Senate Standing Committee on Education

Good afternoon, everyone. Hope you have dried out from the weekend and you're ready to go for this week. Keep our fingers crossed that we have nice weather. We are here in Room 229 for the committee on education jointly with the committee on labor and technology for hearing three measures. Today's Monday, March 23.

It's 1PM. And if we must end this hearing due to technical issues, the committee will reconvene on Wednesday, March 25 at 1PM in this Room, 229, and a public notice will be posted on the Hawaii State Legislature's website. And due to the number of measures before a committee and volume of testifiers, testimonies will be limited to one minute per testifier. And I wanna welcome the Labor Committee. Welcome, Chair.

First item on the agenda. You have the

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate you, incorporating us into your time slot. First item on our agenda is House Bill 1890 House Draft 3 relating to education. First up on our list is Jan Musto.

Musto, I should say. Sorry. It's the Italian part that I

You're right. If you were a devil, you would be Musto. Yes.

It's good to say.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you, Members of the committee. I have to take my minute of personal privilege and say it feels like I'm home again. You have my written testimony.

Let me just say that I keep going around to both House and Senate hearings about

I'm sorry.

If you could speak a little directly into the mic, please. Thank you.

I've been going to House and Senate committees talking about proposals that fund teacher salaries, DOE, all of those good things. Someone asked me at one of the hearing what my personal opinion was. I said, I don't have one. I'm here representing the Governor of the state of Hawaii. But in that capacity, I can tell you Governor Greene absolutely is committed to public education and the teachers of Hawaii and the administrators of Hawaii and everyone.

However, in our wisdom, we created Chapter 89. Chapter 89 was unique in The United States. Thank you,

Mr. Musto. I'm sorry. Your time's up. We do have your written comments.

Yes. Again, in opposition.

Thank you. Ed Noll, State Public Charter School Commission.

IT, is mister Noll online?

Not available on Zoom, chair.

Okay. Thank you. We'll go to attorney general Amanda Donlin or Fiammarago. Fiammarago. Aloha.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chairs Elefante and Kim and Members of the committee. I'm Deputy Attorney General Fiamma Tago providing testimony on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. As written, this bill may create ambiguities related to the source of funding. Our draft language resolves those ambiguities and makes it clear that funding is subject to legislative appropriations. Additionally, this bill now includes a retention bonus for those who worked during the COVID-19 state of Hawaii pandemic period.

Draft language has been suggested, so it does not conflict with Chapter 89 the collective bargaining chapter. If the suggested changes are not adopted, we respectfully ask the committees to hold this bill. I'm available for questions should you have any. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Rabel. Keith Hayashi, superintendent, Dooley, our representative.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chairs and Members of the committee. Sean Bacon speaking on behalf of the department. The department stands on its written testimony, providing comments and we do support the intent of this measure supporting all of our teachers with recruitment and retention. We would just ask that this bill be expanded to incorporate all of the department employees so they can receive the same benefits.

Thank you.

Thank you. Seth Colby, BNF director.

Written testimony in opposition. Opposition. Thank you. Also two way, HSTA.

Hello, Millie.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair Sarah Miliant-Laffin on behalf of HSTA. Thank you for hearing this bill. So teaching during COVID was the hardest thing I've ever done. I've been teaching for 21 years. So that screen that you have on the board, I had some kids online teaching learning computer science.

I had some kids in person. I was managing things back and forth. I was writing lessons. I was putting it together. Teachers worked so hard at that time and deserve to be compensated.

So definitely that retention bonus for those of us who stayed in the classroom were where we want to be. Thanks for honoring our service if you go ahead and support that. In terms of automatic step increases, I just wanna go ahead and draw your attention. We've heard from a lot of your peers that, this language has not been negotiated. I have copies of contracts if you want one with page 66.

We have negotiated this automatic step increase as long as it's funded by your body. So that language is there in case people wanna know. Automatic step are best practice, so it helps the teacher know where you're going in your career. I think it's also important you want mentor teachers like me staying in the classroom and not seeking admin jobs to make more money.

You want us to be able to have a living wage in the classroom to provide for our families and care for the kids in our state.

Okay. Thank you. And in support?

Yes. In support.

Okay. Thank you. Chris Caulfield.

Hello. Committee Chairs, and Vice Chairs and committee Members. I'm Chris Caulfield speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party of Hawaii's Education Caucus, in support of this bill. The party has long believed that higher compensation, adequate compensation, leads to better teacher quality, better teacher retention, recruitment and retention and ultimately better student outcomes.

The Legislature has, including both of your committees have for a long time, tried to create innovative pathways to provide adequate teacher compensation for our state to improve the teacher shortage and help boost outcomes for our students.

So this is another vehicle that's important in making that happen. We hope that you will move it forward. Thank you so much. Okay.

Thank you so much. And then the last person I have registered to testify is Kylie Adama Adamaani in support on Zoom. Hope I got your last name correct. I'm sorry if I mispronounced pronunciated your last name, but please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Elefante and Kim and Members of the committee. My name is Kylie Ademene. I'm an eleventh grader at Kalaheo High School, and I'm in strong support of House Bill 1890. As a public school student in Hawaii who hopes to become an elementary school teacher, this bill is very important to me. Right now, when adjusted for cost of living, Hoye's teachers are among the lowest paid in the nation.

The high cost of living makes it very difficult for teachers to stay here, which also leaves many teachers forced to choose between staying in their home or leaving their passion. We are already seeing the impact. Nearly half the teachers leave within five years. When that happens, student lose stability and consistency in their education. Providing automatic step increases gives teachers predictable growth and a reason to stay.

Research shows that competitive pay and structured salary growth improves teacher retention and strength in schools. This bill is not just about pay. It's about supporting students or supporting teachers and investing in our future. Thank you.

Thank you. In addition to that members, we had 13 folks in support, three in opposition and three comments. Anyone else that wishes to testify on House Bill 1890 House Draft three? Okay. If not, members questions.

Yeah. Jay? It's good to see you, by the way. You haven't changed since I've seen you last. As far as the negotiation, as it was pointed out, didn't haven't these step increase already been negotiated into the contract?

This is true. They are in a current contract. However, contracts are a limited term. They expire. There is nothing in any contract that automatically rolls over without it being negotiated into a successor agreement.

We're about to enter negotiations. I suspect that this item will be on the table and that they would like similar language perhaps in their next contract. But under Chapter 89, there is no such thing as rolling contract language that does not have to be reaffirmed, predicated on the expiration date of the current agreement.

So you're saying that every time we negotiate a contract, like, say, negotiate that the teachers get their vacation upfront has to be renegotiated every year?

It is subject to negotiated The two negotiations every time there's a new contract. The parties would often agree that they would roll the contract language over because we've been doing it since 1971. But that doesn't mean that it automatically happens. That's the difference.

Okay. So in the current contract, these step automatic step increases are in there. Right?

There are step increases in the current contract. And That occurred during the life of the contract. It's a four year agreement. It's four years. If it's two years, two

Right. So but these step increases, have have they been given within this contract?

I assume so. They are part of the language. They should have been. If they weren't, the HSTA, I'm sure, would have filed a grievance.

Okay. Well, we'll ask them on that.

Okay. Members, any questions for the chief negotiator? K. Any other further follow-up questions for any Madam Chair, you had a request? HSTA?

Okay. So, yeah, that can you respond to what was said? Jay Mustosaid.

So we're talking about the automatic step increases. And the the bill specifically says if negotiated into a collective bargaining agreement. So we are aware that the contracts can change from time to time. And in our current contract, the one that's 2023 to 2027, this one in page 66, it does say that the state and the, HST have agreed to automatic step increases subject to funding. This is where the funding needs to come in through the legislature.

That part of the contract has not been moving through so far as far as the automatic steps are concerned. There are negotiations with the state when it comes to, like, salary increases. Maybe it could be across the board increase of, like, say, hypothetically three or 4%. There could be a step increase if it's negotiated, or they could negotiate and change the salary schedule as well. As you can see here, this is what our salary schedule looks like under the current 2026 to 2027 school year.

You can see different classes and different schedules and these are what teachers will make across the board. But what we're looking at really is just automatic step increases. This is something that would help with the retention and recruitment of teachers. And you can also see too, I think it was provided to many of you on the committee, the Department of Education actually committed a study.

And in this study, it did say that automatic step increase is the number one way to, retain and recruit teachers, in Hawaii.

And it's a best practice that's usually done in many other states. And so this is just something too that we're looking at to adopt here in Hawaii. But yes, under this current contract, automatic step increases are in there. Of course it's something that we'll continue to see in future contracts. But the bill also says if negotiated into a contract.

So, just to keep that in mind as well.

Okay. So it's already there. Yes. So then is this bill needed? If it's already there and can be negotiated?

It it is needed. We do feel that this is strongly needed to Okay. Because of the annual step increases are subject to funding and this is important that's in there and codify this as a on the bill. But we we can fund it,

but we haven't funded. Is that correct?

Correct.

And then and then just to point out too, I mean, there are things that the legislature does as well that has done through statutes. We look at national board certification, for example. This is in law where we provide an annual bonus to NBC teachers of either 5,000 or it could be up to 10,000 in like hard to staff areas.

We also see like even like firefighters or rescue workers, I think at the state airport where they get certain like hazard pay compensation that's done through statute as well. So even though we have chapter eight nine and things negotiated, we do things too legislatively as well that give various incentives like a bonus or like a hazard pay or something of that nature where it does occur already.

So what is your comment regarding the DOE's position that if we do this then the legislature should do it for all the member of the bargaining units?

I'm not aware who they're trying to suggest for which other workers. I'd had bought the different bargaining units.

Bargaining units. 1, 2, and 3. 4, 6, 9, 10 and 13.

I can't speak for the other bargaining units. We're the exclusive representative for HSTA. I don't wanna speak for those bargaining units. And we're here advocating for, bargaining and fine members.

Okay. Is there a concern that the department was able to go ahead and give their administrative, some of the increases and the COVID increases.

You're absolutely right. So back about a year ago, December, I believe, 2024, if I'm not mistaken, the department came in and requested hazard pay for all of the exempt or basically like middle management. Those are the workers that work at the Department of Education building across the street. Somewhere around two to 300 workers got the same amount of hazard pay that was negotiated with the HGEA union.

So they got anywhere between ten to twenty thousand dollars also depending on how many days they worked, the hours they worked.

So those workers did get hazard pay where, of course, bargaining of five members did not. And they, by the way, those workers didn't have a contract that says they deserve hazard pay or they have hazard pay in their language. It was something that the board of education authorized for the department when the department requested it for those workers.

And they didn't they didn't request it for any of the other units?

No. Only for the only for the exempt management level positions.

Yet they want this bill to be applied to area. Yes. Thank you.

Yeah, I'll follow-up to that. So currently now I know I believe in the house and finance they included language for teacher retention bonus during basically during COVID. Is that correct?

Correct.

Did was there any temporary hazard pay language in your contract?

Not in our contract.

Okay. So this is an asset you're coming to to the legislative body. Yes. Okay.

But there's precedent. So, again, saying that the DOE would that they gave that to 200 some workers retroactively who hadn't even worked with people in the frontline during during COVID. So our teachers saw that. And, like, Millie, how does that happen when we were with kids every day in the classroom? The teacher that I made lesson plans for, the educational assistant, she got it.

I did all of the same work at the at these scary times and weren't we weren't compensated for it. So teachers feel that this this is a fairness issue as well.

K. Hi, Matt. Go ahead. One final question I have here. So as a follow-up to that, I do appreciate, you know, HSTA for coming up with some creative ways on how to look to fund some of these measures.

But in the current bill, it has it as installments. Yes. Over the next several years, Do you have a dollar amount if we were to pass this, what that would cost per year? So

it this one that currently only applies to active workers that are still working for the Hawaii Department of Education that work during that period of time. The number would probably be in the range of over the course of the four year period, total would probably be in the range of 150 to 200,000,000 if there were the funding of that nature.

So that's why we looked at the, if you recall, we were looking at the the rental car, tax, right, as far as a mechanism to provide funding for the state to provide a revenue generation. And that was a way to raise anywhere between 70 to $80,000,000 annually for the state. One thing that if you notice in this bill is it doesn't start the payments until I think two years in 2028, if I'm not mistaken.

That way that looks at they're trying to look at the state for economic well-being as well. Right? So and it's also done $5,000 installments over four year period. So it's not as big of a price tag in just one year.

K.

Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm here.

I just wanted to say I certainly can identify with what you're saying fairness because we in the legislature or in the Senate, our COVID committee, worked with really long hours, many days, and we didn't get anything. Some of our some of the people that were the staff and now legislators got COVID money. And so yeah. I understand. However, in this time of, austerity that we're going through with everything, you know, a case can certainly be made that you negotiated these step increases.

It's difficult that on the COVID side. So just you understand. Yeah.

I understand. We're coming from. Understand.

And teachers do our homework. So when you asked we came with the revenue generator because we wanted to make sure that we did our homework to see how we could help the state too.

Thank you. Sort of like me. Yeah.

Yes. Absolutely.

You absolutely

did your homework.

Yes. Any any further follow-up questions?

I had to ask

Yeah. Senator Kidani. Clarification,

please. So this bill would allow, that payment to be made only for teachers who are currently teaching

and worked during the COVID period.

Those teachers who have since teaching and worked during the COVID period? Those teachers who

have since retired would not get paid?

Not under this current draft.

I don't see how that's fair, but

Any further follow-up questions? If not, I'll turn it over to you, Chair Kim, for the next items. Thank you.

K. Thank you. K. Let's see where we 1888. K.

House Bill 1888 House Draft 3. This is relating to the safety of educational workers. Requires Department of Education and public charter schools to take certain steps to report incidents of harassment and implement procedures for handling harassment of education workers. Elevates the penalty for harassment of education workers to a misdemeanor. And, let's see here to testify for Department of Education, Keith Hayashi.

Hello, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, Chair Elefante, Vice Chair Lamosao, Members of the committee. Shanta Jima, testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands on our written testimony in support of this measure. This bill helps to protect our educational workers from harassment, especially because it elevates the offense- offense from a petty misdemeanor to a misdemeanor. But we really appreciate the Department of the Attorney General developing a pilot program to assist state employees with the temporary restraining orders.

Given the attorney general's pilot program, the department would like to recommend the following amendment to section 2c number 5.

The page?

I have

it on for me is page four. It's section two C. Okay. Number five. So it reads, assist educational workers who are subjected to harassment.

And they were requesting to amend the next part to remove, including providing assistance in obtaining a temporary restraining order. Then adding the word buy and then continue with the rest, reimbursing the educational worker. The reason why we're requesting that is because the attorney general's pilot will be providing that assistance, you know, helping, helping the employees to obtain a temporary reshaping order, which is more appropriate, than the Department of Education providing legal assistance in obtaining a TRO.

So given that the attorney general's pilot will address that, we feel it's more appropriate appropriate that the language be removed from the bill. So we strongly support this bill to protect our educational workers from harassment.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. We stand by for questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Justifying for the office of public defender, Haley Chang.

Good afternoon Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Members of the committee. My name is Haley Chang. I am the first deputy of the office of the public defender. Our office has submitted testimony in opposition to this bill, and we wanna focus our testimony only on part two, which amends the harassment statute and elevates it to a full misdemeanor. We've outlined in our written testimony the very clear conflict that we see with the language disrupts or interferes.

We believe that it is overly broad, vague, and would not withstand constitutional scrutiny. In addition, we believe it runs into speech protected by the First Amendment, and we've outlined that in more detail in our testimony. We also wanna highlight for these committees that we also believe that there are already statutes in place to address any problematic behavior and that educational workers are already a protected class under our terroristic threatening and assault statutes. So we believe that this measure is unnecessary.

And, again, our biggest concern is that it would not withstand constitution or judicial scrutiny.

So that's all my time. I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Hailey. Edna for charter schools Not here. Osa Tui for HSTA.

Hello, Vice Chair. Sarah Milianta-Laffin on behalf of HSTA. We're excited to see this bill move forward. Obviously, we've seen the news on when it comes to threat threatening educational workers. But, also, this bill has been in the works for quite a few years.

There have been some really powerful advocates kind of advocating for it, and it's something that needs to happen. I need you to understand that after COVID, like, things have changed in education. The way that teachers are approached at student conferences, at academic events, at award ceremonies, I've had parents come up and talk about grade changes in pretty forceful ways.

I'm also the president of the HSCA leeward chapter, so 3,000 teachers on the leeward side, and teachers tell me they've had peep kids and families come up to their cars to argue points from conferences, yet to meet them at their soccer games, that there is an intimidation factor.

And I think we need to address this because a lot of educational workers are women, and there's this belief that women can be menaced or, as a pink collar profession can be talked to in a different kind of way and get a different kind of peace and that we have to stand up for ourselves.

So we're here today hoping that you move this forward so that you can give us an extra layer of protection. Thank you.

Look at the women in this body. I don't think it could be, I mean, I like

your Gottlieb. You got it.

Talking about us. Okay. Susan Rocco for Special Education Advisory Council.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair. I'm here representing the Special Education Advisory Council.

Can you speak up a little bit more, please?

Surely. Can you is this better?

Better. Yes.

I'm here representing CEAC as we call it and your committee four years ago helped us kill certain language in this bill. It's the bill that was referred to by the Office of the Public Defender which includes disrupting and interfering with a school function. We don't believe that's menacing. We don't think it's warranting a severe penalty. It also intimidates parents who have children with IEPs who are entitled by IDEA to speak up for their children.

So we hope that you will take out these two amendments that we find very troublesome. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let's see. We have, Lassmin Shane. Did I say that correctly? Sorry if I

Don't even worry about it.

Yasmin Cheney for the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. It's Spanish like tortilla with Hawaii. Yeah. See? I do.

Okay. So I am here standing on my written testimony in support of this measure and thank the committee for your consideration and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Linda Elento on Zoom?

Not available on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Annalee Rodrigues on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom.

Okay. In support. Inger Stonehill on Zoom in support. K. There we have it.

Hi. Okay. Sorry. Hi. Inger Stonehill.

I stand on my written testimony and in support, and I just like to say a few other little things, and I I know keep it under a minute. So I just wanna say and listening to everybody, I kinda Wanna Cry, but here we go. Harassment in our schools is too it it's too minimized and handled inconsistently. People are getting hurt as we have seen. So how many more educators have to carry that fear?

How many more have to suffer in silence wondering if if anyone will listen? And I'm here to say that has happened to me and I'm still suffering. So it leads to a lot of stress, burnout, people leaving the profession because of this. So I just feel this bill and I've been trying to get you know, I've been working on this working on this for the past couple years to get it through.

So we all are accountable and it does help bed parents to be able to talk.

So everybody's on the same page. So I just urge you to support this so we don't have to feel alone. And I am happy that the DOE or the Attorney General is offering this pilot program that will help. But we need to have something more in place so that we're all on the same page. So that we all can be accountable.

So thank you for listening to me and, yeah. I think that's under a minute. Thank you.

Thank you

so much. Let's see. I have several others in support, several opposing. Let's see. 16 opposing, 20 in support.

With that, anyone else wishing to testify? I'm sorry. I missed somebody that's on Zoom.

Hi. Lindsay Chambers on Zoom.

Okay. Okay, Lindsay. Thank you. Go ahead.

Chair Kim, Chair Elefante, Vice Chairs, and Members of the committee. I stand on my written testimony in strong support of HB 1888. It is clear that employers, particularly government agencies, must do more in must do more in light of the growing number of attacks targeting public employees. This reality is reflected in the judiciary bills introduced this session, which would allow public employers to seek TROs in cases of employment related harassment.

One parent who harassed educational workers for years resumed targeting me on social media after the three year court issued injunction expired.

The conduct is ongoing, intentional, and shows the terrifying stalking behavior of these perpetrators. Parent and education educational worker partnerships are essential. As a parent, I understand that completely. However, strong partnerships must be grounded in safety. No child should witness an educator being threatened or harassed, yet teachers have experienced that in person and online.

Educator safety is student safety. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify? Please come on up. Identify yourself.

Good afternoon, chairs and vice chairs of the committees. My name is Michelle Pestelmaga. I am I am testifying in strong opposition of HB 1888 House Draft 3 based on our firsthand experience in Hawaii Department of Education's educational workers as defined in the bill. Our daughter, Anya, was born with unique genetic anomaly in cleft lip and cleft palate. She's a former special education student at Hailean Elementary School from 02/2019.

From August 2019 through today, she's been homeschooled. She refuses to return back to a regular school. In fear of what has happened to her. The trauma that she experienced was not just from students bullying her. It was also from the administrators.

Seven years out of the school environment, she still needs the lights on at night to sleep and still has nightmares about what happened to her at school. In 2017, 2018 school year, Anya was put into a secluded classroom, door closed, and lights turned off. It was called the Unicorn Learning Center. When the school based behavior health representative assigned to Anya learned of this room, she informed them to sped teacher that this would be considered a seclusion room, and it was to be discontinued.

The room is still used on 12/20/2017 halfway into the school year.

How many times she was put in that room? We don't know. 02/2019, Anya was restrained school year. Anya was restrained on three separate occasions. All three restraints took place in a one month period, two within days.

During one of the restraints, the vice principal provoked and scared Anya to where she climbed a tree to flee to a safe place. The DOE team then pressured us to sign documentation to continue to allow the staff to restrain on it even after we raised significant concerns about the adverse effects of restraints, and we vehemently disagreed with this approach. 02/2019 on another occasion stuff kept on you after the bell inside a classroom with a closed door for twenty minutes with no explanation to me while I was instructed to wait outside. These are just a few examples of what our family endured while sending on you to public school.

Our family support safety for all persons in schools to include staff, students and parents. Everyone Four years ago, a similar bill was going through legislature, and I sat up here and I gave you the same information.

Excuse me. I'm sorry. DOE representatives during that hearing provided testimony in the House Judiciary Committee on 02/24/2022 that specifically stated the following about parents of special education students. Not only do they harass, but they also interfere with the operations of the school. This testimony specifically targeted special education parents and is extremely concerning.

Can you summarize, please? Can you summarize?

Yeah. So it's okay. My name is Jason Maga.

I am father of I am Maga and Michelle's husband. As parents of former former special education student, that had to endure IEP meetings where we had to actually physically record the meetings because the ineptness of the folks that were in those meetings and the knowledge that they had was just they had no knowledge of special education. So we had to forcefully go to those IEP meetings. We had to forcefully and aggressively, advocate for our daughter.

We actually had to go get our own independent evaluator, our own sorry.

I'm Independent education evaluator. Cost about $3,000. We had to text with the, the the teachers, the DOE teachers, the special education teachers. So in that case, I just fear that a law like this is gonna make what we did for our daughter seem like harassment or aggressiveness towards the department employees. And we had to do that to advocate for our daughter who deserves these services under IEDA.

So I am very concerned that a department system is gonna over supersede an individual right, and that is a serious problem. There are already laws in place, as the public defender said, that can take care of this. And this is just, I think, a step in the wrong direction to make it more difficult for a lot of different individuals versus an apartment that can take this and and somehow address the issue in other ways. Thank you for the time and

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm sorry for what's happened to your daughter. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Hearing hearing none, we are open to questions. Okay. Is Adria here?

Attorney general's office? Understand. Did you wanna ask anything for me? I just wondered if they

had an opinion on this.

I can follow-up the department and get back to you on on that.

Please. Thank you. Thank you.

As a follow-up that to the AG. Sorry. I know you're not the representative for that. But there were some comments made by the Department of Education. If there are two bills that are moving to do a pilot program regarding TROs on employees, if you could follow-up and find out if that would cover what's being proposed here in this bill.

Sure. Thank you.

Can we have the public defender, please? Thank you. I know that it's a balance that we're trying to seek, and I realize that there are bills and laws on the books, But if the laws aren't are working or aren't working, I mean, how do you what what do you say to that? Because the incident that happened at Moanalua High School, you know, and others have prompted measures like this. Perhaps the measures that we're looking at doesn't safeguard for situations that's been raised.

So can you can you address that?

Sure And thank you for the question. You know what we've been hearing as these bills have been making its way through this session is that the Department of Education and other concerned individuals are primarily focused on what is considered this egregious behavior. You know, the truth threatening, very, you know, aggressive behavior, yelling inappropriately. We believe if there's an enforcement issue either with law enforcement or the prosecuting agencies, that's a different issue.

There are already laws under the existing harassment statute without this additional language as well as the other terroristic threatening and assault statutes that already specially protect educational workers that are already in place.

Our main concern is and and that's what we maybe need to shift the focus to is why these things, if they're reported to law enforcement, are not being either taken seriously or not pursued by the prosecuting agencies. Additionally, that disrupts or interferes. You know, just from a pure legal perspective, this is not meant to in any way discount the feelings of the educational workers or the need to address some problematic behavior. But is interrupting a teacher during a meeting a disruption?

Under the plain language of the statute, it would be.

If you are, you know, passionately engaging at a board meeting, is that a disruption or interfering? If you as you've heard from these parents, showing up at the school without an appointment to advocate for your child, is that an interference with school activities, which according to the plain language of the statute, it would be?

So that really is our main concern and then also highlighting for people who believe that there's nothing already in place to assist or protect educational workers, highlighting and providing information to people that there there are. And they are seen as a protected class above and beyond a lot of other individuals. And so, for example, under terroristic threatening, what's a misdemeanor?

Normally, is a felony for educational workers. Under assault, a misdemeanor conduct assault is already a felony for educational workers. So we are very appreciative and understand the knee jerk reaction to want to bring more attention and respond to some of the things that are going on. But that does not in any way, shape, or form take away from the fact that this measure as written would not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

We are we feel very confident about that, and just educating the community and even perhaps the department and as well as, other people who are concerned about this that we already have criminal measures on the books that are targeted to specially protect our educational workers.

Are you familiar with Senate bill 2900 that talked about the sports officials as well as educational workers limited to bodily injury and stuff like that. Are you familiar with that, Bill?

I am familiar, and what I recollect about that measure is it sought to escalate what would normally be misdemeanor assault three level conduct, which is defined as assaultive behavior causing bodily injury. Under the law, bodily injury is just physical pain. So for example, if you pulled someone's hair without leaving a mark, a bruise, anything, that would normally be assault three conduct because our legislature has, you know, has a spectrum of crimes that we do and with increasing behavior.

What I believe that measure, if I remember correctly, wanted to do was take that conduct, and if it was committed against a sporting official, was make it a class b felony in assault in the first degree. And we oppose that for similar reasons here and also noting that, again, sports officials are already a protected class.

But the bill itself does, does not have some of the issues that are is in this bill.

It did not include, the disrupts or interferes because it was truly, I believe, from my recollection, addressing physical contact bodily injury type of behavior. Yes.

So it's a little more narrow a little more narrow than this measure. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Members, any questions?

I got a question.

Senator Fevella.

So just I like some clarification. So I'm a special education student. I have emotionally handicapped or I have some kind of situation. And then school is known, notified principal, teachers, and and I have an outbreak in a sense, you know, being restrained. Of course, they're usually the teacher or their shadow helps to restrain.

Now the student knocks the teacher down, teacher get hurt. That student can get charged with a felony I mean, not a felony, but immediately, does it cover this child for being disciplined for the actions that happens on campus under the special education?

There is no delineation under this measure for special education students or students who are non special education. Yeah. I think what you've described in terms of the criminal statute Yeah. Or any applicable laws that may be broken would go into the intent behind the behavior Right. And the conduct.

So it's a I'm I'm not trying to be evasive. It's just a little bit of a complex fact pattern. But but this bill doesn't delineate any difference between any type of student no matter what their designation would be.

The reason why is that at one time, we had no no child left behind. Right? And some of these kids are put in education system because they need to be educated.

But knowing that they would be in a predicament that they might act up to a certain point and then be criminalized or even justifies in in imprisonment, That's why I have a hard time with this bill, because coming from a special education background as a special learning disability, I had times that I'll get frustrated because I cannot read and write well when I was younger, not when I got older. And, my peers used to do way better than me.

And I used to get frustrated and act out a lot in class, verbally, and throwing things and everything. And I think to myself, wow. If I was this bill passed, I probably would have got in trouble back then.

Yes. And to your point, Senator, the verbal disruption, whether it's due to a, you know, a learning issue or a special needs issue, whatever it may be. If there was a disruption in the classroom, this the plain language of the bill as proposed would technically be harassment. That is our concern as well. Yes.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, chair. Thank you.

I think part of the issue as well is when we turned our schools into places where now they have to be experts in mental health issues and other kinds of issues that they weren't trained to do. They're really not trained to handle it, and that doesn't excuse the behavior, and it doesn't make any of that right. And certainly, the responsibility rests with DOE to either make sure they're trained or we we have to change the laws or something because that is happening more and more.

So but thank you. Thank you.

Chair, there's one follow-up. So back in the when I when I was going to school back in the day, the principal played a pretty good role in the sense of articulating on what's on his parent goes where, and we I I guess they had a lot of responsibility. And back in that day, we had so this day, I think we still get chapter 19. Yeah.

Regardless of the fact of especially education, a lot of the students do have to follow within chapter 19 or getting, you know, expelled.

So there is consequences within the DOE. It's just that it doesn't go to this extent. So I just wanted to make sure that, you know, my colleagues and a lot of people understand that there is measures in place Yes. For the protection of our DOE and our employees on campus because, it's already it's it's there.

Yes. And there's protections that are not afforded to the general public, who are not designated as a protected class above and beyond what normal citizens would would receive already. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions? Hearing no other questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

K. Let's move on to the last item on this joint hearing agenda is relating to artificial intelligence. House Bill 1676 House Draft 1, establishes an artificial intelligence in education task force to develop guidelines and recommendations for the use of artificial intelligence in state public education. Now I'm testifying. Keith Ayashi for the Department of Education.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Winston Sakurai representing the departments. We stand in support and want to share that we believe artificial intelligence is important to help guide, provide guidance to support our students and educators. And And we've been working on this, for the past four years, with a work group within the department and also working as recently as, last week with the University of Hawaii, on artificial intelligence. But thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Steven Schatz.

Excuse me. Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chair, Member of the committee. Steven Schatz, on behalf of Deborah Halbert, vice president at the University of Hawaii system, we stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. I hope that you answer any questions if there are any.

Thank you, Steven. Ed, no? Not present. Let's see. Who else?

Hawaii State Youth Commission, justifying on Zoom. Not here.

Not available on Zoom, Chair.

I'm sorry? Not there. Chris Caulfield with Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus. He was here earlier. Chris are you there?

Okay. If not, let's see. We had 10. 10 testimonies in support. None opposing, Members. We're open for questions.

I have a question, I guess. DOE? So you said you've been working on this for four years. Why do you need this measure?

One of the things that , the measure provides is the opportunity to partner with more entities. We we are in support because we know that is important, but we will continue our work if we need to because it is also important for our students.

So Well, can't you reach out to these entities? I mean, you got the University of YRDP 20. I mean, do you I mean, it just bothers me every time we need a law when you can do it, or if you're already doing it, why why you gotta wait for a law to create a working group?

We appreciate that. And, yes, we we, have been doing that, even, international partners and national partners as well. There is, appropriation in there, which we understand in these, stereotype steps.

Up and get it.

So so but we will continue to work, because it is important for our students, so we could do that.

Who what partners are you working with?

We've worked with the University of Hawaii. We've also worked with, some of the, members of, ISTE, International Society of Technology and, Education, National Association of Secondary School Principals, and then there's a couple work groups, with Canada and The United States as well.

Okay. Because according to this, we're talking about representatives from University of Hawaii, Department of Education, teacher and employee unions, charter school independent school representative, state chief information officer, and possibly native Hawaiian education specialist. So is this people that you've been all working with already?

In in different forms. We've worked with, some of the private schools, recently. We've, provided, some training.

Can you formalize that into a working group without this measure?

That is possible. Yes.

Okay. So we're authorizing you right now to

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

To put this group together so we don't need to make more paper and have more bills. Thank you.

You're good with that?

Yep. Thank you.

And you're gonna come back and report to us, right, next year?

We will definitely share all the good things that are happening in our schools.

We'll try. We're gonna hold you to that.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay. Hearing none, I think that's the end of our joint bills, decision making, and recess. Recess.

Thank you.

Okay. Recess.

Call back to order the joint committee on education and labor. We are in decision making, chair for labor for the first item.

Okay. Members, first item is House Bill 1890 House Draft 3. Chairs having conferred recommendation here is we're gonna pass with amendments. We're gonna add language to include the annual salary step increases for public charter school teachers members. We had this in our companion Senate Draft bill. So thank you for the testimony from Mr.

Null. We're also gonna accept and adopt the AG's proposed amendments in their testimony. Further, we're also in addition to that, we're going to strike language as it relates to teacher retention bonuses.

And Members that's because as from one of the line of questioning, while we appreciate all the teachers and staff has done in BU five and all that being that it wasn't in their collective bargaining agreements and that contract and the annual step increases is, we are gonna strike that language and that language came over from the house. And then further, we're gonna change the effective date to 07/01/2077.

Any further discussion, questions, comments, or concerns? If not for the committee on labor and technology, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote to pass with amendments Chair votes Aye.

Okay. Members voting on HB 1890 HDQ. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice chair also votes aye. Senator Ihara is excused. Senator Moriwaki is also excused. Senator Fevella? She has her phone. Okay. Yeah. Sharon. Yes. Oh, Sharon. Oh, Sharon. Oh, Sharon is. Okay. She's hiding. Alright. Your affiliation is adopted. K.

Thank you.

Same recommendation for the committee on education to pass with an SD1, noting the explanation by the labor chair, and also to note that, you know, we're very supportive of our teachers and certainly have to make some hard decisions. And hopefully this measure will do that for all the current teachers and into the future. So with that members, any discussion? Yes. Okay.

The Chair votes Aye on SD 1.

Chair Kim votes Aye on House Bill 1893.

The chair votes aye. Senator Kanaga excused. Senator Hashimoto? Aye. Measure is adopted, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Let's see. We are on House Bill 1888 House Draft 3. This is the relating to the safety of education workers. After conferring Members, the recommendation is to amend this measure to delete out of references to disruptions on page 11, item g, lines nine to, 11, and anywhere else in the measure that that might appear that be stricken from the measure.

Also amending this to add in, Senate Bill 2900, definition of sports official, also include language from 2,900 that makes intentional body injury of an education worker or sports official engage in lawful discharge of an education worker or sports official duties a class b felony and include clarifying language that authorizes the attorney general to assist education workers or sports officials who've been subject to harassment or intentional bodily injury. So with these measures and any technical amendments that may need to be put in. Members, any discussion?

Do you have?

Yeah. Just Yes. Yes? So when

I look at, educational worker It seems a little broad to include administrators because what we're talking about are people who are actually in direct contact with the with the student or the parent. So I would take out administrator and just at least leave the counselor, the teacher, the sports official, you know, people who are actually in.

Yes. I understand. But you don't think that it elevates to administrator at some point? They're not as an educational worker.

I would say direct contact. I see. So

I don't have a problem with that. We could also have it done as it moves on or prefer it taken out here. I would just take out the administrator. The word administrator from educational workers, checking in right here.

Do you have any issues on that? Line 17.

Line 17, page 11.

Same page.

Okay. Just any administrator.

Okay. Any administrator. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. That's fine.

And then I just wanna get clarification. Is this gonna be have anything to make sure that we have the protection of the especially education program or the special education students that's, within this bill. Because if you guys know anything about, emotional handicap classes, they do outburst. They do yell. They do scream in class.

And then, I just don't want this to

That's why we're taking out the words disruption. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Raffens in there, and I don't see that the students will be harassing.

Yeah. But we did take out the disruption. And, you know, it is gonna move forward to ways and means, and we can make more amendments as needed. And then probably gotta go to conference at that. So that education committee members, there are no discussion.

Chair votes Aye for SD2 on House Bill 1888.

[Roll Call] Measures adopted, Madam Chair.

Okay. For the committee on labor and technology, same recommendation on House bill 1888 House draft three, to pass with amendments. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote, Chair votes Aye.

Okay. For HB 1888 HD 3 recommendation of the Chairs passed with amendments. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no?

Reservations.

Reservations for Senator Fevella. All other Members vote Aye. Your recommendation is adopted. Sorry. Also noting the excused absence of Senator Ihara.

Thank you, Senator Lamosao.

Okay. And for the last item on the agenda, 16 hospital 1676 house draft 21 take into consideration the discussion that we've had with the Department of Education, that they are gonna continue to work on this. We do not need a measure to have a working group, and I urge them to do so during the interim and be ready next year if we need a measure. So with that, we'll adjourn the joint session. Thank you.

Call back to order the committee on education. We have several more measures. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 measures on this agenda. And following this agenda, we also have decision making left over from last week Wednesday. So with that, we're going to get started.

This is committee on education. Today's Monday, March 23. We are on agenda one fifth 1:11PM agenda, starting with House Bill 1970 House draft two, relating to the University of Hawaii Cancer Center, this appropriate funds for the University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Hawaii Tumor Registry, and we have testifying. That Brenda Hernandez for the University of Hawaii. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the committee.

We stand on our written committee testimony, but I would also like to highlight some key contributions of the Hawaii Tumor Registry to really illustrate its importance for public health and medical research in Hawaii. The Hawaii Tumor Registry over the years has worked closely with the Department of Health on different products, including the Hawaii Cancer Plan. We have worked closely with the DOH to investigate suspected cancer clusters in areas such as Kunia, Kauai, Hawaii Island, as well as among firefighters and the children of firefighters.

Some important cancer trends that have been identified in recent years include the increasing rates of colorectal cancer among young adults in Hawaii, both males and females, increasing rates of prostate cancer among men of all ages, increasing rates of endometrial cancer deaths among women in Hawaii. And we are the only registry nationally to report cancer incidence, mortality and survival, specifically among native Hawaiians, Japanese, Chinese and Filipinos individually.

This is very critical to identifying cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment strategies. So some of the key research findings of studies that have come out of the Hawaii Tumor Registry supported by, the Hawaii Tumor Registry with specific investigator to include a recent study looking at native Hawaiians and the risk of lung cancer and found that per cigarette smoked, native Hawaiians have a higher risk of lung cancer and Japanese Americans a lower risk, even accounting for the same amount of cigarette smoke compared to whites.

Distinct molecular features of lung tumors of native Hawaiians have been identified that suggest they have a higher mutational burden and suggest that they may be more amenable to certain therapies, including immunotherapy. There've also been, studies looking at the breast cancer risk among specifically Japanese and Hawaiians who have the highest rates of breast cancer in Hawaii, and we specifically found that this may be due to greater accumulation of intra abdominal fat, so fat that's in the abdomen, compared to total body fat.

And this may explain some of the higher rates in these groups.

Can you summarize, please?

Sure So I just wanted to highlight these points to really illustrate why it's critical to support the Hawaii tumor registry for the public health benefit. Of our state. Thank you. Thank you.

Paula Dionne for John Lewin, Jack Lewin, or Jack yourself? Yeah.

Thank you, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, Members. Jack Lewin, administrator of SHPDA. We strongly support this measure. We think that we need this cancer registry and tumor registry. We think the funding requests are fair, and we strongly support it.

Okay. Thank you. Cynthia Au, American Cancer Society.

Chair, Vice Chair, and committee Members. Thank you so much, Cynthia Au, on behalf of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network in strong support of the measure. The Hawaii Tumor Registry is a backbone of cancer surveillance in our islands. 94 hundred people are gonna hear the words, you have cancer this year.

And to effectively prevent, detect, and improve outcomes for cancer, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers need to know the data, that is reflected in from the camp, from the two tumor registry, which will help to monitor trends, see clusters, guide prevention strategies, and respond to emergence emerging issues.

March is colorectal cancer awareness month. Registry data has shown in Hawaii that, that more and more people and younger people are getting colorectal cancer, incidence and diagnoses, and this is also reflected in the national data too. Colorectal cancer is a second leading cause of cancer deaths in the nation, as well as in Hawaii. Tumor registry data is also important in helping to secure federal funding for cancer research purposes and, preventions and treatments. Thank you.

Thank you. Yohpang Ding. Might have said that wrong.

Not available on Zoom, Chair.

Not available. Okay We have 28 in support and one with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Hearing none, members were open to questions. I guess the University of Hawaii.

So how long has this registry been?

It's been in place since 1973 as part of the National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Program. We're actually one of nine founding registries of the program. So we have a great deal of experience, and have been very, very important in bringing on the front lines of public health.

And since then, the funding has come from the feds?

Yes. With the exception of, approximately about five or six years where we received $40,000 from the Department of Health, specifically to help to support the, vital statistics, information that we do receive from them. And so that was actually considered a state contribution, but that was, no, that was only available for those, those number of years. Other than that, it has been fully funded through the federal government.

But there is a contribution that is required on the by the institution of 20% as part of this federal contract.

And that has been provided, with the exception of that $40,000 for those years by the Cancer Center directly. And I would like to also point out that, cancer reporting, so what we do is required by Hawaii state statute. So we're really performing a public health function. And so we do believe that it is entirely appropriate to receive, you know, state funding.

And in fact, many registries across the nation are either receive a significant amount of funding or, a large amount of, you know, funding or, at least in kind contributions through other mechanisms.

But we certainly have supported that through the cigarette tax and so forth. So the cancer center has a percentage of all of that that goes to the cancer center. In addition, I believe the governor has given $5,000,000 for the last couple years to the cancer center as well. So how much has the feds been actually contributing all these years,

Yodie? So it's, it's been about about $1,200,000 in direct funding. But that and the reason that, this was introduced is because we are facing significant cuts to the Hawaii Tumor Registry, specifically from the NCICR program, as a result of, decreases in funding at the NIH overall.

How much are they cutting?

So it has been estimated that upwards of a third of our funding may be cut, and that, is still something that has been has been has to be worked out yet, but we have been forewarned to prepare for, substantial cuts in federal funding. And that has, you know, been something that So

you folks are asking in this bill $1,500,000? Is that what you're folks asking in this bill? Yes. But your direct funding was 1,200,000.0 from the feds, and you're saying that up to one third is being cut or more?

So that was to also include the, state contribution. So what we are the 20%, mandatory, contribution of the institution.

Yeah, but with the money being cut, that contribution amount goes down. Right?

Right. Well, we do receive other so in order because we have not received direct support from the state, we've actually had to be very creative in the way we count, institutional I'm sorry, indirect, support. So what we've done, for example, is to include Department of Health. So we get our vital statistics records to be able to ascertain cancer deaths in the state.

So we know which patients succumb to cancer, and, specifically, and that we've been using, assigning a dollar amount to each death certificate record, so that we can actually, make that 20%, required contribution.

So that's, you know, just the one example of the way because we haven't gotten dollars support, we've had to really, justify having, support from the state.

How many people on your registry?

So we have currently 14 people in the registry, and they, we have a cadre of cancer registrars who are nationally certified registrars who are specifically trained to be able to work with cancer data. And they work we work with each of the hospitals and medical facility all medical facilities across the state that are involved in the diagnosis, and treatment of cancer.

Okay. So you have had this this registry since 1973, and currently, the registry has only 14 people on the registry? Yes. And it takes upwards of 1,500,000 to manage this registry? Most of our

most of the, direct funding budget is to personnel support. We also are

When you say personnel, you mean the cancer center personnel?

Right. Right. So I am the principal investigator for the Hawaii Tumor Registry. And so part of my support is with the Hawaii Tumor Registry, but the I have staff that are fully funded through the registry that are entirely dedicated to, work on the at the Hawaii Tumor Registry.

But when we did the cancer center and when we appropriated tax tobacco tax dollars, and, yes, those dollars are dwindling, but the money still goes there. And when we appropriate funds that the governor appropriates to the cancer center, that's to take care of personnel, and that this registry probably is part of the overall cancer center, expectations. And so the fact that you folks have sought federal funding all these years is understandably, but these these are things that is what those funding go for.

Now I know that the cancer center has embarked on other things over and above what was envisioned in the beginning, and I've questioned them time and time again on how you're gonna pay for those. And so now you're telling me that an integral part of the of the cancer center, this registry, needs funding, and yet they're using the monies that should have been going for this for other other possible programs.

So I really think that we need to really look at exactly what, in fact, the cancer center's program is and what they're doing, because we can no longer count on federal funding. And we're at a time in our budget when everybody is getting cut by the feds, and everybody wants us, the state, to replenish that amount. And it's not going to happen because there's just not enough funding to go around. So may I respond? Yes, of course.

So my understanding, with the cigarette tax is that there's a new stipulation that it could only be used for facilities or for

For the

Non personnel.

For the debt service.

For the debt service.

So that would now that takes away any support that does that the cancer center can provide to the registry or any other program.

Yes

Well, the reason for that is they were using up all of the funds and not putting anything in reserve when we had monies to put in reserve to pay for the debt service. And so we had to do that. Otherwise, the cancer center would have gone bankrupt. So now that that's happening, we're looking at the cancer center.

We'll look at all of their their projects and what they're embarking on and that the university believes in that, then they have a $243,000,000 surplus in their fees and the student tuition and fees, which in fact they have been giving money, from what I understand, to the cancer center as well.

So I think the cancer center really has to look at its mission and what exactly they're spending some of the funding for.

I mean, I think the, the governor's allocation, I believe, is specifically to largely support the preclinical center that is being opened at the cancer center. So that will go for that that clinical program.

Well, that's the concern we've had, whether or not this cancer center and this community can support that early clinical trials, and we've discussed that time and time again. And they keep saying that it's gonna make money and it's gonna be able to, you know, provide for a lot of this, and it's not.

So that's a concern that we're you're taking monies that should be for the current program, making sure we have enough money to support, like, this tumor registry instead of embarking on new areas that really cannot be sustained at this point with the income that is coming into the cancer center. And we don't want to see the demise of the cancer center.

Thank you. And I'd like to also correct myself that, the monies that we're asking for is not going to only go towards personnel. But one of the things that also happened within the last two and a half years was that the SEER program discontinued its arrangement with a program called a private company that provided electronic path reporting to SEER registries.

So as a result, in our state, since for the last fifteen years, we have provided to each pathology, each hospital pathology lab the software to be able to generate electronic path reports that can then facilitate their reporting to the cancer center. And that was adopted by all facilities here in the state.

And that was discontinued two and a half years ago. And as a result, we've been scrambling to try to figure out how we can work with each different hospital, with each with a different electronic reporting system, to be able to, maintain that capture of electronic information because the path report is one of the pieces that is so critical. So a person is typically diagnosed with cancer to get a biopsy and to tell whether or not they have cancer or not.

So that is the first indication that the Hawaii Tumor Registry gets that there is a cancer case. And so that, because that was discontinued, we've had to now work with every single facility around the state.

We do not have a replacement. We do not have funds to replace that software. So within the bill, we've actually asked to be able to have some funding to be able to, establish either that software or a different type of software to be able to facilitate the electronic reporting of path, path reports to the Hawaii Tumor Registry.

Who who's who, stopped that?

The NCICR program did not renew their arrangement with the, the company. A company is called Inspirata, and the product that they, produce is a pathology reporting software system that's widely adopted throughout the nation. And when it first became adopted, we made it we were one of the first registries to implement it, make it widely available to all state, all Hawaii labs, and so that they could facilitate reporting to us.

So this has been a huge blow to us because we have not been able to

So why haven't you folks used the money from the cancer center instead of embarking on early clinical trials?

Well I mean,

if this again, it's the priorities. Right? And so we're hoping that the cancer center will look at the priorities and fund whatever if this is so essential to the work of the cancer center, then I would imagine that this would be one of the top priorities.

Alright. Well, I mean, I think they're trying to really tackle multiple, you know, avenues in terms of what's needed from everything from cancer surveillance to Understand. To, you know, research prevention.

But everybody has to prioritize because the budget is only so there's only so much. Right? And as you lose federal funding, then you have to look at how we're prioritizing, the commissions. And I think the cancer center for too long have just relied upon using up all of the funding that have come in without regards to how they're gonna pay the debt service and how they're gonna pay for a number of things. And they've made the decision to cut that, and and certainly we didn't.

But, again, it's gotta be based on priorities and not just every time something goes back, we're gonna go seek the from the legislature to fund it. Members, any other questions? If not, thank you. Okay. Moving on to House Bill 1896 House Draft one, relating to community schools, appropriate funds to the Department of Education to support community schools.

Keith Hayashi for Department of Education.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Elizabeth Hitachi on behalf of the department. We stand on our written testimony, providing comments saying that we support the intent of this bill regarding community schools, provided the passage does not adversely impact priorities established in our board of education budget. We'll be on hold for any questions you may have. Thank you.

K. Thank you. Nathan Murata, comments. Jennifer Masutani for After School Alliance.

Chris Caulfield. Not here. Madeline McKinnon on Zoom.

Not on Zoom chair.

Okay. Lauren Lauren Killier Killier. I'm sorry. Tyler. Pilar.

Got it. On the third try.

Cheryl Famula Cardno. I must have said that wrong. Cheryl, are you on Zoom? Yes. Hello, Cheryl.

Sorry if I misspelled mispronounced your name.

Thank you.

See.

Number of written testimonies and support. That is all that signed up to in person or on Zoom. Let's see. 37 in support for comments. Zero opposition.

Anyone else wishing, please?

I look

You say they're always so fast. I'm like I guess the minute it's counting.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Okay. Hearing none. We are open to questions.

Members any questions questions, Senator Descartes.

Thanks. Are there appropriations from this bill also used to hire the community school coordinator?

So my apologies. I'm unsure regarding that, but my assumption would be that the appropriations would be used for the schools in order for them to hire the community school coordinators within this other schools, if that if that's what you're asking.

Yeah. So the funds are so the funds it's a contract with the schools then, and then the school hires the coordinator.

Correct. So we do have a vendor list of approved community organizations that are authorized to provide community schools model, And so schools would be able to use that list in order to, have their contracts with those community organizations to have the community school coordinator on their campus.

So it's private organizations like nonprofits?

Nonprofits. So

not directly to the school, but primarily through the private organizations like nonprofits. That money is given to them, and then they therefore go ahead and hire the school communities coordinator.

That they assign to the school.

You're not No. That's

that no. That that that is correct.

I just yes.

So it is a so it is a contract between the DOE, the department, and the nonprofit organizations? Correct. Okay. So how much oversight does the department have when these positions are being hired as example? Well, I'll let you answer.

I I think it depends on the the corporation, but the existing community school coordinators that I'm aware of, the school has worked with a nonprofit, in conjunction with our partnership with Hawaii After School Alliance and And a person is selected, and then a person is assigned to the school to assist the school with whatever they need.

So if in the event that community schools coordinator maybe feels like they're being treated unfairly or maybe need to file a grievance, Does the department have any kind of oversight on that since it's DOE funds?

If the the because the the employee is hired by the nonprofit, the nonprofit works through those situations.

Okay. So the department does not get involved if there is

Correct.

Been harassment, grievances,

those kinds of things.

Depends on the unique situation and and what occurred.

Yeah. What what would you consider to be a unique situation?

I I I I I I don't know how to broadly answer that question.

Oh, okay. I I I

had only asked because you had brought it up. So I do believe that the department, since it is department funds and it is taxpayer funds, that there should be oversight on these positions being hired, especially if school coordinator excuse me, community school coordinators are filing grievances against the school. So I would just like to recommend that you look into those private organizations or they're not those nonprofits to maybe dig a little bit deeper because we don't wanna keep repeating the same cycle. Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Any other questions? Yes. More questions. Of course. Go ahead.

So Heidi or whoever can answer this, do you guys have a list of who those community groups are that the community works with

that you can provide to us?

Yes. We do. We can provide that. Thank you.

How many community schools do we have?

Currently, we have about 22 community schools. 22.

And with without a measure like this.

So it is up to each school to determine their family community engagement strategy and funded them and funded using, they can use it either WSF or also a lot of our title. One funds is eligible to be used for these for this purpose.

So what prompts this measure?

I I'm I do believe there are a few schools that were funded by grant funding, and it is my understanding, and I can't speak the numbers specifically, but I do believe that some of for some of them, the grant is ending this year. So I can imagine that would prompt the measure.

Okay. Your first statement in your testimony says that the department supports the intent provided its passage does not adversely impact the priorities established in the Board of Education's approved budget. So what do you expect that we're just gonna give millions of dollars and it's gonna come from the sky? It's gotta come somewhere, right? Understood.

And you know that it's probably gonna come from the DOE budget because you folks have one third of the budget, state budget. So how do you reconcile this?

I I think we we do recognize funding is a priority. I mean, funding is is, not in abundance, and the department does support community schools. We've seen a lot of successes with, our schools and you've heard some testimony about the advantages.

And it's very difficult for the department when this bill came out not to fully support, but we do recognize the funding has to come from somewhere and that's why we put in the testimony, we do fully value community schools and what they do, but with limited funds, there are other priorities that we would not want cut in order to fund these positions.

Do you think community schools are the right terminology because the mandate for public education is academics, And over the years, we have seen the growth that now teachers are expected and and we've seen and heard about protection of school workers, harassment.

They don't know how to deal with certain kinds of special needs and that we keep putting all of these mental health issues and counselors and so forth into the schools and then mandate that the teachers get educated on some of these issues and yet, you know, many times it's inadequate because they're not health workers. They're not human services workers. And so we keep making the schools become the catchall for everything about a child and the family.

So I'm not saying that these types of organizations or concepts are not good, but to then put it on top of the Department of Education, which is primarily there for the academics of the child to now say that we need to pay attention to everything else, I think that whole concept needs to be really fully discussed before we launch into community schools because we're changing the exact nature of the mandate for public education.

Do you agree?

I do think community supports can benefit Yes. Of the operations of

the school. Yes, and it can come from Department of Health, it can come from many areas, but should it be housed in school? And if it should be, then I think that's a bigger conversation that because that is a complete change from what public education's mandate have been, and it's wrong with no child left behind.

But again, many of these growths are because our state have chosen to increase some of these types of services to the point now that we wanna do a complete community school type thing that includes the families as well, which goes over and beyond what was intended for for public education, which started from K through 12 and now seems to be going from pre K to three years old.

I mean, we keep making the window larger, which I'm not saying is bad, but again, the intent and the amount of funding for that certainly has to be taken into consideration because you still have the Department of Education and everything else there in humans department of human services are supposed to be addressing many of these issues, right, in the nonprofits.

So that's something to really think about as we go forward because I think it's a major it's a major shift that is being asked for, and the cost is huge. And do we sacrifice the academics portion to to to add that on? And that's the other area because it might not happen right now, but that's possibly the unintended consequences as we move forward. Any other questions, members? If not, thank you.

Thank you. Okay. We're on house bill 1891. This requires department of education to implement dyslexia sensitive linguist linguistically appropriate universal screenings and evidence based interventions, offer professional development on structured literacy and evidence based interventions, and support pre teacher programs and training candidates instructor literacy programs. Okay.

That was a mock full there. DOE?

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, members of the committee. I'm Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. The department provided comments on this bill highlighting, its existing rollout of our K3 screeners and structured literacy training, while requesting amendments in our comments to clarify that these screeners identify general reading risk rather than diagnosing dyslexia, and specifically to exempt Hawaiian medium Kaikoni schools from the English centric reading requirements. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. The Daintree Bart Bartolos Bartolos, I always have trouble with your last name. I don't know why.

Thank you. Susan Rocco on Zoom.

Hi, chair, vice chair. This is Susan Rocco representing the Special Education Advisory Again, he

got to to speak up a little bit, please.

I'm sorry. Is this better?

A little bit better.

The Special Education Advisory Council has long supported this bill. It is essential to help the kids that have already been identified as having dyslexia or having a specific learning disability, ninety percent of whom also have dyslexia, but also catching kids who would fall into the special education arena if they are not given the support they need. So we appreciate the training in the bill. We appreciate the screening. We're all for it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Susan. P care?

here. Okay. Not here. Okay. Dyslexia Advocacy Club, testifying for Le Jardin.

Do we have a representative from them? Okay.

Can you just have them queued up, please? Yes. What time? Hello. K.

Please have a seat. Please tell us your name, and then we

I'm Evelyn. Thank you, Evelyn. Okay. Go ahead, Leila.

Thank you. Good job. Okay. Next two. Really good job.

Come on. And if you wanna bring the mic closer to you, you can. Yes. Good job. Go ahead.

Okay. You wanna pull the mic? Good.

Thank you.

Thank you. I I I want I want you students who have testified to know that you've probably done a better job than some of the adults who've come to testify. So thank you very much for your good presentation. Next. You folks are well prepared and well spoken.

So

Wow. You didn't even have to wait. Thank you. Okay. Next.

I know. Good job. Right?

Thank you. I just want to let the students know that, my son didn't get diagnosed till about this first or second grade, that he was slightly dyslexic. And that happened because, I had a teacher friend who observed him and said that something wasn't right. So we went and had him had him screened and tested. And once I found that out, then we were able to help him.

And today he's an attorney and doing really well. So I understand exactly what you folks are saying. So thank you so much for sharing your testimonies with us today. We still have a few others signed up. Eric Nakanishi Stannis.

Erica.

Lauren Faratasi.

Aloha, members of the committee. My name is Lauren Farasati. I'm the grandmother of an amazing dyslexic child. You just heard from her, and I've been following dyslexia policy in Hawaii for the last several years. I also created a drama group, called the Lexi players, and I spend ninety minutes every week with a bunch of dyslexic kids.

And what I learned is that the same kids who struggle to read are often wildly creative, incredibly resilient, and exceptional problem solvers. And the world knows it. NASA knows it. JPMorgan knows it. Microsoft knows it.

And Virgin knows it. Those are all companies that actively recruit dyslexic thinkers for their incredible problem solving skills. HB1891 will assure that these keiki get that chance, And that's what's so important to me. It's gonna happen through early identification and through explicit teacher training. So I obviously support this bill.

But as a business person, I asked for one addition, and that is accountability. Because without any metrics, we'll be measuring good intentions, but not results. We want to prove to you that this works On behalf of all these unbelievable Keiki, I thank you so much for your support. Thank you.