrian or collision reports to warrant a raised crosswalk, and so I'm really thankful that Transportation has taken the initiative to look at increasing funding for Safe Routes to School and really looking at our departments, but I think we'd like to see some type of process where the state can also, I guess, ask our counties to do better.

Yeah. Is there anything that is in place when you hear these common concerns, and there's clearly schools where there's significant infrastructure that needs to be added to keep these events from happening?

Yes. So there's solutions. In my past work at the State Office of Planning and the county and the city, we can get involved in the state transportation plan and propose projects to do safe routes, and there's funding sometimes available for safe route, traffic calming measures. We are, as the DOE, very interested in keeping our students safe. Just because they're crossing the street outside of our property doesn't mean we're not concerned.

So, bringing this to our attention, which schools, we're happy to reach out to the counties and planning departments and the transportation agencies in the counties to see what can be done in those areas that are of concern. So please pass those on.

I'm sure you hear from principals all the time about the lack of resources, or even people who can assist with the daily crossing to and from school.

I actually haven't, but I'm interested to hear what you have to share with us, and we'll address those.

Please go ahead. Yes. Just a follow up question for that.

Do you guys know who actually attends the statewide Safe Routes to School working group meetings?

Yep. Transportation administrator.

Who is that?

Ian Zamora.

Okay.

So these groups, typically I see the DOE. And when I was with the DOE, I attended to be the only DOE person attending. So if I can get that information from you guys later, I'd love to put them on this list. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much. And thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your willingness to hear the members' concerns and to look into it further. We greatly appreciate it. And I wanted to also thank Chairman Kila because these are the things that you don't see behind the scenes, but Chairman Kila, who chairs the committee, took time to come and explain the importance of the bill, why it was needed, and that's why we're hearing it today. So thank you everyone for your involvement in this. Okay.

Members, any other questions? Okay. Go ahead and go on to the next bill, which is HB 2436, HD 1. This is with regards to furthering arts integration in DOE schools. First up, we have Mr. Lee offering comments in person. HB 2436, HD 1.

Good afternoon, chair Woodson, vice chair La Chica, members of the committee, Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. The department provided comments on this measure, but I did want to express the department's appreciation of the legislature's efforts to expand art education opportunities for our students. A well rounded education is extremely important, and we've just listed some of our comments, in our written testimony. But thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next, we have the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts offering testimony in support. Here you are. Alright. Not present.

K. We have HULI PAC offering testimony a support via Zoom over here. Not present. HULI PAC is not present. Sacred Heights Ohana in support.

Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus in support. Chamber of Sustainable Commerce in support. We have Donkey Hill Arts Center also in support, and we have 21 individuals all offering testimony in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB 2346 regarding art in schools? Seeing none, members, are there any questions?

Okay. Seeing none, we're going to the next bill, which is HB 1937 HD1. This is with regards to taxes. First up, we have is Office of the Governor offering testimony in support. We have department taxation offering comments.

Yes. Chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Garrison Kurth on behalf of the Department of Taxation. We'll stand on our written testimony to any comments from administration for any further questions.

Thank you so much for being here. Next, we have Davis Budget Car Rental LLC. Offering comments in person.

Great. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Jolyn Garidan Prieto on behalf of Avis Budget, we respectfully stand on our testimony in opposition to HB 1937 HD1, but just wanted to highlight that,

I believe there is no clear link in using to justify using rental car sales tax revenues to address the creation of a teacher hazard pay special fund. The creation of a special fund is legislature statutorily required to ensure that the special fund reflects a clear nexus between the benefits sought and those sources of revenue, but also to submit in a special plan to be analyzed by the Office of the Auditor for a report.

Additionally, the legislature amended HRS 237 to expressly include the sales of capital goods to licensed leasing companies for lease as wholesale transactions. And such have been confirmed by Hawaii Case Law that rental vehicles qualify as capital goods and rental contracts are true leases. Lastly, in changing the application of the rental car tax revenue by applying the retail or higher GT or used tax rate to rental car companies.

We feel that HB 1937 singles out one industry, which raises both equity and fairness concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you for being here. As we have HSTA offering testimony and support in person. President Tui.

Hello, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Thank you so much for having us. You've heard the stories from our teachers working so bravely during the pandemic, and now it's an issue of a morale issue.

You know, you're working in the same classroom as someone else who got $20,000 for their hard work and their efforts through the pandemic, and our teachers would feel like there's an issue here. We stand with our UPW brothers and sisters who are joining with the Department of Education to get their just rewards for this as well. And so we don't behoove them as they've been waiting all these years for theirs.

But we tried to come last year for this, and we were told to do our homework, find a way to fund it. We did our homework as teachers would, and we don't only give homework, we do our homework.

And these rental car companies, you know, they the wholesale rate is meant to be, like, you bring it in and you sell it. You know, they bring it in, they bring in all the profit that they can make out of it, and they might not even sell it here. So, I hope that you will be supported. I wanna thank chair Keila from the transportation committee for also passing that up. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you for being here. We have UPW offering testimony in opposition in person.

Hello, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, members of the committee, Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW. You have our written testimony in opposition, and our opposition is based on the fact that it's 2026. For the last four years, we've been fighting with both the DOE as well as the executive branch for to resolve the THP grievances that we filed on behalf of our members back in 2022. Our position is merely, it's not about whether teachers deserve it or not. We believe they do.

You know, never hear us say otherwise. But we think that these contractual obligations should be resolved before teachers approve for for the teachers. If this committee is compelled to pass this measure, we would have asked for criteria to be established for eligibility, to sort of mirror some of the arbitration decisions that we've won with the employers. And, also, you know, our concern was also this is a pre authorization for THP, for bargaining unit five, which would be at the discretion of, basically, I guess, the governor.

And that's that's primarily our concerns. Happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have a Tax Foundation of Hawaii offering comments via Zoom. They are here. Tax Foundation.

Aloha. Colleen Terama on behalf of Tanya Machika. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii stands on its written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Hertz in opposition via Zoom. Not present. Not present? Next, we have Enterprise Mobility offering testimony in opposition. Not present. In person.

Oh, in person. Thank you. Hi, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Toni Ajinma on behalf of Enterprise Mobility. We're sharing the same concerns as the budget cuts, respectfully oppose this measure. We have concerns that this is not a sustainable source of funding and it ultimately would increase cost for everybody. Rentals are not just tourists. They're also local residents.

They're government agencies an, everybody who rents a car and needs it for business purposes and for tourism. We recognize the importance of supporting our teachers and we just have some concerns about the clear nexus needed between the special fund and the car taxes. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next, we have the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association offering testimony in opposition. We have Servco Pacific Inc. in opposition, Chambers of Progress in support, Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus in support, and Pasha Hawaii in opposition. We have mister Fitzpatrick, individual testifying in support via Zoom. Not present.

Not present. We have Laverne Moore as an individual.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Laverne Moore, and I stand on my written testimony written as the McKinney High School special education teacher who experienced the actual conditions educators face in the classroom during the pandemic. Today, I am speaking on behalf of the Oahu HSTA retired teachers, and we strongly support this bill.

Our retirees served on the front lines during those two hectic years, teaching in person and online simultaneously, while maintaining all federal special education mandates, which kept the state from being sued by parents by not implementing their IEP meetings. So we save the state money by not having any lawsuits.

Recently, our members shared that they feel forgotten. They feel as though their sacrifice, during the height of the pandemic, has been overlooked because they have moved to retirement. Because this compensation requires a specific funding mechanism, this legislative body is the only place where these educators can be made whole. This special fund represents your chance to tell our educators, both active and retired, that their bravery was seen and the state is gonna compensate them for what they went through.

Mahalo for the opportunity to advocate for those who weathered the storm that benefited the students in Hawaii on their educational gains. Mahalo.

Thank you so much. Mrs. Moore as passionate as ever. Cannot stop. Okay. We have 21 individuals all offering testimony and support.

Anyone else wishing to testify on HB 1937 regarding taxes. Seeing none, members, is there any questions?

I have a question, Chair.

If I could ask a question of both EAS budget and then also enterprise, please.

Go ahead.

Okay. EAS. Okay.

Thank you, folks. And I I just want to preface this, right? This is not anything to you folks as individuals. Like, this is your clients. So I

understand that you folks have to take the position of opposition. And I understand that there are several other measures where, at times, we have found consensus. So please don't take this personally. Are your clients opposed to the measure as written? Are they opposed to the the the proposal being put forth by the legislature to remove the exemption that rental car companies have been allowed to under this tax classification?

Or just oppose all the general? So I guess it's two parts.

Yeah. Sure. I guess I would say that we're not really sure why this single entity is being singled out for, I guess, removal from the wholesale tax treatment.

And I guess I would say that I would look at, if if we're talking about the tax code, we should take a look at it comprehensively to assess whether, you know, and which entities should be eligible for this wholesale tax rate. So I I think it's just a question of why this industry, because it does create disparate treatment concerns.

And the other part of that is the creation of the special fund. Our understanding is there has to be that clear link between the program and the benefits and the revenues that is being generated to fund that program and for us to try to understand how teacher hazard pay relates to, and has that clear connection to the tax on rental cars, it's very muddled for us to understand.

So Okay. Thank you. That was my question. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Rick.

Members, any other questions? Okay. Seeing that, we're gonna go on to the next bill, which is HB 1595. This is with regards to the state librarian and the salary cap. First up, we have, the Board of Education, the National Chairman, offering testimony support in person.

Not the caller who's the chairman. But anyway, what do you call planning for Scheduling these offices. You know, as you may know, Steve Lieberman is the only state employee in the entire state who settled these deterrent by statute. You know, the legislature in this way some a few years ago removed the statutory cap of the superintendent of education and left it up to the board of education to determine what compensation the superintendent would get. As you well know, judges, cabinet members, and legislators' salaries are determined by the salary commission.

The University of Hawaii president is determined by the Board of Regents, and the vast majority of state employees, obviously, their compensation is determined by collective bargaining.

So state library's salary is an anomaly, and it's it's a kind of a a contradiction in a way because the board of education is charged evaluating the state of equity and what we do on an annual basis. And in fact, this year, just like the superintendent of education, we stood up a very comprehensive evaluator evaluation metrics to evaluate both the superintendent and his team.

Now when it comes to the superintendent, of course, if the superintendent gets any positive evaluation, we are in a position as the board to adjust the compensation accordingly. Unfortunately, with the state library, we received an exceeding expectations evaluation this past year, but she is the state library is capped out at the $175,000 statutory limit, which has been in place for seven years.

Prior to that, because it's done by statute, there was a ten year gap, where the salary was set and that, of course, could not move for ten years.

So therein lies the the dilemma because I do know that, when the superintendent's salary was, debated, those were introduced to raise the superintendent's salary and the librarian's salary, no legislature. A lot of times, the decision to go up or down was based on anecdotes. You know? Oh, I heard the superintendent does this or that, the other. With the comprehensive evaluation metrics that the board has set up, it's and you can look at it.

It's on the board website. It's fairly robust, you know, not just the student achievement and and but any anyway, it's it's all in there, and I would I would, ask the committee to consider, having that same system applied to the state records.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next we have an individual, Mr. Perry, offering testimony in opposition. That's all I have.

Anyone else? HB 1595. Seeing none, members, are there any questions?

Questions. Question.

Pressure.

Try talk to me please. So what what are we looking at in terms of in one similar to, like, superintendent salary, you studied what other, salaries are. What are we looking at for

the librarians?

We would probably I suspect if this were to become law, what the board would do is do, as we did for the superintendent, a compensation study as to see, like minded similar libraries across the country of systems similar in size to Hawaii and what would be the compensation. You might wanna get factory cost of it. As you well know, the current superintendent compensation study was done and this salary was raised by 18%, I think it's what it still puts them at the 50 percentile.

Yeah.

In other words, half the superintendents in the country of similar sized districts like Houston, Houston's superintendent gets paid over $500,000 a year. This is the last And of course, we didn't even look at like minded positions in our community.

You know, as you all know, the University of Hawaii president, who is roughly half the workforce and about a third of the budget of the Department of Education gets two and a half times what the current superintendent gets. The elective director before the superintendent, all the elected director makes a month, 120,000 more than the current superintendent with the and his workforce, his his employee workforce is less than that of Farrington High School. So we didn't do that kind of comparison.

We just looked at like minded school districts and then tried to figure out what would be a fair compensation for, the current superintendent. And and again, the board did vote nine zero.

Interestingly enough, there was no testimony in opposition at the board meeting, on the proposed, salary increases. But, you know, every time anytime I talk about salaries, as you well know, whether it's yours' compensation or public employees' compensation, it's always gonna be a challenge.

And then who determines a compensation for librarians, for the individual public libraries?

Oh, that's collective bargaining.

Oh, okay. Got it. So current no current compensation study yet, but should this bill pass, you're gonna have what's the plan? Because,

to do the compensation so it's not free. So, the board would not do a compensation study for essentially nothing. Even if the compensation, study conclusion was, oh, it's super, the state library should get paid 210,000 or whatever or can we do it because it's a statue or stuff. We could even, you know, I guess we could sell literally chickens, but, yeah, we can. So it's really up to all of you.

Thank you.

Thank you,

Members, any other questions? Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna go on to the next bill, which is HB 1786. With regards to school facilities and availability to the public, first up, we have superintendent's office offering testimony and opposition in person.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. We rise in opposition to this measure, Jesse Souki, superintendent of operations. Basically, this bill would open up public school facilities that are currently built, designed, managed, and maintained for that population to the general public, which would be a lot more impactful to the facilities than what it is now, issues of liability and maintenance and staff and all of that. It's basically running a statewide public park. And so that's why we oppose the bill, in short, available for questions and comments.

Thank you for the questions. Next, we have the Department of Health in person offering testimony providing comments. Thank you so much for being here. Next, we have AG offering comments in person.

Good afternoon, chair Woodson, vice chair La Chica, and members. from the attorney general's office. As noted in our testimony, we suggest that, the bill be amended to provide some clarification about certain certain terminology that's used in the bill. For instance, the exact meaning of all outdoor facilities and grounds, whether this is meant to apply to the outdoor facilities and grounds of charter school schools as well as apartment schools.

Also the terminology make available, does this, imply only physical accessibility or does it impose any kind of an obligation on the DOE to ensure safety and security of users? Regarding the concept of its assumption of risk, there is a a gap in terms of what the current language in the statute three zero two eight dash 11.4, eleven forty eight point five.

That statute refers to recreational purposes. It doesn't, cover public and community use, which is what's set forth in the bill. So we provided, a suggested amendment in our testimony. And, also, even with the assumption of risk, the department is concerned that, the DOE and the state would nevertheless be exposed to substantial liability. So we've suggested another amendment, to three zero two eight Dash eleven Point eight point five.

Thank you.

Next we have EPW offering comments in person.

Thank you chair, Vice chair of the Chica, members of the committee. Kamakana Kaimuloa United Public Workers. You have our own, testimony commenting on the bill. Typically, we would agree, wholeheartedly with the department on this. They raised all the concerns that we have.

The challenge for us is that some of our members actually agree with this. But I think that actually speaks to what's in our testimony and that each school is as unique as a community to serve. And we don't think it's actually appropriate for, to make it mandatory for all schools across the state to provide author unrestricted, access to our facility. We think it should be taken a school by school decision.

I know that is a challenge, but, we believe that the school and staff have a better understanding of what kind of personnel as well as resources are required to address these challenges that are discussed and enlisted in our testimony, because it's it's just hard to prepare a safe learning environment on Monday morning after, you know, the legal issues occurred over the weekend.

Thank you so much.

Happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Next we have testimony from Alima Intermediate School principal in opposition. Excuse me, we have testimony in support from Council Member Kaguara from Hawaii Island, county council that's in support. We have testimony from Kaukei Au Complex Area Superintendent in opposition, actually, not in support. We have HGEA in opposition, and we have four individuals two in support, two in opposition for HB 1786.

Anyone else? Seeing none, members, are there any questions? Vice Chair La Chica.

Department of Health, please. Hello director, can you share with the committee, what are what what are joint use agreements and how is this used as a tool for increasing access to public, physical activity?

So, the Department of Health cites in in our testimony that we actually did a pilot joint use of the agreement, and this is after a survey, finding that in the metropolitan Honolulu area, there's really lack of green space. And so the joint use agreement was conducted between the Department of Education and the state and county.

The Department of Health actually provided funding for the state and county, but the joint use agreement between the Department of Education and state and county provided that DOE would provide the facilities for use and then provided the parameters for what the use could be. The state and county then brought in their resources from Department of Recreation, and there were then, based on those agreements, the city and county agreed at that point to tell them to cover all liabilities. So that was part of the joint use agreement.

And a joint use agreement has been used across other jurisdictions nationally, recognizing that schools may be the only and the closest green space for many neighborhoods. And especially if you're a parent pushing a stroller with a child next to you, not wanting to get in the car, this will maybe be the closest space. In the case of this situation that this case study that we had, it was in Metropolitan Norival Road.

So it was more robust in that there were intramural activities during the daytime that the students enjoyed. So people who wouldn't normally be athletic participated in volleyball as part of the joint use agreement.

And then also after school, there were hip hop classes and also nutrition classes for adults. And so we did an evaluation and found that many people found that there was a sense of safety that was provided, and also they reported an increase in physical activity. So joint use agreements are used in that way, but there was specified scope of work for each party.

In that case study, were there any documented incidents of vandalism, obstruction, like, you know, do would you know? Like, any of the concerns raised by the department?

In this situation, no, there was not. And again, in this case, there was a Department of Parks and Rec that did bring in then, their staff, and provided them, structured activity, and even during then the school period brought in the intramural volleyball, which, is what they chose.

How long did that went for?

It ran for a few years, actually. Our funding was to look at more of a systems change to see whether we could actually provide the opportunity in our urban and home football area. The school itself became very committed to it and so the principal actually got more funding, be it after the Department of Health funding ended. And so, was able to get more funding to provide those resources to the students in particular along with the community.

If you if possible, if you can share with us either the results or evaluation from that study, we can share with the community members.

Okay. And the findings were published, so I can share that with the committee members.

Quick follow-up for DOE, please. So you heard from Department of Health. I mean, full disclosure, I am the introducer of this measure. And I understand the department's liabilities, like concerns around liability and access, But this comes from a place where this is a public facility paid for and maintained by teax paid public taxpayer dollars.

And it comes from a concern of we just have park deserts where, like, food deserts, there's just no access to recreational use and facilities, and for those where there are outstanding, parks, it's always overcrowded because organized activities or organized sports have taken on all the permits. Right? And we're in a time where our kids are just either they can't find a way to do that and they in their areas and they're what? They're not stuck at home or they're under Ipad or there's things like that.

So we wanna increase use for that. Right now, what is your current process in terms of shared use facilities? Is it only done approval and I guess approval and rejection of shared use facilities from the community? Is it only at the principal level?

Yes. We have facilities use agreements and the principals consider when people apply. The only real standard there is if it doesn't interfere with school uses, so the department always has a priority. But if an entity wants to use a school facility, they would fill out an application that's standard across all the schools, and that would be through the principal. And there would be a waiver of liability and paying fees if they're using certain things.

What if they wanted to use just the school playground? Is that like something that's available and would they be expected to pay a fee?

I don't think a fee would be required, but they would pay a they would fill out the facilities use agreement. And so, the DOH mentioned, like, I think football or volleyball clinics, so, you know, they they could apply to use.

So there's an opportunity out there. I think what the DOE is concerned about is open ended public use, and seeing that from the DOE's perspective, I also bring bring with me experience as the the first deputy of DLNR with the state park system and advising the City of County of Honolulu as a deputy core council related to parks issues.

And so bringing that experience, I can tell you that managing a park for the public is much, much different than managing a playground for kids at a public school. And I understand that taxpayers are paying for that, but what they pay for are facilities for public school kids, not a public park. So if it was to be, like a public park, that would take a lot more resources to manage.

I think from an equity perspective, are you aware when either, like, certain principles just keep turning down, like, shared use facilities forms? Because, for example, in my community, I know of one school where maybe they approved two or three in a year. And so I think it's where I'm coming from, like, for the unstructured activities. Like, it's just, like, the the immediate community that we know to be responsible would want, like, access or use.

Like, if you have a well, the process in place, and do you collect that data to be able to determine, like, we get so many applications, but most of them are being turned down.

Like, what's the department kind of do when in terms of when that those that happened?

Yeah. Centralizing and decentralizing is always a debate about the best way to do things. There's a debate now going on about centralizing, but but one thing that was decentralized is this decision about use of school facilities because the schools were the best place to make that decision based on the communities they're in, but the process is standard across all the schools. There's how many days in advance you need to fill out the form, the content you need to fill out, and and that sort of thing.

So I'm not sure why they're turning down. Usually, the reason to turn it down is if it conflicts with school activities, or if the entity applying can't pay the insurance and that sort of thing.

I think I mean, I'll I'll I'll finish my comments, but I think that's the the impetus for this is, like, I think it's it warrants, like, a conversation or discussion on what is possible. Maybe we can work with the Department of Health to see, like, what how was this modeled or framed so that, you know, that we can figure out some type of policy where there is coverage.

But at the same time, we're not being overly restricted to just communities that not we know, and we know this is happening in certain communities where there's nice playgrounds and the, you know, the community can take advantage of that. But, I would just hate to see if it if, you know, public, I mean, facilities like this really under or not even utilized at all when there could be some type of, like, balance, between the the use of it. Sorry. Did you wanna say

Just a quick response on the use of facilities for so for playground, there is a specific use of facilities for that. So they would be charged for use of the playground hourly, also the use of hiring a custodian to open up, and if they wanted to use the parking lot as well. So there is a charge for that. I think to tag on to the principal's discretion, I know as a department, we appreciate the legislators supporting us with our facilities.

So being that playgrounds on school campuses, the purpose of that is to be accessible to our students during the school day. So we're really trying to take good care of our facilities because as more people use it, there's wear and tear on it. And as it's damaged, then we, you know, limit the use for the students on campus, which is the original intent of it. And we hate to have it broken or undone.

We have to close it down and come back to you folks for funding. So we appreciate the funding for our facilities and we try to do our best to take care of those.

And I understand. I the the point is taken on that, and I the bill was designed so that it doesn't interfere with, you know, the the department still has an ability to create those rules. It doesn't interfere with anything, but, like with any type of public, you know, item or structure, there's always gonna be risks. So are we being too overly, like, restrictive that there's just we're cutting off certain use, benefits to certain communities? I think that's it. Thank you so much.

Thank you, vice chair. Any more questions?

It's largely DOE. Is it the concern of how we would file a potential warranty for repair given the facility? Should it be open outside of the permitted scope?

It's more of so when we build for these playground equipment and facilities for the school, we don't get specifically with that in mind.

Just one quick one.

Kila, go ahead.

I think it's gonna be used for the kids. We got, you know, staff who cleans the thing and keeps it nice and safe and but when you're adding the general public to it, that's that's like managing a park. And I I can just tell you from experience, that's a huge amount of energy and resources that, you know, all of the funding, I can tell you. So that's it's just a change in how we would manage, and and we don't have the resources now to do that.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

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

How often is is a is a playground, just specifically facility funded, not just through, like, CIP requests from the dep from the department to the legislature, How often is it, like, parent led? Because I I have a couple of playgrounds where we couldn't get funding fast enough through the legislature to a school and it was parent led and fundraised, essentially, to create some of these, like, playground facilities on campus. Is that normal?

Yeah.

I don't have the data with me, but I I am aware that, you know, there are school funded projects and parent organizations sometimes, because we did it at my son's school

Before I joined the team. So I know that happens. But it's bill it's bill, again, for the capacity of of the school and seniors.

Yeah. Because I think this bill hits two really important things. Right? There's there's issues sometimes I think around, and I see that as well on a a campus in my own community where there's a principal, maybe, that doesn't want to allow facilities used, not just of playground facilities, but of the field itself.

And when you have no other fields in the area where people are trying to run soccer camps or football camps, that's where things things become an issue, and I think this bill tries to address that. But I also see the other side of it as well where there's concern around the department and potential community members who are trying to fundraise for these aspects that the state should be paying for, but isn't.

So I I appreciate the comments that you folks had, and I appreciate the introducer for this measure.

Thank you. Members any other questions? K. We'll move on to the next bill, which is HB 23 b one. This is with regards to the National Board's Vacation consent program and charter schools.

First up on our list, we have our school commission, Ed Noh in person in support.

Alright. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Ed Noh, executive director of the Charter School Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony. We actually stand on strong support. So appreciate the time.

Thank you, Doctor. Noh for being here. Next, we have AG's office offering comments in person.

Good afternoon, chair Woodson, vice chair La Chica, members. I'm for you, chief, from the attorney general's office. The bill references the incentive program that is set forth in three zero two a dash seven zero six. But the incentive program there speaks to the Department of Education, which is not the employer of charter school teachers.

So to effectuate the bill's apparent intent and to avoid any kind of implementation ambiguity, we're recommending in our testimony revision to the language of the bill and also we suggest that Chapter 302d, the chapter relating to charter schools, be amended to, add a section that basically mirrors three zero two a seven zero six and the incentive program there.

Thank you.

Next we have Oa offering testimony in support via Zoom. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Not present. Not present. We have the the Hawaii Public Charter Schools Network in support.

Kalia Academy offering testimony support. And we have five individuals all in support. Anyone else? HB 2,381. Seeing none, members are there any questions? Please go ahead. The Charter School Commission.

Yes, hello. Can you explain how this would benefit charter schools?

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So we know that, we want to attract the the highest quality educator. All public school students deserve the the best teachers. Anecdotally, we know schools that or teachers that, have a national board certification, they are not part of that allocation, so not all schools provide that incentive, and so it's kind of a deterrent.

We also know that the schools that do provide the the, extra funding for those national board certified teachers, that's coming out of the per pupil funding, and the per pupil funding is that general fund, so which is operations, facilities, everything, so this would really benefit, as a really important incentive for to attract the the high school high teachers and to promote the role and the profession.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ed. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we're gonna go on to the next bill, which is HB 2533. This is with regards to additional benefits, teachers, and special assignments.

First up, we have miss Dale E offering comments in person.

Good afternoon, chair Woodson, vice chair of the Chico, members of the committee. Sean Bacon on behalf of the department. We stand on our written testimony offering comments and are available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

Next, we have Ho'Aloha Project offering testimony and support, and we have 15 individuals all offering testimony and support. Anyone else wishing to provide testimony for HB 2533? Additional benefits. Please go up.

Hi. Ashley Young cares. In strong favor of this legislation. So, this school will help with addressing demographics that are disadvantaged. For example, with special needs students, who I get to

speak up for as a chair for the Hawaii Children and Youth, a state wide organization, legislated into law by Chapter eight. And, you know, this year, we had the issue of addressing birthing violence against special needs persons. And so this issue is very close to my heart. And so, equipping teachers and providing bonuses, for educators to assist with, Hawaiian immersion programs, whose, responsibilities are unique. And a greater challenge, than what's expected for regular teachers.

I think having this bill enacted strengthens schools and teachers' capacity to serve these demographics, and by providing statutory requirement for these benefits and appropriate aiding specific funding, it moves, these incentives from temporary department stipends to providing stability in long term compensation, in the funding structure, for comprehensive, coverage and provisions for the teachers, for the schools.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else? HB 2533. Seeing that, we're gonna go on to the next bill, which is HB 2418.

This is regarding HTSB and the ED position. First up we have is the Standards Board in opposition.

Thank you. Mitzie Higa speaking on behalf of the Hawaii Teachers Standards Board. We stand in opposition on this bill only because there is already a process in place in law, and we believe that this would infringe upon the actually, the Board of Education, that they are in the executive department and there's a law called separation of powers that makes sure that they do have this right. It would add an extra layer, going to the Senate.

Currently, right now, it's the board the Hawaii Teachers Standards Board nominates someone to the Board of Education when the Board of Education approves or disapproves, or also they can, they're the executive director, there's also, trying to think of what the terminate, they can also do that with cause.

So there's already a process in place and we feel that this is a good process in place according to the board and that it doesn't need to be replaced or add an additional layer. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. And pardon me. We have testimony from the Board of Education offering comments. We also have testimony from HSTA in support.

Aloha, attorney vice chair. We'll set out our testimony.

Thank you so much.

We have individual testimony from one person, Johnny Johnny McHarvey, offering testimony in opposition. That's all we have. Anyone else? HB 2418. Seeing none, members with any questions.

Seeing none, last bill, HB 1559. This is regarding, cell phones in public schools. First up, we have board of education offering comments. Then we have department of education offering comments in person.

Good afternoon, Leah. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. The department does support the intent of HB 1559, but we suggest that a statutory mandate necessary at this time. On 02/12/2026, the Board of Education, did adopt a new statewide cell phone policy to be effect effective and implemented for school year 2627. Thank you.

Thank you so much for being here.

K. Yes. We have PG's office offering testimony for writing comments.

Good afternoon, chair Woodson, vice chair Luchika, members, and for you, chief of the AG's office. The department is concerned that the exception set forth in the bill, may be too limited. Some students may require access to a telecommunication device as an accommodation pursuant to their IEP or Section five zero four plan that may not fall within the specific language of the exceptions that are in the bill. Also, the policy should account for any accommodations that might be required under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

So in our testimony, we provided a suggested revision to the bill to address those concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Hawaii Department of Education Principles providing comments, and we have somebody from three other individuals, one in two in opposition, one providing comments. Anyone else? HB 1559 cell phones.

Seeing none, members, are there any questions? Seeing none, recess. Hey. Good afternoon. Reconvening, Remedy, your committee on education.

First up, members, we have HB2485. This is with regards to cardiovascular screening in the schools. Members, per the DOE testimony, there is already a version of this bill that's already in operation. Also, I have concerns with the ad prescription and furthermore putting some of these processes in statute. And so because of the potential unnecessary administrative burden that this bill will cause, we will defer.

Next, we have HB 1899, school psychologist working group members. As I mentioned earlier, Hawaii is the only state that doesn't have licensure for our school psychologists, so I would like to recommend passing at HD one, defecting the date of 07/01/3000. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice chair for the vote, please.

Okay. Members voting on House bill 1889. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Representative Amato?

Aye. Representative Evelyn? Aye. Representative Keir? Aye.

Representative Keelan? Aye. Representative Kiela? Aye. Representative Olds?

Aye. Representative Moroka? Aye. Representative Souza? Aye.

Chair, recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to the next bill, which is HB 2445 h t one, standardized emergency responses. Members, I have, some concerns about this bill. Every single school already has what's referred to as EAPs, emergency action plans. These plans are actually individualized for each school.

This is anything from floods to fires to actually active shooter. Some of these plans are actually rehearsed on an annual basis at least, so I do not think that we should standardize that process. Regarding this bill, specifically in in terms of its intent, as it was discussed during the committee, there is processes already in place that does include the AG. Because there was some testimony and support, I'm going to go into some of the provisions that specifically have concerns with.

As an example, some of the provisions in the proposal, I think, open up educators to liability.

I'm gonna reference section two on line 14 of the bill. It says that students' safety and well-being must be protected. Well, that is the case already on a regular basis, not only in emergency situations, but everyone on school campus understands and knows that we must protect they must protect students. There's also a provision in here that states that there needs to be compliance with state and federal law. Of course, there's always compliance with state and federal law on DOE campuses that is well known.

There's a provision in here that speaks to state's responsibility for making sure that they guard identical identifiable student information that's protected. The departments will know that to do that. The lack of flexibility which Chairman Takumi brought up, and there are other issues. And so Aye, will defer this bill. It's probably not popular.

But questions, comments, concerns? Question. Thank

you, chair. Appreciate your comments on this. And I think there's no doubt that this is a priority for the department, but we if we when we are continuing to hear feedback that teachers or staff don't know yet what to do in the event that this occurs, then it it means that there's some communication that still needs to happen. And so just ask that you continue to work with, some of the folks who testified today to figure out how we can better strengthen them.

Thank you,

vice chair. Thank you, vice chair. We see that. Members, any other questions, comments? Okay.

Thank you, members. Going on to the next bill, HB 2,415 HD one, safe routes to schools. Members, I've had discussions with the chair of transportation, and so per high high school, I do have prior to occurrence to accept Department of Transportation's proposal partially. And so in their testimony, they state section five, subsection one, they want more flexibility, and so they'll accept their language provided in their testimony.

Now also, we will add a section for the purpose of expending appropriation for the purpose of the Safe Routes to School Special Fund.

That's an alteration of what the Department of Transportation was requesting. Again, I have prior to the current speaking to the chair of transportation to add that section. We will also blank out the dollar amounts, recommend those same amounts in the committee report or committee on finance consideration, and it already has a defective date. Questions, comments, concerns? A comment, sir.

Please go ahead. Thank you. I just wanna thank you and thank the committee for hearing the measure and I think what was brought forth right is to what DOT is asking is that if these projects will be expanded for the purpose of making our school areas safer, We do have a special fund that exists for that, so adding that as a placeholder for carrying out this fund is carrying out the measure should it pass is appreciated. Thank you, chair.

Any other questions, comments, concerns? Vice chair for the vote, please.

Members voting on House Bill 2,415 HD one. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Noting the presence of all members, any member wishing to vote with reservation? Any members voting no?

Seeing none, sharing recommendations.

Thank you, members. Going on to the next bill, which is HB 2436 HD one with regards to further arts integration in DOE schools. Members' recommendation is to pass as is. Questions, comments, concerns? Pressure for board between 2,436 HD one.

Okay. Voting on house bill 2436 HD one. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Any members voting with reservation?

Any members voting no? Chair recommendation for that.

Thank you, members. Moving on to the next bill, which is HB 1937 h t one relating to taxes. Recommendations to pass is unamended. We're gonna ask the Department of Finance to take a look at some of the proposed tax mechanics and concerns that were brought up for the discussion. Passing an amendment to this recommendation.

Questions from his concerns? Chair. Please go ahead. So, Chair, I

just wanted to comment that I fully support and think the teachers do deserve their hazard pay, and I also think it's way past due. But I am voting no because I don't think their hazard pay should come on the backs of the rental car companies and added cost to a lot of other places. So for those reasons, I have a vote. Thank you, Rep.

Any other questions for this concerning this? Vice chair, we vote.

Okay. Voting on House Bill 1937 HD one. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Any members voting with reservation?

Reservation. Reservation for representative Amato? Reservation. Reservation for representative Olds. Noting the no vote for representative Moraoka.

Any other members wishing to vote no? K. Seeing none, chair, recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to the next bill, HB 1595, State Librarian Salary Cap. Members, I would like to recommend passage of this proposal, defecting a date. Questions, comments, or concerns? ...for vote.

Okay. Voting on House Bill 1595. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any members voting with reservation?

Any members voting no? Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to the next bill, HB 176, School Facilities and Availability to the Public. Further concerns that were brought up regarding maintenance and safety, we will defer. Moving on to HB 2381, relating to charter schools and an allocation for the National Board Certification Incentive Program, for our charter schools, members, recommendation is passage of accepting the AG's amendments, just to clarify, Section 1, as found on page 2, items 3-5. Also added new section in 202d, as was articulated , we're gonna desmear the language....a-706 and put it in the correct...as was stated in the testimony...202d which was charter school stat sheets. Those are ...amendments, they don't have...substance, and then we will defect the date to July 1st, 2026. Question, comments or concerns? Vice Chair if you will please.

Just to clarify section one that's found on page two, items 3-5, also adding a new section in 202d as was articulated. We're gonna desmear the language that's in 302a-706 and put it in the correct ... as was stated in the testimony in the 202d versus chargeable statutes. Those are really technical amendments. They don't have anything to do with substance, and then we will defect the date of 07/01/20... Questions, comments, concerns? Vice chair if you would please.

Voting on house bill 2381. Chair's recommendation is a pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting no? Seeing none, chair recommendation is passed.

Thank you. Members going to the next bill, HB 2533, Additional Benefits for Teachers with Special Assignments, recommendations to continue the discussion and to pass this with a effective date of 07/01/2023. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice Chair for the vote, please?

Voting on House Bill 2533. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any members voting with reservation? Any members voting no?

Recommendations adopted.

Thank you, members.

Going on to the next bill which is HB 2418. HTSB and the ED position, we will defer. Congress, going on to the next bill, HB 1559, regarding cell phone in public schools. I appreciate the testimony, but this bill does add addition an additional dimension with regards to enforcement with the restricted use of cell phones.

And so I would like to pass this to continue the discussion to HD one incorporating AG's recommendation with regards to making sure that we add another section to include ADA per the acquisition clauses therein, and then we will look back the dates 07/01/2000.

Questions, comments, concerns? Vice chair, please.

Voting on House Bill 1559. Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any members voting with reservation? Any members voting no?

Seeing none, chair, recommendation is adopted.

Thank you members. Vice Chair. Have anything to say?

On behalf of the Chair and myself, thank you so much to everybody who's continued to stick with us and come and testify on all these very important measures. Thank you to our committee members. We've had some long hearings but this serves as the last education hearing up until crossover so we will see you. Thank you so much.

Hey. Good afternoon, everybody. This is your committee on education. Today's date is the February 19. It's about 02:00 in Conference Room 309.

We have almost a dozen bills on the agenda today. First up, we have HB 2485, cardiovascular screening and environmental education. First up, we have superintendent offering comments in person.

Good afternoon, Chair Woodson, vice chair LaChica, members of the committee. I'm Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. We stand on our written testimony offering comments, with what we're currently we share what we're currently doing and then we just have some, concerns that were listed. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have the Department of Health, also offering comments in person.

Good afternoon, chair and vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Bella Urban for the Department of Health and the Department of Health offers comments. We appreciate the intent of HB 2485. We agree that early intervention and screening is important. We do want to point out that physical exams are required and that cardiovascular health screening is part of the well of childness exam.

The physical exam that the Department of Health partners read on Department of Education is upon entry into the public school system, and so it usually has kindergarten. And then there's a seventh grade physical exam. It's also a timely period for the comprehensive oral trauma exam, which would include then that cardiovascular exam, also in terms of catching up with any immunization schedules and also, screening for emotional and mental health. And so, while we support the intent of HB 2485, we do think that a lot of that is already built into the school that exists. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you so much for receiving testimony. Next, we have PG's office offering comments in person.

Good afternoon, chair Woodson, vice chair Lachica, members. Anne Horiuchi from the Attorney General's office. In our testimony, we noted that clarification need is needed in certain sections of the bill. For example, in new section 02A-A, clarification as to to whom the screening results would be submitted as well as who performs the screening to avoid confusion and to align with what's set forth in 302A-B. We provided some language in our testimony that we think would provide clarity.

Also with regard to the student athletes who are screened and receive positive findings, we think there needs to be a definition of what positive findings means, and identifying the person responsible for referring the student athlete for further evaluation and testing. We have a concern about the Department of Health's requirement to compile and publish a report. Depending upon what the intent is here, I think we believe that a process needs to be set forth in the bill to establish how that will be accomplished.

And also just if the intent is to have the DOE hire qualified health care professionals, then there should be, an amendment to provide an appropriation of funds for this. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. We have the American Heart Association providing testimony and support in person.

Mister Gomez. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Lauren Simpson-Gomez. I'm with the American Heart Association. The American Heart Association stands in strong support of HB 2485.

This important bill would ensure student athletes are assessed for heart conditions so they can be diagnosed, monitored, and treated as early as possible. Since student athletes routinely undergo sports physicals, these visits create an efficient and cost effective opportunity to conduct the in-depth in-depth heart assessment that can reveal conditions requiring further evaluation. The heart is a complex organ, and there's no single test that can detect all indicators of heart conditions.

That's why the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology support an evidence based layered approach. One that surrounds young people with protection by checking for problems early so they can be monitored and treated as early as possible and being prepared for emergencies.

HB 2485 places emphasis on student athlete safety because athletes face the highest risk during strenuous physical activity. Centered cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death among student athletes and research shows that nearly forty percent of cardiac arrests in young people occur during sports. These these facts reinforce the importance of comprehensive screening and emergency readiness in every school and athletic programs.

Studies consistently demonstrate that such comprehensive evaluations during sports physicals or well visits are the most effective means of identifying serious heart conditions that can lead to cardiac events. This evidence based approach empowers families and health care professionals to decide together what's best and help every child stay healthy and safe.

It is for these reasons we strongly support and urge the committee to to pass HB 2485. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. American Heart Association volunteer doctor, Piccolo will also be providing testimony and can answer questions regarding heart conditions and screens. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have Hawaii Public Health Association offering testimony and support. We have doctor Piccolo in support via Zoom. Not present.

And then we have a couple of individuals offering testimony and support one individual providing comments. Anyone else? For testimony for HB 2485. C9.

Is there any questions, members? If I have no questions, we're gonna go on to the next bill. Next, we have HB 1889. This is with regards to school psychologists working group. First up on the list, we have Department of Education providing testimony support in person.

The department stands on the written testimony and support. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have DCCA, board of psychology, in support in person. Thank you so much. Next, we have Hawaii Psychological Association offering testimony For writing comments, please do not.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Alex Lipton. I'm the legislative Chair for the Hawaii Psychological Association, HPA. We HBA supports the licensing and credentialing of school psychologists. We are an important stakeholder in the process, but we're excluded from the proposed working group in HB 1889.

We were included in past bills which did not pass. Therefore, we are asking for an amendment to include HPA in the working group. Given the position, by the school psychologist that they're part of the same profession and should be licensed under the board of psychology, that very much affects us. We merely wanna make sure that the school psychologist's scope of practice is consistent with their training.

It is premature now to decide the appropriate regulatory mechanism, which should be consistent, with the scope of practice once that's spelled out.

HPA did meet with the school psychologist several years ago. Unfortunately, it came to an impasse when we did not agree to regulation under the Board of Psychology. Including us and the working group is the ideal process for resolving the impasse. The failure to license school psychologists means that some children in Hawaii are not receiving needed services. That is a tragedy which should not happen.

All of us need to work together to fix the problem. In recent years, HPA has joined a coalition with three other mental health professionals in Hawaii to share lobbying resources towards increasing access to mental health services. In that spirit, we would look forward to collaborating with the school psychologist to increase access to their services. Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here.

Next, we have the Hawaii Association of School Psychologists offering testimony and support in person.

Oh, via Zoom. Yes. Okay. Hi. I'm Leslie Bonnick.

I'm the legislative Chair for the Hawaii Association of School Psychologists. I want to first start off by saying I stand on my written testimony and then offer comments on what was just said. The Hawaii Psych Association does not include school psychologists. Therefore, they have been considered adversarial in the past. They continue to perpetuate information that goes against what the American Psychological Association has put out against the model licensure act, and that is why we came to an impasse.

Their, like, their testimony talks about only two states that were, licensed under in health. California and Florida are also included. So even their testimony that is offering comments is not accurate information. I'm not gonna waste any of the legislature's time on this, but this is really between us and DCCA, which they're so no. We do not think HPA needs to be part of this at this time as we are not even allowed to be members of their organization.

Again, I am available if there are any questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your testimony. Next we have speaks offering testimony in support. Not here. We also have individual testimony from, Alec. Here, right?

Merida Tech. In support via Zoom.

Aloha, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I stand on my written committee, but I want to underscore that the purpose of this working group is to establish title protections for school psychologists to make sure that those that are working and practicing as school psychologists have background training in that area. Not doing so is akin to letting a cardiologist run a urgent care or critical triage unit.

It's a mismatch of training if other specialty areas are working in school psychology that they haven't been specialized under.

So thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you for your testimony. We have nine individuals all offering testimony and support for this proposal. Anyone else? Anyone else? HB 1889.

Seeing none, members are there any questions? I have a question for, HPA and, the Hawaii Association of School of Psychologists together. You indicated in your testimony and also verbally that there is an impasse. Hawaii is the only state in the union that does not have licensed school psychologists. Can you explain what the impasse is from your perspective?

The disagreement is they insist on being regulated under the board of psychology and wanted us to agree to that. And our members have concerns about that. We did propose, you know, that they'd be open to other forms of regulation, such as what is done in most states credentialing, by the teacher standards board. And we did provide the website. But if I could just respond, I think our testimony is accurate because we provided the website where we got that information on Texas.

And and that's from their website, the National Association of School Psychologists. We do allow you know, they said other things I could try to claim, but hopefully I've answered your question.

Thank you.

I'm here. Hi.

Do you have a response to that response?

Yeah. Like I said, that's a that's a minimal list. We're more and more states are adding us, especially as we have a psych pack agreement through the National Association of School Psychologists. So previously, we were meeting with Leslie Slavin, Jill Elliott. There was a handful of women who were leading APA and were agreement with us.

They were supporting us. So there was actually a change in leadership in HPA, and that is when the impasse came. They were going back to the APA model licensure act, which basically says that people with a master's degree can't use the title of psychologist, that American Psychological Association since 2010 has been countering that. So a lot of so it's it's actually a split in their membership, which, again, we're not included in that membership, and that's why we just wanna move forward with this.

We don't think it should be a back and forth between two, organizations.

You know, we're a nonprofit. We represent school psychologists. We're interested in getting credentialing for the consumer protection of Hawaii's children. As far as I know HPA as an organization doesn't have any say over the board of psychology. That's a government entity.

So that's why this continues to be confusing why we need to work with a diff this. It's like saying we need to work with the school counselors association because we have some overlap. Like that's we're not going to bring in every single organization that represents similar folks. We're not bringing in the marriage and family association, you know, a therapist association either. As the school psychology, reciprocity, is passing in multiple states, that's where we're seeing where school psychology credentialing can be under multiple things.

We have explained to HPA time and time again after meeting with the HSTA, after meeting with white teacher standards board, after meeting with, the previous superintendent. We've talked to all these people directly and a move, in order for Hawaii to license school psychologists under the Lohe teacher standards board, it would actually require a union change. We would have to be moved into HSTA which is a labor law change. So it's not that simple and they know that.

The most sense that it makes is to credential us under the board of psychology which I like I mentioned more and more states are doing.

I believe Alec has that list or he might be driving, to put him on the spot, but we do keep a list of which states that we can be credentialed in. Like I said, Florida and California were conveniently left off that list, which are two states that are very large. It's not just Texas. So again, I'm here to answer any and all questions. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay. Seeing none. We're gonna go on to the next bill, which is HB 2445, HD 1. This is standardized emergency responses. First up, we have is Department of Education offering testimony providing comments in person.

Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members of the Committee. Sean Tajima, Assistant Superintendent, testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands on its written testimony, which provides comments on this measure.

The department feels this is extremely important to assure the safety of our students and staff, which led us to roll out our law enforcement guidance policy in March of 2025. This was for all law enforcement, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We only feel this measure is not necessary because we already rolled out guidance for this.

The department has specific concerns about the language to respond to activity within a thousand feet of public schools, as public schools do not have authority or control over activities outside school property. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. We stand by for questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here. And apologies, we have Mr. Chairman, Chairman Takumi from the Board of Education providing comments in person.

Oh, is it deja vu? How's it going? I echo, the board echoes the comments of the department, and you had my written testimony in front of you. I think the committee has to weigh certain factors when you look at this bill. Now, the department stood up its own policy.

And by the way, Members, if you would like, deputy superintendent can be more than willing to email you the current department's policy when it comes to immigration enforcement. It's not readily available on the website. Most documents of the department are not available on the website per se because these are internal documents.

But if the Members wanted to see that, and I think if you read it, you'll quickly see that it's a pretty rigorous protocol to follow when any law enforcement personnel appear on campus. So but there's two questions with this. The question is whether or not the committee wants codify what is a policy. And it does, it has happened in the past, but in general, policies usually prevail.

The reason for that is quite simple. Laws tend to be pretty static, and policies and rules and regulations tend to be a little more nimble. So the question is rigidity versus agility. You know? So because given the current political climate, as you know, when the current president issued the executive order basically eliminating safe places for immigration enforcement. Historically has been schools, hospitals, and places of worship.

So right now, there's a green light for immigration to enter what was historically safe places. But that policy changes literally daily. And I think if the legislature were to pass a law, and the four corners of the law have to be followed and something changes in federal policy, it's very difficult to respond with an amendment to the law as opposed to an amendment to an existing policy. The other concern, I think, is about the 1,000 foot buffer that was mentioned by the department.

And I have two concerns about that, operational and the implementation side. On the operational side, the department doesn't have full time topographers on staff. And so what the bill would require is to map out a thousand foot buffer around 258 schools in our state and submit that to every school. The bill is silent as to how you define that 1,000 foot buffer. Is it from the property line? Is it from the offices and classroom itself?

Is it from the fence line? How do you measure that? We do have buffer zones, obviously, with policy. You know, gun free buffer zones. Or, you know, when anti abortion advocates show up at Planned Parenthood, state many states implemented 1,000 foot buffer zone for that sort of thing.

But the just to lay out that. So my suggestion would be that perhaps if you are inclined to pass the bill out, to put in the committee report that the Judiciary Committee ought to look at a more clarifying definition of what do they mean, what the bill means by that thousand foot buffer. And the other was alluded to by the department as well.

It's very difficult for a school principal to know what's happening a thousand foot outside of that school campus. You know, and they obviously have no jurisdiction over private property. So if there's an ICE raid in a residence 800 feet away from the school, the bill is silent as to what action should be taken. Should the school be locked down? Should what?

You know, what's the remedy for that? And again, most principal, not most, but all principals are not trained or equipped to deal with that kind of situation. But I hear what the committee's concern is. You know, the example last year where ICE raided an apartment building across the street from an elementary school in Denver, and the following day, the enrollment dropped by half. You know?

So that's a real concern, obviously. It just begs the question as to whether or not in the four corners of the school campus, you can expect administrators to do something outside of that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next, we have testimony from Council Member Kagiwada, Hawaii County Council, offering testimony in support. We have Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights offering testimony in support in person.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. We're thankful for this bill moving forward. I think we're trying to figure out the right policies to meet, as the Board of Education mentioned, a very rapidly evolving situation. In January 2025, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded the memo on sensitive locations that they have held for the 20 years beforehand, reopening these spaces.

When we looked at a similar bill, HB 440 last session, we had not seen incursions on the campuses. That has changed, and since this is a federal agency, we presume that we will see the same types of policies be happening. I think one conversation that we've continued to have with the Department of Education is the the change of the nature.

You know, since since the last policy came out, since the last memo came out in March 2025, the types of incursions onto campuses that we've seen is not a agent coming to the front desk asking for for a child. They're coming on to campuses and near campuses, and obviously that really impacts enrollment and whether or not families feel safe.

So we're open to continuing to work with the Department of Education to figure out, first and foremost, how do we keep all of our families safe within the law, and we're continuing to have conversations with the Attorney General's Office. We have seen similar bills passed in Colorado, in Illinois, in New York, in California. So we're looking at where our legal grounding is that we can take that for here in Hawaii.

And then, secondly, we also just want to make sure that all staff, not principals or not just principals, but also that teachers and administrative staff feel empowered to be able to handle a situation. Because, again, the likelihood is that it will not be a direct communication with the principal, but that it will be a staff member that would have this interaction. So we're here to continue to be collaborative and find the best way forward on this.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next, we have Roots Reborn Maui offering testimony in support via Zoom. Not present. We have The Legal Clinic offering testimony in support. They are here.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members. Good afternoon. Tina Sablan from The Legal Clinic here also on behalf of our Board President Amy Agbayani in strong support of this measure. TLC is a non profit that advances immigrant justice statewide through legal services, advocacy, and education.

We did submit written testimony in support of this bill. And just to briefly touch on a few points, last year, as has been mentioned, the federal administration rescinded long standing protections that had generally shielded schools from civil immigration enforcement. And since that rescission, we have seen increased ICE activity at or near schools and other places where children and families gather.

Civil immigration enforcement has taken a really troubling turn nationwide, marked by racial profiling, violence, disregard for constitutional rights, and a surge in detention and deportation of children and families. Hawaii is not insulated from these national trends and neither are our schools. And as with any crisis or disaster that we can see coming, we do have a responsibility to prepare.

I do wanna say on that note that we do appreciate that the Department of Education has issued internal guidance last year that generally addresses law enforcement presence in schools. But as other states have recognized, general internal guidance is not enough and not the same as a comprehensive response plan and protocols required by law. Mahalo for hearing this bill, and we urge your support.

Thank you so much. And we are in receipt of your testimony. Next we have HCAN Speaks offering testimony in support. They're not here. We have the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus offering testimony in support. We have Fujiwara, LLC, offering testimony in support. ACLU of Hawaii offering testimony in support. We also have Mr. Andrews offering testimony support via Zoom. Christine Andrews.

Aloha. Thank you so much, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Christine Andrews from Maui. I'm an attorney and a volunteer Know Your Rights educator. I have conducted dozens of free Know Your Rights trainings for hundreds of people statewide.

I wanted to supplement my written testimony to respond to the written comments of the DOE that they believe this bill is unnecessary because they currently have procedures in place. I respectfully disagree. I think that minimal steps for an appropriate response should include Know Your Rights training for all staff and students, and then practicing response at schools like we do with fire drills, implementing private area signs. Again, private areas, they need a judicial warrant to go into.

So for all non public areas of the school, including putting like private around fences and gates enclosing the schools. Then a policy for accommodating distance learning or truancy forgiveness for students afraid to go to school, ensuring parents and guardians update their contact information to have an alternate pickup or drop off person so there's no one at risk at detention than going to the school.

And then when agents arrive, having the agents wait outside the school fence or gate, a process to alert family or guardians of their presence, and then alternate implementing some kind of alternate pickup or drop off program. And then a process to alert constitutional observers or community members to observe at, like, bus stops or escort children.

So I understand the concern about the 1,000 foot barrier and how do we protect that. But also, the practice we've seen is agents coming and kind of waiting for children to get let out of school or having parents to come up and so there is this nebulous area outside of school where administrators and staff would be able to see their presence and can take positive action to protect their students and staff members. Thank you.

Thank you, counselor. Next, we have individual testimony from Mr. Badua via Zoom. Not present. We have testimony from Mia Nishiguchi offering testimony support via Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Mia Nishiguchi, and I'm a senior at Kalani High School and strongly support House Bill 2445. Earlier this month, the Hawaii State Student Council held our annual secondary student conference, which brought together 165 students from 34 public schools across our state.

After debating bills from this legislative session, students voted House bill 2445 as their top priority, reflecting the greatest urgency and concern among their peers. That decision was student led and student driven, and I'm simply here today to reflect the vote and the voice of our students.

When students are worried about what might happen to themselves or their families, learning cannot come first. Students have noted that a transparent, publicly available protocol would reassure them that educators are prepared and that classrooms can remain focused on education, not on uncertainty.

We have seen in other states how fear can impact attendance and engagement, and Hawaii has the opportunity to be proactive and ensure that families continue to trust our schools as safe and nurturing environments. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Kaili Swan offering testimony in support via Zoom.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Kaili Swan. I'm a very strong supporter of this measure because school safety is a must in the DOE setting. Back when I was in high school, there was a there was a school shooting at ... High School that I graduated in 2012, but shooting took place in 2014.

So if this emergency procedure is in place, so students can react and know what to do if it's an emergency, especially if there's gun shooting or hostage situation, etcetera. So please let me know if you have questions, and thank you for allowing me to testify.

Thank you for your testimony. We also have testimony from 20 individuals, all in support. Anyone else wishing to testify, HB 2445? HSTA, please come up.

Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair. I'm Sarah Milianta-Laffin on behalf of HSTA. We know our members are continuing to ask questions, and there's nothing I can say that would be better than that student. That student says this is the forefront of her education moving forward. We know our kids are worried about this. We know our members are worried about it.

We understand that there's documentation, as we've heard from other testifiers, but it's still not trickling down to our membership. And I'll say that because we get questions on Instagram. I get texts, like, okay, Mili, so if an agent comes to my classroom door and I protect kids inside, is my job at risk?

Like, we are still getting these frontline questions from our members because we are seeing across the country, there were kids tear gassed in Minnesota, and teachers had to protect them. There are families organizing in Chicago and in North Carolina having to have whistles for walks home and all of these things going on, on top of all the stuff that we have to teach and do already.

So there's still an issue if we're saying we have these protections, how do people know, how has the training been implemented, and how are we making sure that schools are safe for everyone. I think it's really, really important that we keep this conversation going because it's not right now, it's not if, it's when something goes, a situation where this is important. So thank you for listening.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else? HB 2445. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

I have a quick question from the department, Chair.