Senate Standing Committee on Education

Afternoon, and welcome to the Senate Committee of Education. Today is Wednesday, March 18. We are meeting in this Room, 229, and we're being streamed live on YouTube. We must end this hearing with the technical issues. Committee will reconvene on Friday, March 20 at 1PM in the same room to tonight, and notice will be posted for the next purchase website.

So due to a number of measures before the committee and our time limit a lot of testifiers, our testimony will be limited to one minute per testifier. And with that, we will begin with our first measure on the agenda. And I'd just like to say that this is all house bills that have transferred over. The Senate has had bills that were similar or might have been a companion. And if we have if you're able to, you can tell us what the difference might be.

That would also be what I said done before. So with House Bill 2172, House Draft 2, relating to employment of retirees, establishes a five year pilot program to authorize Department of Education to rehire, retired teachers and educational officers for hard to staff positions. First, to testify with the Department of Education, Kehne Yashie. I know this is not here, so.

Aloha, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, Members of the Committee. Sean Bacon speaking on behalf of the Department of Education. We stand on our testimony offering comments on this measure and are available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Sure. While a lot of a lot of Chairs appreciate you standing on comments because I think the public has the right to really know what some of these bills and what your position is. I would appreciate if you'll give us a summary. Okay.

Sorry about that, Chair. The intent of this bill is really to look at trying to help with some of our retirees coming back into service and helping in some of our hard to staff and shortage areas. We really support the intent of of this measure. I know that there will be some administrative processes that the department needs to follow on an annual basis. We also have been working closely with the attorney general's office to look how it may affect our our pension and ERS system. So thank you.

Great. Thank you. And with that, we do have the attorney general, Jenny Nakamoto. And I know you have a lot of, amendments.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Jenny Nakamoto, deputy attorney general. We did submit comments that ask for incorporation of more objective standards and measurable criteria, directly into the statute. We also provided some suggested language. And as mister Bacon mentioned, we are working with DOE on trying to bridge these. I'm also available for any questions if you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Calvert Young for the Employee's Retirement System.

Afternoon, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Members. So you have the retirement system's testimony, and it is different than the system has testified previously on the Senate bill. The testimony is characterized as opposed to this bill. However, that opposition is due to advice of external tax counsel on the bill that was not available during the first half of the legislative session. However, it there is language for amendments that are being recommended, informed by the attorney general's opinion and review as well.

That could help if this bill is to progress some recommended revisions that are also available from the AGs and external tax counsel for amendments that would help shore up and clarify, in the in the bill plus the existing statute. And they are on the second page, of of our testimony. Thank you.

So speak one quick thing. Yeah. You brought up the Senate measure. So would you say the Senate measure is a little more simplified and easier to

It was our initial position was to offer comments on it. Not to there was no opposition, but comments about the the aspects that were in the bill that the legislature should pay attention to to preserve if the if that bill was to progress. But it didn't ask for or request or provide, like, specific amendment languages because the issues that tax counsel and the AGs have identified, you know, to try and be more clear for Hawaii statutes what could be added to add more definitive clarification or requirements to help shore up our plan our retirement plan statute. Yeah. Okay.

So

Thank you. Osatouille for HSTA.

We'll stand in strong support.

Okay. Anyone else wanting to testify on this measure? If not, Members, we are open for questions. Questions.

I guess DOE. Being as this measure clearly points out hard to fill areas or hard hard to staff, how many teacher vacancies are considered hard to staff?

I don't have that exact number on me, but it's something that I could, get that information and get it back to the committee for you.

And then how many could we realistically be filled through this pilot profile?

I think that's one of the things that we've talked about in the testimony. We don't have any data on how many would be interested in coming back at this point. I know that we do have some of our substitute teachers currently at this time that are retirees. But beyond that, the department doesn't have any hard data on how many would be possibly interested in coming back at this point.

And I know that that also the what's noted is to how to ensure that we hire we hiring retirees does not reduce the efforts to recruit and meet new teachers.

So I think part of our for part of our testimony on this is, you know, I think the department's really focusing on really trying the best we can to to hire our local candidates as best as possible. But, you know, we would appreciate any intent from the legislature to help in any way to help with our shortage. If this is a measure that is something that, you know, would be a possibility, I think the department would be open to that. But they would be hired at this point right now on a year to year basis. I think we'd have to continually recruit for that position on an annual basis to ensure that we can have somebody be there on a consistent basis as we are training our teachers on an annual basis.

And how would DOE evaluate whether the pilot program improves student outcomes or staff stability?

I think that's a I think that's a good question. I think we really need to see how many people actually would take part in this program. And then from there really determine what the student outcomes are. We'd probably have to do some type of survey and evaluation on them to to see, you know, is this something that we would wanna continue in the future or not?

Do you folks have a list a contact list of retirees, of your retiring teachers?

It would be something that we could look into our system and, you know, be able to see which people have retired based on their last contact information that they gave us at the time of retirement. It is something that maybe we could look at going out and surveying them to see if it may be something that they are interested. As I mentioned earlier, there are some of our current substitute teachers that I do know that are retirees that have chosen to come back on a limited term basis.

How hard would it be to just email all your retirees to just say, we're just doing, you know, a real quick search as to if in fact we could we could get rehired as an entirely. Would you would you be would you be interested? I mean, how hard is that?

I think it is something that, you know, it would be depending on the information that they gave us at the time of retirement. Their, you know, last contact either phone or email or or actual address. Based on that, it is something that we could probably send out some type of a survey monkey or something to that effect to just get some general basic information.

That would help us as we look forward with these measures because while I think it's notorious, there's a lot of work that has to go into it. And you have to, you know, show that you've recruited. You have to show that it's hard to fill. There's a lot of lot of hurdles.

And so I think, you know, DOE, to your credit, you folks wanna support a number of these programs. But at the same time, the amount of work that goes into it, I don't know if you first really think it through and and feel comfortable in saying, well, you know, while this is really good, you know, it's another whether the benefits outweigh everything else that has to go into it, time, cost, and so forth.

I understand.

And we have stopped using basic ways of of serving people. Like, it seems like you always need an app when you need a consultant or something. When you don't, you know, a simple email will go out. You know? It's like the it's like the star advertiser's poll. How many of you feel this? It's not scientific, but at least you get a sense of the area and whether it's worthwhile to even to change something like this.

Understand. Thank you.

If there's any other questions, please don't hesitate to go.

Thank you. So are there any other states that are trying to do this that are doing this?

I believe there are. I don't have a list of the other states with me at this point. I know that there I believe there have been a few states that have tried it before in the past, but I don't know, Senator, off the top of my head.

Yeah. So the leading up to that is then if you are aware of that, then what are the hurdles they're having to jump through that we need to do before this comes before us? Because it might be premature unless we know all the the answers.

Okay. Thank you.

Another question I had is the AG pointed out that we need to show that you've made a good, what is a good faith effort towards recruitment for the position. And they said, you know, perhaps you have to advertise it for so long. So do you have any thoughts as to what would that look like?

We recently just had some discussions with the AG's office on that and what it would look like. I know that there are some collective bargaining agreement, terms that we need to follow. You know, things need to be posted internally and then possibly posted externally. Currently right now, majority of our postings for our educational officers, our classified staff are posted on a ten day, posting period at this point. And then some will actually on the classified side move to a more continuous recruitment.

On the teacher side of the house, there is currently in the collective bargaining agreement on an annual basis, we need to allow our tenured teachers an opportunity to apply through our teacher assignment and transfer period. At the end of that, if there are no applicants, then we would move to an external recruitment and those are posted, continuously until they are filled. So, we'd probably have to look at some type of criteria of how long is long enough for it to be posted before we would consider that that threshold.

Exactly. And that's some of the hurdles that I spoke about. Already, folks have a ten day to post, and people I know in the system are saying that's not long enough, especially when you do it on January 1 and the first is a holiday, and then you count the weekends. And if you have ten days and it's not working days, it's calendar days. Right?

So then you're you're left with just a short window already, that's embedded into your folks' principal, recruitment, and so forth. So in this situation, then do you would you also consider, like, career fairs and stuff like that as being part of your efforts to recruit?

Currently, yes. We've, the DOE has been actively involved in many career fairs both here locally and, you know, nationally.

Those are the kinds of things we need to hear from. Okay. Oh, thank you. HSTAR, can you come? Do folks have a list of all your retired teachers, do you?

Not an entire list. We have an association of retirees that, they're welcome to join, and we could potentially communicate with them about this effort. But we don't have an entire list of, retirement.

Some listed.

Yeah. But they're welcome to join HSTAR, and we do have a list in that area. Yeah.

Perhaps if you're supposed to do something like that.

Okay.

In the near future Sure. Just so we get a sense of, you know, people say, no way. I'm done. Yeah. But if they, you know, a good proportion, then we might say, yeah. That would make sense.

We can do that.

Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you.

K. Members, no other questions. We will move on to our next house bill 1785. This is Student Relating to Student Transportation authorizes the DOE to hire a new contractor. If a contractor under a student transportation contract fails to provide service on a contracted route for five or more consecutive instructional days and authorizes the use of school bus fare revolving fund to offset costs associated procuring replacement services. Starting off with DOE.

Hello, chair Kim, vice chair Kidani, members of the committee. Sean Tajima testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands on its written testimony, which provides comments on this measure. This bill supports the goal of transportation reliability, but cautioning that the bill's proposed route suspensions and procurement exemptions does not solve the root cause of the statewide driver shortage, and may actually reverse progress made in response to the state auditor recommendations.

Given the two companion bills, we prefer this version over the other one, because the required fines were removed from this one. So we thank you for this opportunity.

The other one, the other?

The companion bill.

The companion

bill. The Senate bill. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. We stand by for questions. Thank you.

K. We have, Bonnie Kahakui for the procurement office.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of committee. Bonnie Kahakui, State Procurement Office. We stand on our written testimony providing comments. We believe the bill is not necessary as there are current statutes and rules that talk about or enforce contract remedies for nonperformance. In addition, we have concerns regarding the governor the bill authorizing the governor to intervene in some of the DOE decisions, which is contrary to the chief procurement officer's duties and responsibilities as outlined in, HRS 103 d 205.

Thank you. I'm available for questions.

Quick question. Did you testify at the house on this measure?

Yes. I did.

In the same manner. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

We have two others, Ted Meehan and PEK Kalakau Bardy, and they're not here. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Hearing none, members, we're open to questions. Senator Hashimoto. No? You like the bill? Okay. Let me see. So why don't I have who would be the one? There's a DOE. So right now, what happens when the service is disrupted and, you know, there's a day or two days, three days go by?

Yeah. We're we're not happy about that either. We see the roster just canceled for those days.

And then what happens to the students? They just gotta find their own transportation?

Yes.

Are you are you gonna give a notice usually that it's gonna be a disruption?

Depends when we're notified. So if we're notified the day before, the notice will go out the day before. But sometimes we're notified that morning, and so we send it out as soon as we can. For the notice, what we're trying to work on is an app that we can provide. Basically, it would allow parents and students to opt into the app to get notifications directly from the bus company.

It's not gonna solve the the route cancellation, but at least it'll give them notice as as soon as possible. And we can't have that run through us because of the privacy issue. We can't give student information to the bus companies. But if parents opt into that, then they can sign up for certain routes to get notifications if the bus route is canceled. So, again, it doesn't solve the cancellation, but it just notifies them as soon as we can.

What does that app cost today?

Oh, we're just we're looking into it right now.

Just have the app.

Yeah. We don't have any app yet.

Okay. I guess cost effectiveness again because it seems like everything is is an app, and not everybody has computers. And still what's gonna happen to those people that don't Right. Don't not just they don't actually opt in, but they don't have the computers as well. So that's a number of people.

Correct. So currently, the the practice is so the app could expedite the notification because currently, we notify the school, and the school blast it to their students. So there's a delay in that because they have to contact us to contact the school to send it out. So they would get notified that way. But the app would allow them to get it straight from the bus company.

But that's more efficient when you when you go to it because you you know you let everybody know. When the app is only those who opt in, which you may not know, and then those who don't have computers. And so now you gotta figure out who didn't get the message, and now you gotta send it all out anyway.

So we we do both. We would do both.

Yeah. But, again, what kind of cost are we talking about?

Yeah. So we have to measure out the cost to see if it's worth it to do the app.

Because, you know, DOE constantly always run through an app, and then we like, an app to see what lunches the student wants, an app to and then it's it's not like, you know, small money. We're talking $50.60, $70,000.

Yes.

Right? Get another bus probably for that amount of money. So if if this bill was to pass, and if in fact after five days, then, you know, what would happen? You would both try to find somebody, but you cannot find somebody anyway. Right?

I think that's that's the big challenge with this. You know, we're not opposed to having this authority to do this, but, basically, we'd be having the same bus companies fighting over the same limited pool of of shortage of drivers.

Okay. K. Thank you. The first question is,

what is the root cause of the bus shortage?

I don't know. But there's a it's a shortage in in Hawaii of bus drivers and CDL drivers, and there's just a a nationwide shortage also.

Yeah. And then how many bus companies does DOE contract with?

Two big ones, and then about three smaller ones. So there's a smaller one that services part of Kauai, two smalls that service Molokai, and then two big ones that service the rest.

So my follow-up question, which you might not be able to answer since we don't know what the root cause of the shortage is, what would DOE's solution be?

So, he shortage is the the issue right now. I don't know why people don't wanna become CDL drivers, but I think right now we appreciate working with our contractors. They're they're working hard to provide incentives. I think that's the that's shown to be the the highest leverage point to increase drivers. So, you know, we had a six year decline of 230 minus 230 drivers.

Since the bus companies have implemented financial incentives for the drivers, we've had an upswing in a year of about 69 drivers. So they're giving, higher wages, signing bonus, guaranteed hours, paid training, and that's resulted in the increase. So we're hoping that the the ops team continues. But we'll continue to have discussions with our contractors.

Nobody wants to. Well Yeah.

So question is, have you guys polled the bus companies as to why they can't get drivers for school buses?

I don't know if they have the answer to that either. I I I mean, I'm just speculating right now. I think the pay has been the most significant factor that's impacted the increase.

So it's

pay and not student behavior?

I think that the pay is the biggest one. So speaking of student behavior, that does make the job very challenging. As a teacher managing a classroom of 30 kids in front of you, a bus driver is managing 80 behind you and driving the bus and you're on video. So it's a tough job. So we're actually coming out with actually, we just sent out a letter to all of our schools, just kinda reminding schools to remind the community about behavior on the bus and that misbehavior can result in loss of bus privileges.

And so Yeah. But how

many times have you guys done it?

So we our schools are good about following up with misbehavior on the bus. I think part of the the challenge is our our bus companies have a delay in letting us know. So we wanna be able to follow-up right away. Because when we're following up with students about misbehavior on a bus or at school, when you talk to them five days later, they forgot what happened already. So the more time it is, the better.

So I think that letter is also a message to our bus companies who we're sharing with them also that we wanna work with you folks on this. It's just we need to know as soon as possible if something happens so we can address the behavior right away.

What is the pay for a bus driver starting?

I believe it's now it's about 35 an hour.

We cannot get people to be bus drivers?

Yeah. Oh.

And they have signing bonus

to it.

I'm not offering, by the way.

It just seems like a pretty reasonable offer.

And right now, because of the paid training, you can you can actually sign up just with a driver's license, and they provide you the paid training to get your CDL license.

But I think part of the issue is maybe for the bus drivers, how many how much input are are they giving DOE? What what they need to be able to, stop a student from getting on the bus when they have been misbehaving and DOE recognizes that and does something about it?

Yeah. We're gonna we continue to communicate with our buses about that. I think with this letter going out, we're gonna reach out to the bus companies to get more specific feedback on how we can work together with them on this.

Why is it taking so long to for you to do this?

To send out the letter? Yeah. I I

think we've been trying to address it incident by incident, but I think we felt that because of the shortage, this may not be the primary factor that white people don't wanna be bus drivers, but it is a factor. So we just wanted to address it. Well, the city has

been around for a long time. And, you know, I think that you gotta get in front of stuff. You cannot just say, you know, individually and all because of that bus shortage, because etiquette and and decorum, it should be should be foremost no matter what. Right? That's what we teach our students in the classroom.

Hopefully, the same kind of behavior should be on the bus. So that's not something that should be tolerated, but I'm just saying that when these things are happening, it just seems like you folks are late to to the game and and you're getting, you know, as a band aid instead of being proactive in trying to address this stuff. And so only now you're coming up with a letter? I mean, that's crazy. Right?

Yeah. In hindsight, we should have sent it out sooner. So I'm I'm glad we finally sent it out.

Well, years should have gone out. I mean and then constantly, yearly, it should be a reminder. You know, school starting again, bus bus drivers, we'd like to remind, you know, these are some of the things we gotta agree. And if there's a problem, this is the number you call. Your bus driver should be calling or making a report. I mean, that should be yearly. And not just once in, I don't know, Clearwater Moon. Right?

Yeah. That's what we plan to do.

It should be it should be to

the point where the the bus company can refuse to transport a student who regularly misbehaves or is, you know, not behaving on the bus or, you know, hurting students or even abusing the the driver. No.

Do they have the authority? Well, that's part of it. Yeah.

Mhmm.

But that's why I'm asking. Do do they have that authority now?

Well, it's it's up to us. So they report it to us and we decide. Yes. We take it seriously though.

Well, how serious? You didn't notice go out to the parents that's saying three strikes, you're out?

So we we we thought of our initial draft had the three strikes rule, but we didn't wanna put that in because first strike might be serious enough to remove the privileges. So this way, it allows the administrators to use Chapter 19, and bus privileges can be part of that also. So we didn't wanna be bound to where student assaults another student on the bus, and that's only strike one. We wanted the flexibility for consequences to be more severe.

State that in your in your rules. It's saying, two strikes you out. However, if it's a severe one at any given time, they can they can be, you know, rid of their privileges. So, again, you know, you guys are educators. You folks are smart. You're supposed to be able to think these things through. Or if you're not, then put it on chat gpt. They'll they'll spell it out for you.

Thank you.

It's not funny. I mean, I come on. It's serious. You said you're serious about it, but it doesn't seem like it because you guys are not proactive. We shouldn't have to make deals like this. I mean, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Yeah. How many privileges have you guys revoked because of bad behavior? No?

I can get back to you on that.

K. Question. Question. Senator Hashimoto.

So I I think, you know, that hopefully, we can try and figure out some solution because as I told you before, what what I'm worried about, and I think why the impetus of this bill is not from year to year. Yes. We we do know that, you know, bus service has gotten better. But what's gonna happen is when you go and renew these contracts, that's when you're gonna have problems again. Because what the bus companies do is if they lose that contract, they're just gonna hold the drivers, and then you're gonna have an inherent shortage.

And then we're gonna end up what we what happened a couple years ago. Right? And so if you're not proactively trying to figure out what you're gonna do upon the renewal, that worries me. Right? And so I think what we're asking for is what tools do you need?

Obviously, I think SPO is essentially saying you don't need anything, but, you know, I think I think the the point here of this bill is what are we proactively trying to figure out so that you are clearly given everything that you need to do what you need to do so we don't end up how we ended up a couple years ago where we had these mass cancellation of bus routes. Right? Mhmm. And I think it's just persistently happened. And, yes, we can blame the the driver shortage, but I know for a fact because when we had a driver shortage on Maui, I called the other bus company and they had the capacity.

Right? And so I think we gotta we gotta we gotta think thoroughly. And if if you can do it internally, fine, but you gotta show us that you're gonna do it internally or so you're just gonna keep, you know, being bills. Right? So, anyway, hopefully, you guys can we can come up with something or you can think I I I've been asking you, think about what you need, and I haven't heard clearly what you guys need.

So I think we're gonna keep going at it, though, because I think you guys need more. Like, I think we have to keep this as an issue because I think people are saying this is an issue. So hopefully, we can figure something out before the when it gets to conference. Thank you, chair. I do have a question for SPU after.

Okay. But you have the resources. You are able to do these things. It's just that you folks don't wanna do it or, yeah, feel that it's not necessary. But it is. So okay. Thank you. SPO?

Thanks for being here. I so so I just wanna figure out is there a way that we can kinda tie this this bill clearly, you know, to kinda make a statement that this is important? Can we tie it back to some of your rules in that that so that the DOE can operate to to make sure that it's clearly outlined in this bill that, you know, they're following some of the SPO rules, but they have a specific potential route carve out?

We could. We would have to amend a different statute, which is the HRS the enforcement statute, which is 70- Chapter Chapter 7, which is enforcement contract enforcement.

Mhmm.

So it's like 701, 702, all the way up to 709 talks about enforcement, you know, what they would do need to do. And one of the important things, which I don't know, based on the DOE's contract, if there is a performance bond in there. So they could call upon that. Is there liquidated damages in there that should they not provide the bus route for that day, the the bus company would be liable for so much, you know, so much dollars. So that is typically put in some of the bigger contracts where it's necessary to to move forward or to put a performance bond in there, which can be substantial because they have the vendor would have to go and get a bond against that.

But at least you have a fallback should the contract fail or be terminated for whatever reason. They're calling the bond. They're calling the company that's holding that bond to make sure that those routes go through.

We get something back.

We get something. Yes.

Mhmm. Okay.

So it's it's possible. I don't know if we could do it this year because, you know, I don't think it's addressed in it's not addressed in the HRS right now about enforcement, except for what is already stated.

Okay. So it but are the all those things that you outlined is already under your statute?

It's yes. It is. Yes.

Okay. So maybe the remedies, it needs to point to your statute then.

Well, it's not our statute. Procurement code is across the board. Okay. All counties, all state agencies, any government entity, it's already in there that all all jurisdictions, should be following or must be following.

Thank you, chair.

Okay. Alright.

Let me ask this question. So these are possibilities they're put into the contract. Right? But is it going to make it where the bus companies are gonna say, no. We're not gonna do that. We don't wanna do a bond. And so then we're we're we're just dealing with it.

It is possible. So depending on what what the bond amount is. So the performance bond can be, you know, Hun Typically, it's a 100% of the performance. So it it will be substantial, and it'll probably it'll cost more because now they have to work that price into the cost of the bond into the price to the state. So there have been situations where vendors think the bond is too high or they don't wanna participate because because of the bond or they can't get the bond.

So that puts us that put them in the driver's seat because already, there's a shortage of of companies and bus drivers. Right? I mean so and they say it's not worth our while.

Well, it's it's a balance because if if you don't have the bus contract, then you don't have any work either. There's only

Yeah. But And they're in the ban other places, then they're they're gonna go there and right?

Yes. Bond performance bonds, any time you put performance bonds in, insure higher insurance requirements, if there's a cost to the states for that. K. Thank you.

Anybody else-- any other questions, members? If not, okay. Let's go on to-- we're still on buses. HB 1780 House Draft 1, relating to student transportation; requires DOE to establish a student bus first system that includes fewer bus passes for students who meet certain statutory requirements and requires a report to the Legislature. Again, DOE.

Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, members of the committee, Sean Tajima, testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. Department stands on our written testimony, which provides comments on this measure. The department has concerns about prioritizing bus seating primarily based on income, as there other factors that create a need for a school bus, such as distance from school and lack of safe walking paths. The department also has concerns about the automatic sharing of Free and Reduced Meal data for bus eligibility due to federal privacy laws. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We stand by for questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Anne Horiuchi from the AG's Office.

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, members. Anne Horiuchi from the Attorney General's Office. As noted in our testimony, there are references in the bill to a, quote, free bus pass or to, quote, free bus passes that could be misconstrued as including free municipal bus passes, so to avoid any potential misinterpretation, we've suggested some revisions in our testimony. Thank you. I'll be available for questions.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, we stand in support.

Okay, we have Patti--and I'm not sure how to pronounce his last name--Hatzistavrakis. And Lauren Poor. Lauren Door.

Aloha, Chair Kim. Aloha. My name is Lauren Loor. I'll be testifying on behalf of Patti Hatzistavrakis, but thank you so much for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Hawaii Public Health Institute and the Healthy Eating Active Living Coalition. We support HB 1780 HD 1 with amendments. This bill is an important step towards improving educational access for students, and we recommend that the bill be amended to provide free bus passes for all DOE students.

Transportation is critical to attendance and academic success, but the modest-- even the most modest fees and the need to reapply for service can be barriers to access for families. Expanding free bus access would reduce absenteeism, ease the burden on families, and help decrease traffic congestion and emissions around our schools.

We appreciate that the goals of this bill are to streamline eligibility, simplify applications, and improve communications with the families, but we do respectfully urge the committee to amend the bill to provide free bus passes for all DOE students. We hope that the universal access would remove stigma, prevent gaps, and simplify. Thank you so much for the opportunity.

Thank you. Okay, let's see. We have two, four, six, seven others that have sent in testimonies in support and one with comments. Anybody wishing to testify on this measure? Anyone on Zoom wishing to testify? Please come forward.

Please identify yourself. Aloha, Chair.

Vice Chair Kidani. I'm Michelle McCoy with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

We do stand in support of this measure, and are asking that, we look into expanding it to at least the ALICE families as well. The prior testify, I was saying that across the board, transportation access is very important. Clearly, we're having trouble getting the kids to school. So we would we we do support the access and education starts with transportation and getting there.

Okay.

Mahalo. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? No. Members, questions. Okay. Let me go ahead and start with DOE. How much does a bus pass, or how much does it cost for a student that is not subsidized to.

For school bus?

For school bus.

Total for the year is about $3,300?

$288 for the year?

$288 for a year, which approximately comes up to what per trip? And this is this is round trip. Right?

Round trip.

Round trip. Yeah.

That's how much it costs for the family.

For the family?

Yeah. For the cost for the deal, it's, I think, 1,600 per student.

1,600 per student. And of the 1,600, the family pays $288

Correct.

Per per year.

And 1,600 is per student per year.

Yes.

Correct.

And is it the family pays $288 even if they have more than one child? Is it just flat $288?

I believe so. Yeah. Yes.

Okay. And that breaks down to how much per round trip? 72. Oh. Per round trip. How many days in the school year?

Hundred eighty.

So why don't you calculate it and then get back to that? How many students are expected to qualify for free buses under this bill?

So we have about for just for the whole DOE. I'll give I'll give you the figures.

Because this is if you get free lunch, you get free bus pass. Right? This bill is saying that. So how how many students are we talking additional students?

So I'll give you the figures of how many are riding the bus right now.

Okay.

So currently, we have about 19,000 students riding school bus. Of that 19,000, about 10,600 are free free riders, and then 8,300 are paid riders.

18 I'm sorry. Say that again. 18.

8,000.

Oh, 8,000.

8,300. So total's about 19,000 students who ride school bus. So it's not a lot. But we also have the city bus. And that one because we're giving free city bus passes to middle school and high school students who reside in the area that's eligible for bus. So that's about a 7,000 secondary students have the city bus pass.

And the cost is what?

Cost of the city bus pass is 300? 300 per student.

And what do you folks pay? The 300 per student? Which is what's the total amount then?

Yep. For the year.

Well, total amount you're paying per year per year?

Oh, it's about 2,100,000.0. There's about 7,000 kids on Oahu and about a 100 on Kauai. It's already free on Maui and Big Island.

So 19,000 riding, 10,000 of them are free, 8,300 pays for that, and it costs us 16,000 per student plus the 21, 2,100,000.0 for city bus passes?

Correct. The cost per student is 1,600. 1,600.

Yes. What did I say?

16,000.

Oh, sorry. Thousand 6. Okay. I have 1,000. And if you were to give everybody a free pass, what would that cost?

So the free reduced lunch count, there's about 58,000 kids for free lunch. So that's like, right now, not all of them even apply to ride the bus, but as far as how many would be eligible, there's about 58,000 students.

Okay. Yeah. I know everybody she's everybody.

We're all trying to help our students, our families, and everything is, well, we should give free lunch, we should give free buses, but there's a huge cost to this. So where would the money come from for these measures? I mean, yeah, it will come from the ledge, but where would where would we be where would we cut it from?

I don't know. That would be a lot of a lot of money.

So shall we cut it from k to 12? I mean, should we cut it from the kupuna instead? Should we cut it from Shall we cut it from you know, where where when if people testify in support for free, I always wanna ask, where do you think we're gonna get the money from, or do we raise taxes?

Right. So that that's why for DOE, we had only comments on this measure, and it it wasn't listed. We're not a we're not opposed to having free bus for everybody, but it wasn't one of our priorities that we had requested through the legislature.

Okay. For the questions, members. Okay. Thank you. Next item is House Bill 1872 House Draft One, relating to early learning apprenticeship grant program. This establishes an early learning apprenticeship grant program to be administered by the University of Hawaii to provide financial support for early learning program service providers in the state to participate in in in in state or federally approved early learning apprenticeship programs, requires an annual report.

So we have Board of Education. Good afternoon, Senators.

You have the testimony in front of you. Conceptually, the board supports any and all efforts to increase the workforce as in regards to early learning. When it comes to the actual implementation of the grant program, of course, we defer to the University of Hawaii. When it comes to the funding, we defer to all of you, actually, to determine what funding would be adequate.

K. Thank you. Nathan Murata for the University of Hawaii.

Good afternoon, Chair Kila, Vice Chair Kidani, Members of Committee. Nathan Murata, Dean, Manoa College of Education. This bill is very similar to the hospital bill version. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and offering comments on this bill, which establishes an early learning apprenticeship grant program. This bill offers tangible solutions by by addressing some pressing issues with regard to, number one, support and develop career pathways, potentially increasing the supply of early childhood learning slots, and potentially adding to, strengthening the economic stability for families.

I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Yukio Cross? I'm sorry. Yuko Cross. I don't know why I always wanna call you Yukio. Apologize.

Hello, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, and Members of the Committee. I'm Yuko Arikawa Cross, Director of the Executive Office on Early Learning. We support HB 1872 HD one and defer to the University of Hawaii on implementation and funding. Registered apprenticeship programs are an effective way to grow our early learning workforce. They offer opportunities for structured hands on experience, employer paid classroom learning, and comprehensive support to advance their careers.

Many people entering the early learning field are non traditional students who really benefit from the additional wrap around support and mentoring included in this model. This bill helps remove financial barriers to participating in apprenticeship programs. That in turn can help us recruit and retain more educators, improve compensation over time, and strengthen career pathways. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Ryan Yamane for human services. Not here. Edno. Edno for charter schools, out here also in support. Elena Mashita, for Anton Truqui, the city and county of Honolulu, support Jared Ellis. Thank you, Jared. Oh, Sherry Menor. She's here. Nadia.

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, and Members of the Committee.

The Introduce yourself so you don't.

My thank you. My name is Nadia Holt. I'm testifying on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce Hawaii. The core point we wanna relay is that the childcare workforce is the workforce behind our workforce. So when there's a childcare breakdown or when the childcare system is unstable, every sector of our economy is impacted.

And employers are feeling this directly in the recruitment and retention numbers. The child, the chamber recently conducted a childcare economic impact report, and it found that employers are impacted $787,000,000 through annual loss annually. And this is specific study to our state. And this is also due to specifically childcare related turnover and absenteeism. And in turn, the state is losing out on $396,000,000 in lost tax revenue annually.

And the real issue is that the early childcare workforce lacks a sustainable entry and retention pipeline. The regional experts will tell you that wages for preschool and childcare providers are 13 to $17 an hour in the state. And so this bill provides incentives to obtain the experience and the credentials and opens the door to not just get into the field, but to advance in the field. And this bill could strengthen workforce participation across Hawaii's economy, not to mention that the, most recent science indicates that over 90 of brain development occurs before the age of five. So there are profound positive implications for our future workforce pipeline as well.

This is both an economic and a workforce development priority, and we really thank you for hearing this measure available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you.

See, Malia Tsuchiya from Children Action Network.

Aloha, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, respect the Committee Members. My name is Malia Tsuchiya on behalf of Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks. You have my written testimony in support. I would like to add a few more comments. Previous to this role, I was a preschool teacher for almost twenty years.

I have five kids. Going through that whole process was very challenging. Going through the pathway of trying to become a teacher was very segmented. And in early childhood in particular, it's not something you can learn in a book. It's not something that you can learn on on any kind of short term manner either.

And so to be able to have this program, to be able to be in the classroom learning on the on the job learning with a mentor, with a coach, being able to get that feedback, and and not being have to not being torn away from your family or from your work to be able to pursue, you know, higher degree or pursue your education to be able to advance is would be so tremendous. This would have changed my life so much just to not have to incur the cost and to be able to be in the classroom learning from somebody who would have been experienced would have been such a tremendous help. So we fully support this bill. We ask that you please pass it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Terry Lock. Thank you, Terry. Let's see. Jared Ellis. I have 1234565. He's here. No. Not here. Oh my goodness. We have 47 or 46 other people that sent in testimony in support. I'm not gonna read all the names. Anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? Please come.

Aloha, Chair Kim. Aloha. Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, and Members of the Committee. I'm Michelle McCoy with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and we staying stand in strong support of this measure. Early learning drives lifelong outcomes. As the prior testifier had mentioned, you know, the brain development happens before the age of five. So that aspect of early learning is very important.

But for workforce development, it's very important that these vital workers are supported in our community and in our state. And, we have submitted, written testimony as well. So we're staying in support. Mahalo.

Thank you, Michelle. K. Anyone else? Hearing none, we are open for questions, members. Well, I'm gonna go ahead and start. Yes. Thank you, Dean.

Dean, are you aware Dean Murata, are you aware of what federal programs are out there for these kinds of apprenticeship programs?

Well, we know a couple states that do have these kinds of early childhood apprenticeship programs, Arizona, I think, and Illinois. However, we weren't able to access any of their data yet. We're hoping to get that. I know that we've had some federal federal grant, projects. You know, Terry was a PI, a principal investigator of one that just recently ended that looked at helped to develop workforce.

So there are a few that are out there. Clearly with the federal landscape, it's becoming much more challenging. But it's there's there's there's some out there.

Yes. Okay. Because it specifically refers to federal pro federal workforce.

Right. So because it basically modeled after the the federal apprenticeship program. Yeah.

Approved early in the apprenticeship program. Yes. But and that grant went to the university?

Or the the previous one, yes. It came to the university.

And you folks administered?

Yes, we did.

And it was to providers?

No. This was to I believe that that grant was a little bit different. That one was more for direct to student support for tuition and in order for them to stay in school.

Okay. So on that vein, what is the cost for a early learning early learning apprentice or student? What's the pathway?

Is it the same as a teacher?

It's it's very similar, but in this case, you know, the the candidate or the the the student will then, you know, will be compensated early on in their career to working with a mentor teacher. So both the candidate and the mentor teacher would be, compensated. And after every year, based on their apprenticeship model, they they have to have an increase to for the next two or three years. And and and that funds can be used, of course, for salaries, compensation, and or tuition, things of that nature.

So that was the grant. How much was that grant?

She was a principal investigator of the grant. Okay. So k.

What's the question? How much was that grant for? The grant from the earlier grant we had was preschool open doors grant, and that was a federal grant to really provide stipends

That's what he said.

What was that? Yes. Stipend amount, maybe

Oh, the total of the grant. Grant.

The total of the grant. Yes.

Okay. So that was for our state. It went through, p 20. And so I'm thinking I'm not sure exactly what the total was. Yuko Arakawa Cross was also part of that, leadership team.

Okay. So it's it's through connected to them taking the class at the university or any place? Or

Yeah. So the apprenticeship program, actually has started the entry level. We currently have students at Honolulu Community College. So there, we have, I would say, about eight to 10 apprentices right now. Several are on the on Hawaii Island, but, about five are here on Oahu. Okay.

And they're under the same that federal grant, or that grant's gone?

So that grant is gone.

So what what pays them now?

Yeah. So so the registered apprenticeship program, we have one, registered apprenticeship program that's been federally and state, approved of. That's through Keiki Oka Aina. And so they have written a variety of different grants in order to support their apprentices. Some of the funds that went to the apprentices on Hawaii Island actually came from some ARPA funds that went through the county of Hawaii Island Hawaii Hawaii County. And so some so it was a mixture of funds

from So how many under the P 20, Brad, how many apprentices did we actually get? And how many of them actually became hired or affiliated?

Okay. So all the apprentices are hired. They're learning on the job, and they're starting off primarily as aids in the program. They're getting basically around 17 to $19 an hour. So that's part of the apprenticeship program. So once they complete their first milestone, they will have an increase in pay. And so the first milestone is a child development associate. It's a national credential. The second milestone is a certificate in early childhood education. And so that bumps up their pay another 10% or so.

K. So how many actual, apprentices did we get with that federal grant?

With that federal federal grant. I mean, currently in our state, we've supported the the stipends, for the federal these these apprentices. So I would say we probably have a handful of, like, about 1010 apprentices right now. No. That's not the question.

Oh. The question is how many apprentices did we get from that federal grant?

Oh, from that federal grant. I think that so I would say that that particular federal grant may be supported maybe about 10 to 10 about five to six apprentices.

Because Five to six apprentices. And how much was that grant for, practically?

Well, the the grant was for many things. The apprentice part of it was just a small portion of that grant.

What amount is that? I'm trying to get the data to determine how much you're asking for. How many apprentices are gonna is it gonna is it going to make a dent into what we need? And we don't seem to have the data, or you folks aren't able to provide me the the data at this point. So, I mean, what are we talking about in this bill? How many how much money? What's the how many apprentices?

Yeah. I think, when we calculated, if given, say, $6,000,000, we would support perhaps about 25 apprentices, 25 mentor teachers, and then we would probably support about 200 early childhood folks that are already working because there there is a wage differential in the grant as well to rate retain the staff that are already working in these early learning, programs.

I think a lot of the funding will be provided to individuals already working in a in in the at the schools and not so much a and some with recruitment as far as bringing new candidates in. So it's kind of a mixture of individuals.

Okay. So how much are we asking? How much does this gonna cost from you?

I believe we're asking for 6,000,000.

6,000,000. Okay. $6,000,000. So these are students, first of all, who become apprentices that go through the course, and at some point, they become an apprentice or do they start off as an apprentice right off the bat?

They start off as an apprentice right off the bat.

Right off the bat.

So they start as an apprentice working with a mentor teacher. And then because we're increasing their pay, we also wanna give incentives to the rest of the staff so they stay with the program. So this is a combination of of supporting the wages

So it's not a teacher where you go through training and then you become you do student teaching and you get paid for student teaching.

No. This this apprenticeship program actually starts compensation as soon as they enter.

And while and while they're doing this, are they taking classes at the university?

Are they taking class at the university or on CC or other institutions? Yes.

Can they do it at private institution as well?

Well, this one really works with the early childhood education programs that we already have in our university, both at the community college as well as, the four year university.

And so then these 25, say, 25 apprentices start off and right off the bat, you're paid in 17 to $19 an hour, and their mentor teachers then get paid what?

They're getting a stipend for being a mentor teacher to support the to support the apprentice. So they're already getting paid, but they get an additional stipend.

Stipend are we talking about? We were

let's see. I think we were giving probably, like, a $5,000 stipend.

Per year? Per month?

Per year.

And then does the does the entity that they're doing the apprenticeship program, the for the service provider gets something as well?

Well, the funds actually go to the employer itself, the the school or or the center. And those funds are then are earmarked from the university to the actual employer, and then the employer then disseminates to current teachers, mentors, and all. And so Who monitors this? Who We would at the university.

So it shows audit?

Yes.

At the end of the program or during?

I think annually. It will throughout. Yes. Through.

K. Any other questions, members on this? And then, so this could be a one time or Continuum?

Yeah. We'd like to see it as a continuum. K. So here's

the next question. Where do you think the money should come from?

Well, I know the university has a bunch of priorities. We we can certainly if if it can't come from the at least from this this this this avenue, then we would certainly look at the university and and see what priorities they have and how high up priorities.

$245,000,000 surplus right now. Mhmm. Get funds. Okay. No other questions? Thank you. Next item is Senate Bill Senate Bill. House bill 1889 house draft one, relating to school psychologists, creates a working school psychologist working group within the department of education to recommend actionable steps or propose legislation for an immediate pathway to licensure for school psychologists that can be acted at in 2027. And the first testifier from DOE.

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, members of the committee. I'm Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education, and the department, supports this bill. This bill was not initiated by the department, but the department recognizes that Hawaii is the only state that does not currently have a licensure pathway for school psychologists. And by participating in this work group, the outcome, would hopefully be able to inform future policy decisions without presupposing a specific regulatory outcome.

Can you explain that, what you just said?

The there are different viewpoints on licensure, and we don't want to make any presuppositions as to which viewpoint is takes more weight. And so this working group would bring together regulatory agencies and state agencies to discuss possibilities of the significance of issuing a license for the school psychologist work group.

Okay. Thank you. Christopher Fernandez, Board of Psychology, DCCA.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Christopher Fernandez, Executive Officer to the Board of Psychology. I'm here to stand on the board's testimony supporting the intent. The testimony is the same as the previous committee. Nothing changed in the bill. And that, was something that the board was looking at, the board makeup. I'm sorry. Not the sorry. I'm talking about the working group makeup. Sorry about that.

So the board had requested that if it was the intention of the working group to look at putting school psychology specialists into465 that we would include we requested that HPA be included since the psychologists have a vested interest in that chapter. That was the only thing that we had asked thus far from this.

Okay. Thank you. Alex Lichton, please come on up.

I don't know if I said your name correctly.

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Alex Lichton. I'm the legislative chair for the Hawaii Psychological Association. I'm here to offer comments and and ask for an amendment. HPA does support a licensing or credentialing of school psychologists.

We are an important stakeholder in the process but are excluded from the proposed working group in HB 1889. We were included in past versions of the bill, which did not pass. Therefore, we're 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 they want to be licensed on the board of psychology that meant very much affects us is then two members of the school psychologists members, they would be added to the board of psychology. And decide on licensing plates complaints against psychologists. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

You're welcome. Thank you. Leslie Vonage. Yes. Hi.

My name is Leslie Vonage.

Aloha, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, and members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify. I first joined the HASP working group to establish licensing or credentialing in the state of Hawaii in 2011. I wrote the first draft of this bill in 2014 and have subsequently got it introduced in some form or another for every legislative session since. Originally, we were working with Leslie Slavin and Jill Elliott with HPA who are amenable and supportive of us moving forward, and that was when they were, Since then, we've had several adversarial meetings with HPA where they have a lot of incorrect information they like to share, and you can verify their testimony for yourselves. I'm not gonna waste the committee's time on that.

As such, we are not amenable to having them or any other private organization and want to stick to government entities and our own group. Our national association does represent us. Our state association does represent us. Hawaii Psych Association has no mechanism to represent school psychologists and have been adversarial towards us. So if we want to move forward with this in a, a collaborative way, it won't be with HPA based on their current and past behavior.

Thank you so much for the time, to testify, and I'm here for any questions.

Okay. Let's see. Hawaii State Council on Mental Health. Anyone hear from them? Alec Marentic.

Aloha, chair, co chair, members committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am a trained school psychologist living and working on Big Island. I support this measure moving forward as is. The National Association sets the standards on scope of practice for school psychologists.

So they have a vested interest in being part of this working group. HPA is not a regulatory agency and does not represent me as a school psychologist, and the Board of Psychology does have clinical psychs that sit on their board, and most of their board is made up of clinical psychs. So I feel like the current composition would effectively address the stakeholder concerns as well as effectively provide insights for the working groups, licensure pathway recommendations. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

K. Thank you. Alexis Jamieson?

Aloha.

Oh, sorry. I was muted. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. My name is Alexis Jamieson, and I'm a school psychologist in Liebert, Oahu. And I'm the current past president-elect.

I do wanna voice my support for the bill as is as I don't think HPA should represent us in this working group as they don't represent school psychologists or include school psychologists. So it doesn't make sense for them to be a part of that working group for licensure. And just moving you know, just to emphasize the importance of this bill, I'm a homegrown school psychologist, and that means that I had to go to a different, you know, a different state to be to become a school psychologist and get educated. And And I'm licensed in Kansas, which is where my degrees are from, but I can't be here in Hawaii because we don't have licensure. So I really feel it's critical for us to move forward with this working group so that Hawaii can finally have licensure for school psychologists in our state.

Thank you so much.

Let's see. That's all that we have that signed up to testify in person or on Zoom. There's 3, 4 others. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure moving forward? None? Okay. Questions? Members, questions? Okay. Question. Senator DeCorte.

HPA. So I have a question. In your testimony, it shares that the board also suggests adding local stakeholders, excuse me, such as universities and supports keeping the working group exempt from open meetings law. Why would you need to be exempt from open meetings law?

I don't believe that's in our testimony.

Correct.

Is that Board of Psych I apologize. Thank you so much. Yeah.

Which is which.

Thank you. Please excuse oh, please if you could respond to your testimony Board of Psychology. Yes. Yes. Thank you so much. So why would that be necessary to exempt from open meetings law?

Just in the past that we had concerns that there would be additional administrative requirements that would need to be done, like filing meetings and certain things that would come out of DCCA, PPPBLs, staffing. So we were just asking that maybe that be omitted so that there isn't that additional additional requirement. Sorry.

Okay.

Okay. And then I thank you very much. I do have a question for HPA as well.

So unless the board wants to, I mean, the committee wants you to stay for other questions. Chair, when the time permits, I'd like to, ask HPA to come up.

Yeah. I have a question. So you're on the board of psychology?

I am the executive officer. Yes.

Yes. And this is under DCCA?

Correct.

Correct. So as far as licensure, what because according to testimonies today, they've been introducing this measure year after year. So what what seems to be the problem?

I think the board's view has been that there are there are two parties. Obviously, one of them is within the chapter already, psychologists, licensed psychologists. And I'm using terms that are defined in the Chapter 465. So we're talking about licensed psychologists who have obtained licensure in the state. So it's no distinction about what psychology is outside of what it's defined as in 465.

So, those folks having vested interests, have representation through HPA. They can regularly attend meetings. They can affect the chapter. So I think that the other party I was going to school psychologists they, from the board's purview, are comprised of basically about two parties, two groups. There's the school psychology specialist, as that has been defined in bills in the past.

This is a specialist in education, I believe, degree level. Whereas there is the school psychologists who are doctorally educated, who in fact actually can be licensed through the chapter 465 at this time. There's obviously discrepancies with their training and their level of, say, training hours is one of the big things. It's not as high as what we require in 465. So a lot of the school psychologists that are doctoral, can't meet our requirements at this time unless they do additional or understand our licensing processes here in Hawaii.

So who trains and credentials school psychologists?

I do not believe that there are any education programs in the universities located in Hawaii at this time.

Okay. So we don't have school psychologist programs yet that's on the only on the Mainland.

Correct.

And the reason in left room, anybody else here from feel that there's there's no need for a school psychologist because it's your psychologist. You're a psychologist that can go to the schools and work at the schools. Is that

I'm not sure about that question. I think that

Okay. So you have school psychologists and then you have psych licensed psychologists. So a licensed psychologist can can go be in schools.

I don't know of any, restriction in the psychologists in practice in Hawaii.

If there are, like, a few questions asked DOE is how do they select their their psychologists based on what? And then how do they determine you're qualified to be a school psychologist versus a licensed psychologist?

I think outside of the bills that have been introduced, you know, I think the DOE has had the the responsibility of vetting the school psychologists.

Okay. Any other questions? No. Let me just ask, a psychologist that's on Zoom. Are you from the University of Hawaii?

No. I'm the legislative Chair for the Hawaii Association of School Psychologists and have served every position on the board. The program of for school psychologists is actually at Chaminade University, and they're on their second cohort. And this is, again, why when we have people who don't know school school psychology in the state that are making decisions about school psychologists, which has happened since 1999 with our inception of the Felix consent decree, why it's not actually helpful to us. They don't know.

And that keeps happening in every meeting that we were having with DCCA and HPA. They don't know. And then they would try to kind of put us in one of their boxes. So the the the way that it works now is one of us applies. It goes through the, office of talent management, which is Sean Bacon's department.

Somebody has to look at that paperwork and say, is this person qualified or not? That actually takes so much time versus a speech pathologist applies. They are licensed through DCCA. They get put on the list to be eligible for hiring. So it actually has inhibited our ability to hire school psychologists in a timely fashion.

And I've seen numbers of people over my fifteen years of involvement with our state association that will email and say, I applied, I didn't hear back for six months, and I had to take a job in another state because I couldn't afford to wait that long. So we have lost positions by not having credentialing over the years.

Thank you. Do we? I'm sorry. You had a no. No question. Did you wanna ask your question? No. Okay. So how did the schools go about hiring the school psychologist?

The requirements to be, there are several options, a master's degree in school psychology 1,200 hours of internship 600 hours must have been in elementary, middle or secondary school setting, provided that when the internship is less than 1,200 hours or 600 hours in a school setting, one additional year of supervised professional work as a school psychologist in a school setting will meet the requirement. The second option is a master's degree from a regionally accredited college or university in educational psychology, counseling psychology, or a closely related field in a psychology profession that includes graduate coursework in human learning and development. Also, with the 1,200 hour internship, of which 600 hours is done in a school setting. The third option, as previously mentioned, being a current school having a current school psychologist license. And the fourth would be currently nationally certified school psychologist certification from NASP or the National Association for School Psychologists.

So if you have a degree from another college on the Mainland and you're not licensed yet, they can still get. Correct. Correct. So have you had problems finding students with psychologists?

We do. We currently have 70 positions, 26 vacancies. We are current which is a current vacancy rate of 27%. In 2024, our vacancy rate was 43%. So we have improved that. And as previously mentioned, was the department that, received a grant that enabled us to partner with Chaminade University to get that school psychologist program established.

So would having a a so called licensed school psychologist changed any any of your ability to to get people school psychologists that you hire or

No. And that is where we wanna get rid of all presuppositions. That's where the the debate is. Is the license a bureaucratic function or is the license an extra layer of protection in valuing the credentials of the profession.

Is it an extra layer to prevent? I mean, safety or

and that would be the discussion of the work group to come to a consensus. There are many differing viewpoints on that. One

extra to come to consensus. They don't seem to be any kind of consensus to even get a board together. So the other question is, will licensure requirements help adjust the shortages, or does it add additional barriers? I mean, every time you have license, it's a and no matter what profession is a group that want to keep people out, and you have to jump through hoops to come in. And it makes it harder, and we keep trying to get more licensures.

But yet, again, you know, it's this this group that wanna protect their group. So is it.

And I don't have a definitive answer. I I think there are varying opinions on that. The the bottom line is you can be a school psychologist in Hawaii without having a license, whereas in the other 49 states, you cannot be a school psychologist if you don't have a license.

Okay. Do you know why it's taken so long to get a working group established? No. No. Okay. And check

Yeah. So, do you think that this working group would help to fill the shortage?

I think, I don't think it would help, but I don't think it would hinder. Part of this shortage is the availability of programs to become a school psychologist. I at this time, without having the discussions of a working group, I don't think it I'm I'm neutral. I don't think it could help or hinder.

Yeah. Because this working group says it is intended to study the issue. Mhmm. We already know there's an issue. So we don't need to create a working group to tell us there's an issue.

What we don't have is we don't have the concrete pathways on what's gonna fill those vacancies. So again, like we're kicking the can down the road. Right? Is it is we have psychologists shortages in the schools because we don't have those discussions or are we not getting to the root of the problem? So I mean, creating working groups to keep talking about and talk like, we already know there's an issue.

I don't need data to prove it. We have shortages, right, that that proves there is an issue. So okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

I have a question. I guess back to the CCA. What's the cost for someone say we decide they're gonna be licensed? Licensed or fluent. So what kind of hoops and what kind of cost is involved?

Okay. Do you mind if I use the current for psychologist process?

Okay.

So a psychologist who wish to obtain licensure in the state can do so through multiple pathways. Three of them involve certification at the national level. The board processing of those applications is nominal because the certification is nationally recognized by the Federal Government.

What does it cost the person?

So the person would be so it's a $50 application fee. And then the license fees, I believe, are depend on when they get licensed within the two year biennium. On the first leg, I believe it's around $280. On the second half, I believe that's about half. There are additional fees, including the compliance resolution fund, which funds the RICO function of the licensing.

So which is about how much?

I believe that is somewhere in the range of $100.

Okay. So that's one way? Yeah. What's the other?

And so those are the certification. It's the same fees for whether you're going to apply by examination. So that would be to sit for the examination, the EPPP. You can also apply this is for those who are already licensed in other states. You can be licensed through examination waiver.

So you would supply the board with a examination that meets the requirements at the time you sat for that exam. After we've received all these documents, we also verify internship and postdoc verification, which requires notarization from their supervisors. So a typical process may take an applicant maybe one to one to six months to accomplish. We don't have any data on that. I'm just guessing on my experience.

How many people go through licensure Chair for the conference?

Oh, I wish I would have brought that information. Just typically, on an agenda, we have anywhere from three to six applicants.

Applicants. Yeah. How many get rejected or will pass?

Very little. We usually maybe have one to two every two years, denials.

So right now, a school psychologist can go through DOE, apply to become a school psychologist. If they meet all your requirements, then you get hired. You don't have any license fees. You don't have any exams. You don't have any of that. But if the the and so any of your current would it be then you would not be able to hire people without license if the we have a licensure requirement? It would have to be licensed before DOE can hire them?

I think on the on the structures of the previous bills, it would be that way that you would be licensed. That would be the the first access point.

Okay. So now there would be a delay in them getting getting psychologists because you have to wait for them to go through all of these hoops And then and then some yes?

Should I just stay?

Yeah.

There's also not a clear pathway on how to get the license and who would issue the license.

Okay. But we do have Chaminade now are have a cohort, and they will consistently offer the courses so that you have people that are coming out that can be placed. Right. Yes. And they help you place they help face these people. Is there a reason why doesn't have a pathway? I can't speak for. Okay. Well, that's the whole thing to get DOE and to start talking to each other. So can you guys reach out to them?

We do speak with them. Yes.

Well, could you then?

Yes. We'll continue to.

Sure. Okay. Thank you. Questions? Any more questions? Okay. All good. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We are on House Bill 1893. HD two clarifies that public charter school teachers are eligible for incentives under the teacher national board certification incentive program, increases the bonuses per year for each public school's teacher and public charter school teacher. The school maintains national board certification. And our testifier is DOE.

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, Members of the Committee. Sean Bacon speaking on behalf of the department. We stand on our written testimony in support. And really this bill helps clarify that any public school teacher, including public charter schools, are eligible for the National Board incentive. The department stands ready for any questions. Thank you.

Okay. We have Anne Horiuchi for the AG's office.

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, Members. Anne Horiuchi from the AG's office. The incentive program is set forth in HRS 302 A dash 706 and the bill amends that statute to, expressly provide that charter school teachers are eligible for the incentive program. But as we noted in our testimony, the DOE is not the employer of charter school teachers. The charter school teachers are employed by their respective charter schools. And so, in our testimony, we've provided some revisions that we think will, be will, allow us to, to, effectuate the bills in apparent intent, and avoid any kind of implementation ambiguity.

I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Let's see. We have May Mitsy Higa.

Hi. Mitzie Higa speaking on behalf of the board of Hawaii Teacher Standards Board. We stand on our testimony and strong support because we do find that charter schools teachers, especially, we wanna incentivize them to become national board certified teachers because we only have six currently at our charter schools, and we have about 300 at our DOE schools. So we wanna incentivize us. So clarifying the language would help, and then we just support all our national board certified teachers as we think it's a great incentive to make to help teachers stay retain them and keep them in the system. Thank you.

Thank you. Wasatui?

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. Sarah Milianta-Laffin on behalf of HSTA. To echo what they've shared, absolutely. Nationally, board certified teachers are the best of our profession. You know, we're talking if you wanna go to a doctor, you wanna board certified doctor in a lot of areas, and so we wanna encourage and grow this program.

It's also important to have that equity because charter schools often those teachers tell us that they don't always get the same thing. So we wanna make sure that we have these programs in place to encourage the next generation of teachers to seek this out. So we ask for your support. Mahalo.

Real quick question. Sorry to call you back. So charter schools can belong to HSTA? Yes. Yes? Okay. And you have a lot of the teachers there? Yes. Thank you. Mhmm. Ed Ngo from Charter Schools Commission. Ed Ngo, not here. Okay. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. She's not here. Okay. And then we have, oh, I don't know, 20 more in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure want to come forward? If not Okay. Questions, members? I know I have questions. I guess DOE.

Oh, yeah. Charter schools. Oh, yeah.

Charter schools. Anybody from charter schools? That is nobody here is from charter schools. Okay. So DOE and might have known. So currently, there's a charter school teachers. If they're certified, they get the they get the 5,000 bonus. Right?

I think that's the the thing in question at this point.

No. This will make it this will put it in law, but I think they get it. Don't they get it? Let's see. Yes. They do. I'm sorry? Board Chair, did you say that? Yes. They get it? Okay. So so it's not like they're not getting, but what this this bill will do, it'll make it clear that they are also eligible to get it, although they're getting it now.

Yes. We gave it to daily teachers 22 years ago because it is clear that out of all the certifications that educated you get people. You know, out of all the credentials that a educator can get, the national board certification is by far the the most effective, more than a master's degrees, for example. Yeah. There's some studies that show if a child has a national board certified teacher for three years, consecutive years, they will actually gain a year in educational progress.

So it's a very low cost investment to make.

So I guess when I went to school, I lost I lost.

But I went to school I went to school before you, so we didn't.

We're in the minus. We're not in the plus.

Okay.

Think that's all the questions. Anybody else have questions? If not, thank you. Okay. Moving right along. House Bill 2344 HD 1. This establishes a temporary independent public school realignment and closure commission to develop and recommend a comprehensive package of school consolidations, realignments, and closures based on the federal based realignment and closure model. Requires an expedited approval process by the governor and legislature. We have DOE. Sean, is that you again?

Nope. It's not. God, I thought I was gonna hit it. I've got two Sean's. I figured Sorry to ruin the Sean.

The Sean show.

The Sean show.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Elizabeth Higashi on behalf of the Department of Education. We just wanted to provide our comments and state that we are currently in a process of following our admin rules in regards to the consolidation of schools, looking at potentially using fall 2026 enrollment data in order to inform what potential schools could be studied and be recommended for potential closure in the upcoming year. One of the things that if this bill were to proceed, we do have some recommendations that we would like to make. One of them being that on the commission, we do feel it's important that somebody from the Department of Education be part of the commission in order to ensure that education and student outcomes remain a priority in those decisions, in addition to reevaluating the timeline. I think one of the things that we were concerned about is that depending on recommendations that come from the commission, it could evolve different timelines in order to ensure smooth transitions, not only of students of older populations, but also ensuring that we address and take care of our personnel as well.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Hawaii State Board of Education.

Once again, good afternoon, Senators. The board's testimonies that we believe that this is an issue that deserves continued discussion, but I would urge the committee, if you're going to send this bill out, to take a deep dive in terms of what's in the bill and what the Basis Realignment and Closures Commission did back in the late eighties. Because apparently, the motivation for this bill is the BRAC. And if you you know this, by the way, that when the BRAC cuts stood up in the mid eighties, the first one met 1988. They met five times of 1988 to 2005 in that seventeen year period.

And during that time, they collectively closed a 154 bases and realigned 207 bases. So it was a very effective commission because, as you know, the rationale, of the commission was it would come up with a list of bases, and Congress had to vote up or down. They couldn't cherry pick bases off of that list. And so it was so effective that the BRAC has not met since 2005. So for the past 21 years, the BRAC has never reconvened because it's gone back to the old way.

The old way is it was done by politics. And so the makeup of this committee, I would again urge your committee to take a look at the makeup. Right now, the BRAC was a nine member commission back in the day, appointed nominated by the president and confirmed by the US Senate. And all the BRAC the five BRAC commissions that were stood up had at least four or five retired generals that their response command responsibility was overseeing facilities when they were in service. This approach conceivably could have eight of the nine members with no educational experience, and I think we all know the whole purpose of this exercise is to see what's in the best interest of students, that a conceptually and in theory, a small school of 80 students may not have the capacity to deliver the kind of the breadth and depth of courses that we believe children should have.

So, you know, it's it's it's not necessarily a business decision, but, primarily, it's a educational decision. So you might wanna take a look at the current language and decide whether or not this is something you want to amend the bill to reflect that, the purpose is for, better educational outcomes.

Thank you. Keith Reagan.

Good afternoon. Gordon Wood or Mister Reagan. You have the department's written testimony offering comments in two areas. The the bill would place this commission within DAGS. And we note that our statutory responsibilities focus on administrative and infrastructure support and don't encompass the educational considerations that are essential to the operations of this commission.

And secondly, we are concerned that the current state of the bill doesn't provide a funding amount. And without funding and other support, if DAGS were to be involved, we would have to divert monies and resources from our statutory responsibilities. I'm available for any questions.

Okay. Thank you. Joy Boesan. In opposition. Leland Brady, comments for Aloha Independent Living, and Susan Pecola Davis, individual in opposition. Anybody else here wishing to testify on this measure? Hearing none, we are in questions. Senator Decor. DOE.

Thanks. Where are you folks at with your school consolidation plan?

I believe that that was supposed to be ready for,

I guess, distributed this year.

So we did Senator, we did do an update to the Board of Education because one of the things that we did in the past year was we did stakeholder engaging with all of our principals and especially looking at what other school districts nationally are doing and how they're handling their consolidation processes. In addition with, we did meet with leaders and principals of previous schools that were consolidated. And so one of the things that we wanted to do was not only get feedback on our approach and our methodology, but in addition to a timeline that would allow us to not only bring in the data, but give opportunity for stakeholder feedback. Because one of the things that we learned in our methodology that it was a very quantitative approach, and one of the things that we received feedback in is that they wanted to see a lot more community engagement and opportunities for not only school stakeholders that once a school was identified, but when the study was done for their voice to be brought in as community members throughout the process. So we did look back at amending our approach, and we reported to the board this past fall.

And we have made the agreement that we would look at enrollment data for this upcoming fall 2026 in order to make the determination on which fall 2026 in order to make the determination on which schools that we would identify to be further studied, looking at initiating studies and studying them looking to make recommendations the following spring.

Okay. So your folks report is gonna be ready by the springtime of this year or fall?

We are looking at identifying the schools to be studied and potentially having the data ready in the fall and having the list and initiating the studies in the spring. So around this time next year, we would be in the study component, looking to hopefully by the end of the school year have the study completed.

Okay. Because this bill, as it's written, it kind of like is, like it's a all or nothing kind of a thing. Right? So it doesn't give the legislature an opportunity to make amendments or anything like that. It's just take it or leave it kind of a thing.

That that's what I think is that this bill is modeled off the brack, which is a little bit different from our approach that the department, we shared with the shared with the board of education that we would like to take. Sorry. I'm I think I might causing confusion, perhaps. No.

No.

It's fine.

No. And and it brings me to my next point because it excludes elected officials, lobbyist, deploy employees of DOE, Board of Education, school facilities are ineligible to serve. So they're all gonna be basically governor appointed.

In as as written right now, this bill.

So who are you expecting to see on this board if it kind of takes out, institutional knowledge of maybe some of these discussions that might be able to be an advantage?

I I think that's a really great question. I think that's one of the reasons in our amendments, we wanted to remove that exclusionary factor of a department employee. In previous committees, we said we thought it was really important for school personnel, especially, K12 administrator to be part of the commission. Because when you talk about programs and you talk about decisions and master scheduling and other things around educational outcomes, we feel that people in those roles have the experience and able to interpret data and provide that feedback. One of the things that when I did stakeholder feedback with principals was there's so many factors that need to come into play into the study.

Principals who attendance, how does that, when you close a school, what does that gonna mean for the community when now families have to drive? And there's so much insight that they know at the school level. And we just felt that's why if you were to proceed with this bill, we would like to see that exclusion be removed.

Yeah. And I think that that's the the concern that I see is who are you expecting to see at this table if you don't have the institutional knowledge and the data and the and the history and that kind of stuff. So that was my question. Thank you, Chair.

So why are we I mean, how different do you think the numbers will look from this year to fall of this coming year? How different do the numbers would look? Because you're looking at enrollment, right, to determine which schools you're gonna look at further. So can't you already have a sense of which schools it might be already based on fall this year and based on the pattern maybe from the year before?

That there are definitely we see the historical trend. I think one thing I do want to just note, and we did see we take on a full official enrollment call at the beginning of each year. One of the things that we did know, and we don't know yet if it's due to economic changes that are happening right now, or, I know there was a lot of changes in some private school scholarships, but from the beginning of official enrollment count to January, we did see an increase in our enrollment and something that we did see that schools are projecting. And it's an increase that is more trending more than we usually see in previous years. And so it's something that we are looking closely at the enrollment, and we felt giving one more year of looking at the official enrollment count would really provide us a better of a historical trend in regards to making that analysis.

And I think one of the other things that we wanted to take into account to I just wanna be transparent on some of the challenges we see is that with a lot of development that's happening in some areas and movement, our enrollment not only is declining, but it's been shifting in patterns that, I think we are analyzing. And we felt one more data point would allow us to give us the for sufficient evidence in order to proceed further.

But isn't that a natural flow? I mean, every year, one more year data is always gonna be better. And, you know, if we have some tragedy that happens this summer, you're gonna tell me in fall, oh, you know what? You know, we had a landslide or we had another fire or we had something, and therefore, you know, we don't know the numbers. The economy is constantly changing.

The federal's constantly changing. So you're never gonna have complete data that you want. So I'm saying that based on what you what you had in the this past fall, the year before to see a trend, and not that you're not gonna look at the numbers in Mhmm. That come in in September or August, but then you can be started already.

You can start and you can almost pick out the 10 schools, if that's the number, or five schools that in that trend. And when the numbers come out in August, then you can say, okay. Yeah. The school maybe no, but this school definitely I mean, come on. You you have a you have an idea, right, based on the current data. No? You don't have no idea.

I think there's definitely schools that are the potential senator, I I agree. There's a you definitely there's trends that you already see. I think one of the things too that we are looking at is we wanted to look at trying to get the number of schools down, the cluster of schools to study down to a low number as possible in order to give due diligence to be doing the studies.

Yeah. But then you have to change change your requirements or change the the data points that you're looking for, not necessarily just waiting for the number. See, the problem I have is they DOE keeps delaying and delaying, and then in the future, we should have sent letters out for the bus companies years ago. We should have been doing this. We don't.

We keep dragging our feet, and we keep waiting for more data, and it just it constantly changes. So some at some point, we gotta bite the bullet, and you gotta make the decisions. You know? It's gonna constantly change. You're not gonna please everybody. There's gonna be people that are upset, and I don't care what kind of deep dive we do. It's it's gotta happen. So you guys gotta pull the trigger. Sooner better than later.

Understood, Senator. And I think one of the things that we definitely like I said, we did our presentation to the board with that updated timeline, and it's something that will make sure we continue to communicate with the stakeholders and keeping the ball moving.

Yeah. Because I believe according to your report, the reason why school consolidation was even on the table is because you folks were looking at the past ten years of enrollment decline. Correct. And so now we're shifting based on one year of an increase where you guys have been looking for the past ten years. Again, kicking the can down the road, we're talking about continual operating budget costs. We're talking about staffing costs. Just to go year by year.

And so yeah. It's a little frustrating.

Understood. I hear you, and it's something that we will continue the momentum on.

So I'm trying to get to the bottom of what is the policy right now? So I'm reading the DOE policy. So it says there's a trigger for consolidation study.

So are any of the schools so I assume so I don't I'm trying to it's murky in my mind of how you're picking these schools on a consolidating. So are you following the DOE policy on which schools that trigger the consolidation study?

We are met our current methodology does follow the existing does follow the triggers. What we did was we also identified when we wrote when we first communicated it, we identified what we wanted to do was bring the number of clusters that we initiate to study down to a smallest number as possible.

But but isn't there a criteria of which ones could trigger a study, though? Correct. Under the word policy?

And I think one of the things one of the things that we wanted to do was not just study schools individually, but we wanna study them in clusters. So I think it's really.

But that's not what the policy says, though.

But it's how we are allowed to it does allow us to study them in clusters. Because one of the things you want.

Is that in the policy that allows you to study in clusters?

The study identifies you, the study allows you to identify schools, but we are allowed to bring in other schools into the cluster because when you close a school, it's gonna have an impact to other schools. So, for example, the last part of that heart is you have to do the comparison of the school and opportunities to its neighboring schools in addition to not allowing additional CIP or additional factors. And so for for enable you to study that, you have to look at it in regards to.

Okay. So how many, how many are you studying at this point? Or how many have triggered the consolidation study?

I can't think of the number off of my head. I have to come back to it.

But you have a definitive number?

There's if you look on previous data, there would be numbers that would be potentially triggered for study.

Okay. So how many years are so when it's hitting the three triggers.

At what point do you know when to do the study? Or is it are you just waiting and being like, okay. Maybe we should do a study and, okay, let's go figure out what school is gonna do a study. Because I was assuming it should be a rolling basis on when the study should be done based on the board policy. Right?

Correct. And I think that's one of the things that we did communicate to the field based upon the heart. It is something that we admit that in the past, it became a thing that we did ten years and then we didn't do again, but we do feel that it needs to be a multiphase, consistent evaluation.

So that's what you're doing now. Are you. Correct. Once once those three triggers are hit, you're doing the study?

Correct. We're gonna be starting to get into this process of whenever we have new enrollment and new projections.

When did that start?

When did that start? We started doing the analysis last year, and then we started rolling out the methodology with the field in regards to how we would take through this approach, and then we're looking to now initiate it with this upcoming fall data.

Okay. So we're only one year into this then? Correct. Okay. So based on that

Because we we should really know what the number is. Right? I think that's really important because we have to assess, are you well on your way of doing this or are we not? Because I think this this bill to me, the the the whole crux of it is I think just it feels like we're not moving. Right?

And I think the, you you hit the nail on the head. The the natural trend is you're moving away from East Oahu probably into West, right, and yet we're keeping all these schools open and we haven't heard had some type of plan in place on how we're gonna deal with this. I think the plan is, oh, we just build more schools and then the operating dollars are you know, it just keeps going up because you're adding more schools. So I think if we don't see under and understand what the timeline and the plan is, and I think then you have bills like this, right, that will then force the issue because I think part of it