Senate Standing Committee on Education

Good afternoon, and welcome to the committee on education. Today is Monday, April 6. It's 01:02PM. We are in room 229, and this hearing of the Senate Committee on Education, if we must end this hearing due to technical issues, the committee will convene on Wednesday, April 8 at 1PM in Conference Room 229, and a public notice will be posted on the Hawaii state web legislature website.

And due to number of measures before the committee and volume of testifiers, testimony will be limited to one minute, and this hearing is being streamed live on YouTube.

Should anything arise, I guess I said that already. Okay. With that, I don't know what happened to the rest of the members. I'm sure they'll be coming in shortly. We will start off with Senate Concurrent Resolution 112 and SR 105.

We'll be taking the Concurrent Resolutions and the resolutions together, so these resolutions together. Starting off with requesting the University of Hawaii system in collaboration with the Hawaii Teachers Standard Board and other institutions of higher education to require completion of comprehensive coursework in the science of reading as a condition for graduation from any state approved educator preparation program leading to teachers licensure. And first, we have Deborah Halbert, Dean Murata. Deborah? Maha?

Afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair Kim.

My name is Debbie Halbert, vice president for academic strategy. I have with us the dean of the College of Education at the University of Manoa. We'll stand on our written testimony, but I do want to add that in addition to the materials and resources we discussed in our testimony, Hawaii P20 along with the DOE and other partners have a statewide literacy plan as well as a literacy coalition. So there is active work being done in this area.

Both of those groups also promote and include tenants of the science of reading.

If you have other questions, I'll be happy to defer to the subject matter experts on that, including, Doctor. Stephanie Bolo, who's with us. Thank you.

Thank you. Why don't you just sit there? Anyone else? That's the only person in person, that has signed up to testify. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

It's not Dean Murata or whoever else want to sit and ask or answer questions. Okay. So from the testimony, I'm gathering that you do not want to have this part of a graduation or that embedded into your curriculum, or explain that to me.

Yes. I we are in our testimony, this course that the science of reading course alone, a stand alone course, we feel we feel that it doesn't necessarily reflect the what we can do to impact the overall teacher literacy for all our children because it's very interdisciplinary, cuts across multiple subject areas. And so I think we, you know, we feel strong that it is important, but we also feel that, you know, it's it's not like a one size fits all kind of thing.

So there's should be different approaches.

And one of which is is certainly this area called science of reading.

K. So you folks have the science of reading already embedded in in your curriculum?

We have components of the science of reading, such as phonetic awareness, comprehension, those kinds of strategies that are already embedded across that we're currently teaching. Yes. But we don't call it the science of reading. We have components of the science of reading.

Okay. And is it comprehensive enough to be considered that they've had training in the science of reading?

Well, I don't know if it's comprehensive enough. I do know that that, you know, there there are different strategies that they do use. And one of which, you know, of course, the phonetic awareness and comprehension and, word identification, etcetera, are critical components of reading. And, you know, we do teach those components along with, you know, you know, text rich context to, you know, have that kind of of of comprehension for students to absorb. So

Do you think that there might be more emphasis on that or further?

Well, I do I do think as we do a a redesign, just let me preface. I am speaking strictly from a NOAH perspective. As we do our redesign, we are currently in that process of working closely with the department in in revisiting and actually revising our literacy content as we speak.

Okay. Okay. So I'm interested. I wanna ask the superintendent to come up. Yeah.

Dean, still go for Dean. Okay. Because you're gonna come up. Okay. So, superintendent, you recently made a statement that the Department of Education will conduct statewide professional development in the science of reading.

So how why is that necessary, or is it lacking as far as teachers are not getting that teaching knowledge or or, you know, while they're while they're going to getting their degree. Can you explain that?

Yes. Teachers, through their experiences, are Are exposed to a variety of different instructional strategies related to reading. The department has been fortunate to, receive a CLSD grant in that, comprehensive literacy development grant. Through that grant, we are focused on the science of reading. That is, one of the areas that, the department is focused on in terms of reading instruction.

There are other strategies also, though, that help to support students' growth in reading and teacher professional development. But one of the areas that we are focused on is in the science of reading with the schools that are participating in the grant.

Okay. I yeah. I I feel that the science of reading is very important. But, again, I'm wondering whether or not we need to do a better job, at the level where the teachers are getting that, you know, going to school for their degree, that it

should be more, then it would be less that the department has to then go back and retrain or redevelop. I mean, I certainly there should be some further development down the line. But to what degree were you talking about when you said the department will conduct statewide professional development science of reading and then what that cost might be? Because if that should be taken care of before they even, you know, become a teacher.

We we do have, different complex areas and schools that are participating in the CLST grant, the federal grant. We are also very fortunate to have a good relationship with, the University of Hawaii, the College of Education at Manoa, as well as the other, colleges that, we do have articulation, as I shared earlier, through Hawaii p twenty. And and I've focused on that collaboration.

Okay. So the grant, the federal grant, the CLSC grant.

Yes.

How how much is it for and how long is it?

I will ask Debbie Armstrong because she's a very instrumental in that grant.

Hi. Good afternoon. Heidi Armstrong. Currently, we're in year two of a five year CLSD two grant. And the science to go back to your question, the science of reading is very important.

And the pendulum swings and whole language was all of the talk for many years, And the department has adopted the science of reading model to teach students how to read and write. Our curriculum and our standards support the science of reading modules, science of reading tools to teach a child to read.

Through the CLSD two grant, there is a work group that is with the department and all of our higher ed institutions to talk about the science of reading and what, could be beneficial for, teachers in their undergraduate program to receive so that when they graduate with their degree, they could be prepared. Those talks are underway. It would look different from elementary, to high school, but every teacher can be a teacher of reading.

And so through the grant, that work group has been established and those talks have started.

Okay. So you're in year two and the talks have only started as far as better better involvement by the university as they create the curriculum for teachers.

Correct. And and we're we're sharing what we're doing. They're sharing their program. And the purpose of the work group is to ensure that both, lower ed and higher ed are in alignment with the expectations. So like you said, there doesn't have to be, after a teacher graduates from a program, additional courses in order to teach, the standards of the department.

So that that work has started.

So what what again, I'm that statement that DOE will conduct statewide professional development in the science of reading, I'm still trying to get my arms around that.

We we are doing that, so to ensure that every teacher has the tools that they need, to instruct through the science of reading methodology. Some teachers come to us with that background and some teachers are benefiting from this professional development.

Okay. But if we're teaching it or they're getting it while they're getting the degree, while they're going to the program, then why would we need to do this at this level?

Right. That that that would be beneficial, and that's what we're working toward.

Okay. What happens at the end of the five years grant? What happens?

We we are building capacity, within our personnel. We're also collecting our bank of resources so that when the, grant does go away, we are still equipped to carry on the work. That's the whole purpose of participating in the grant is to build that internal capacity.

Okay. And with that, would we get students to graduate with the proper degree of reading? Because right now, many students are graduating with lesser grade level of reading.

Yeah. From I I can answer from the K-12 portion of the grant and and our commitment to being part of a work group. And then I'll turn it over to the university to finish the second half of your question.

Okay. I'm not familiar with the work on the grant, so I'm not sure if one of our subject

if Dean Ronda knows about the grant.

I'm not on the committee but I can speak on it.

Hello. My name is Stephanie Bulow. I'm a faculty in the College of Education. I'm personally not sitting on the CLSD work group grant, that committee, but from my colleagues that are serving on it, it's my understanding that they've been coming together with the institutes of higher ed in our state and faculty or the department of education with conversations around structured literacy and best approaches to ensuring that all of our students are graduating with the ability to read and comprehend and engage in society, proficient in reading.

K. I guess I'm sitting here. I mean, isn't that a basic reading is a basic that have been around for centuries, and it seems like only now we are looking at these types of of programs to get students to learn to read? What what have we been doing ten, twenty years ago? I mean, I don't know.

It doesn't seem odd that it's only now, all of a sudden, and you're in a year two of a five year grant that will finally give us the light bulb goes off on how we're gonna teach students to read. Am I being facetious about that? I mean, isn't that kind of weird?

I I can't speak to the work of the grant. I can speak to the five pillars of reading that were mentioned in the proposal, and I would tell you that those were part of my teacher preparation program over twenty five years ago. I don't think that some of the content is new, but there has been renewed efforts and interest to really focus instruction around best practices and evidence based practices.

And I and I would think I would say that teaching is a field where we are lifelong learners and constantly looking at our practice and under in our development and our understanding and continually making sure that we're staying ahead and current with current research and practices. And I believe that that's the work of the grant.

Although, again, I can't speak personally. I'm not on the grant. I didn't write the grant, and I'm also not on that committee.

I appreciate you saying that Yeah. Because it just seemed your explanation is so plausible, but it just seems that the way it's going about that it's gonna take us five years into this grant and that if it's already embedded and you already have learned all that basics, then shouldn't it be more simplistic in that how we upgrade and and and renew or or, you update the program instead of having to wait five years or go to a five year program or five year grant?

Couldn't that grant money be used for something probably I I don't know. I'm I'm not a teacher, but it doesn't seem it seems very, I don't know, like, we're duplicating efforts, are we just spending money to spend money, or I I don't know.

I I would say that the reading process is a very complex process. That doesn't answer your question about the five years. I but, you know, in terms of really coming to understand all that goes into, how to read, it's it is a very complex process, and there's a lot of different, aspects to it in terms of, you know, understanding what the sounds mean, putting them together, having the background knowledge to comprehend.

Are we making it are we making it more complicated than it is? I mean, when I learned, you know, see Dick run, see Jane chase Spot, see Spot. I mean, I I don't know. Was it that complicated when when I went to school? And and, yeah, I learned to read and be on a, you know, a level that allowed me to go to college and get a degree.

So I'm not sure how complicated are we making this for our kids. Are we reading more into it than we should be? Or are we trying to know, get them so confused, and then they kinda they don't know how to read? I I don't know what the issue is, but certainly these questions should be asked because common sense tells you that, I don't know, if it wasn't broken, is it broken now?

I would say that, students, perhaps like you and me, it wasn't it wasn't complicated at all for us because, clearly, we are here where we are today. But there are students that do struggle with reading, and I think part of the work that we've been doing is to make sure that we're serving all students and ensuring that everyone, has what they need when they leave.

Then why don't we just single out or or acknowledge those that have trouble and spend the money on them instead of trying to change the whole system? Because, again, one size doesn't doesn't fit all. So why wouldn't we be doing that instead of trying to just change everything or making it so complicated that again, I don't know if common sense is

Well, I

have a role in any of this.

I do agree one size did not does not fit all, which is why we were you know, against this legislation or

this proposed law. But then at the same time, DOE is saying they want to go ahead and have this, you know, exact words. Professional development in the science of reading. Conduct a statewide professional development in science of reading. So I'm just trying to figure out and add it up.

Does it make sense? Are we are we spending funds and time on an area that maybe doesn't require this kind of level, and if we embed it into their learning as they are going to school, the teachers are going to school, shouldn't that satisfy that with periodic updates?

I don't wanna speak for the Department of Education. I will just say one last thing for teacher preparation, and then maybe I'll turn it back to them. But in terms of teacher preparation, I think about learning to become a teacher, and specifically learning to become a teacher who is able to teach all students how to read. I think of it as an iceberg, and we're able to give them the tip of the iceberg in their pre service programs.

But, again, I believe that they need to be lifelong learners and staying a current with current research and trends, and that's what I I don't wanna speak to intentions, but that's what it appears to be.

But maybe I should turn those questions back. No.

Not at all. Not at all. Obviously, it seems like my teachers didn't know how to teach people how to read, but we did learn how to read. So right? Thank you.

DOE? Do you agree?

Okay. See the dilemma that we're I'm I'm in? I don't know if you share my dilemma, but yeah. You wanna have a question?

Yeah. So I'm not sure if you can speak to this or not, but how do you do you folks have any kind of results since we're two years into three two years into the five years part of the program? Any kind of measurements so far?

We do. We we have data on the CLSD grant and what what has been accomplished. We do have results. This is CLSD two, so we have results from CLSD one. Yes.

And then after the five years, do you folks will be intending on appropriating funds if this needs to be further pursued?

I I think the the grant is much more comprehensive than just the components of the science of reading. It talks about literacy coaching. It talks about the different interventions for what you were just discussing before, the different needs of, different learners. So it is comprehensive, and the science of reading is one component of that.

Do some of our teachers have that understanding? Absolutely. And even those that do, like it was just shared, teachers are lifelong learners, and it never hurts to hear information again and to continue learning. So it's not a detriment to those who understand and can implement the science of reading, but it is a great benefit for those who haven't had. Yeah.

Well, I think it hurts when taxpayers are funding for programs to teach teachers, to teach students how to read.

So I think that's where, at least as far as my perspective, is is trying to hold in on the funding mechanism part of it. Where right now, you guys are getting grants, but this is a continual pattern that we see with Department of Education that when these position fundings run out, come over to the ledge. When these programs funding run, you come over to the ledge. So again, I think just being able to be fiscally responsive responsible and tightening up on that. Sure.

Yeah. Just to follow-up, I I agree that, you know, it doesn't hurt. Of course, it doesn't hurt. But again, in the priority of things, you know, are we getting the money down to the classroom? Are we identifying those kids that really need additional help?

And how is this funding can go directly to help them than trying to redo a whole program to make sure because we're never gonna catch everybody

in one whole program. You've gotta identify. We're never gonna catch everybody in one whole program. You've gotta identify the ones that need help and then go from there. So, again, I hope the department are really focusing in on how are we helping those that need to be helped and not necessarily trying to trying to again do professional development for all when when it's not necessarily, needed as far as our funding wise.

Because we don't have enough, we don't have all the money in the world. If we did, yes, but we don't. And I think DOE somehow forget that because they just keep adding and your budget keeps growing. It's one third of the budget. So

No. No. But exactly and to your point, that is the focus of the CLSD two grant, is to focus on what we call tier two and tier three, the students who didn't get it or are not getting it the first time, and really honing in on those kids. So what you said, just now is correct. Thank you.

So I'm gonna ask So So how would you recommend us amending this resolution?

I think that the recommendation is to think about how you integrate this type of learning across the curriculum. Another piece of the science of learning, as I've come to understand in the last few days as we're learning about it, is that for Hawaii, there's a lot to do with, second language students and multicultural learners that would be useful that isn't the underlying thrust of the science of learning curriculum, which is more of a national a national curriculum that doesn't think about the unique context of Hawaii.

So for us, I think what's important is to try to adapt those techniques to our local context. So the if the there were amendments that allowed us to have that flexibility, I think it would be useful.

Why don't you why don't you propose

Some language.

Tomorrow Okay. Some some language for this. That sounds good. Okay. Anybody?

Anything else? Yeah. K. Thank you. Thank you.

Moving on. Because I don't just wanna pass a reso to pass a reso. I wanna make sure it has some teeth in it. Senate Concurrent Resolution 14, SR 107. This is requesting the auditor could conduct quarterly performance and management audits of the Department of Education and its attached agencies.

We have Keith Hayashi.

Aloha, chair Kim, Senator De Court. Keith Hayashi superintendent testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands on its written testimony, which provides comments on this measure. The waste the Department of Education supports the overall the oversight goals of SCR 114 and SR 107, but urges the legislature to narrowly define the scope of the proposed performance and management audit to minimize the diversion of resources away from the department's primary educational mission. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Office of the auditor. Les Kondo. Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon. Afternoon. I'm Les Kondo. I'm the auditor. This this resolution request that, we do four performance audits every year of the Department of Education.

We want to see you four times a year.

I don't think we do.

I think the department is welcome to see me more. The next resolution that you're considering is also another request to do a performance audit, Department of Education, the different levels of upper management positions. There's a resolution on Wednesday that also asks us to do audit of the Department of Education's C I P projects. We can't do it all. We don't even have the capacity to do the audit.

That's the four audits that's requested annually in this resolution. I do have a suggestion. So we have issued 32 audits in a report about the Department of Education, different programs, different aspects, small programs. Within the last year or so, starting with the report about the Department of Education's implementation of the air conditioning initiative. I know my time is up.

Go ahead. Continue.

And we issued another report about the Department of Education's driver education program and audit of that program and more recently an audit of the department's farm to school, Program or achieving the meals mandate that the Legislature established. That one was issued about a month or so ago, a little over a month ago. In all three reports, the primary finding that's consistent in all three is we found the department did not have any any controls.

No policies, no procedures with respect to any three of those programs that they're in charge of or charged to implement. So I assume that the reason why we have these three resolutions is because the legislature or the introducer of the resolutions feels like there's some concerns or issues with whatever aspect of the Department of Education that we're asked to review.

Because of the consistent lack of controls that we've identified in the past three audits and the one report. My thought would be and I don't know what the audit plan is of the internal audit office. But my thought would be that may be a different opportunity to address the concerns that the introducers of these resolutions, you know, may have because the internal audit office is in charge or responsible for ensuring that the department appropriately managed risks.

And those risks would be managed through proper controls, meaning policies, procedures, other ways to ensure that the program achieves its mission in accordance with how management has decided the mission should be achieved. And that also allows management to be able to review and assess performance by those who are charged directly with the day to day operations.

So without knowing what the office of internal audits audit program would be without knowing how the Board of Education may consider amending that audit program so that they could address some of the concerns that these three resolutions are requesting us to audit. Perhaps that's a different way to achieve some assurance that the department does, in fact, have controls in place. They have identified the risks that would cause the program not to achieve whatever its purpose or mission is.

And maybe that's a different way that could more effectively and efficiently achieve the Legislature's goal of understanding whether there's a structure in place that ensures or helps to minimize the risk to achieving whatever the purpose of the program is. Hope that was understandable.

I'm happy to answer any questions, but that would be my thought. And, like I said earlier, we just don't have the capacity to do four audits a year, let alone the other two, audits that are requested and the other two Concurrent Resolutions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? You were the last one to testify, that's why I said to continue. I'm not giving you special treatment. Anyone else? Questions?

Questions? Permanent transportation? These audits being conducted would take away from operational duties and responsibilities. Who's whose responsibility is it to provide the information to the state auditor?

In whichever area that

Performance as example.

Whatever area that the auditor, asks of us of the department, depending on what area that is, it would be the personnel in that area that we need to gather all of the information based on the request from the auditor.

Okay. You know what? Do you mind if I pull up the state auditor at the same time? Yep. Really quick.

So thank you so much. When you request for information from Department of Education, how long typically does it take you to receive the information so you can conduct your audit?

Well, it could be a week. It could be a couple weeks. It depends on what information we're requesting. Air conditioning, that report. We never got some of the information because the department either didn't maintain it or it was lost somehow.

Other programs where they have the information, It's not like it's relatively they're relatively responsive, if that's the question, if they have the information. Yes.

So it sounds like you guys are able to turn over your data or your reporting fairly within a reasonable amount of time. Do Do you think that it might be possible to redirect this conversation to supporting these efforts saying if it doesn't on a best case scenario, take maybe about a week? I think administratively, we work there.

The time that it takes, we're we're very, it's very important for us to get the audit to stay out of the information that he needs. So what it does, though, in that amount of time, it does take our personnel that's within that respective area, to do the research to the data collection and so forth, which is very extensive. So we are able to get the information to the auditor in whatever period of time that it takes.

But it does pull our personnel away from the work that they're doing so they they're able to answer those state auditor's questions.

And and just to be clear, these people that are gathering this research and this information would probably be deputy superintendents.

It would be at all levels.

Oh, okay. So therefore, that we'll just say theoretically it's deputy superintendents just for the sake of the conversation. They they would have a staff that would be able to research this. Correct?

The information based on whatever audit area that the state auditor is doing Would be it's a comprehensive audit, so it's at all levels that we need to pull Yeah. Our people to be able to answer the questions.

May I comment on that? Yes. I think that often or most often, we do not ask for records from the deputy superintendent. It's down at the program level.

Oh, okay. Yeah. I I I personally believe transparency and accountability is well worth the week worth of data or maybe a few weeks worth of data to provide that transparency to taxpayers.

This process takes a long time because partly because we follow audit standards. Farm to school. We had a birthday on the audit, meaning it lasted longer than a year. It was about a thirteen month audit. So notwithstanding the fact that we're getting documents within a week or a couple weeks, we're interviewing people and scheduling those, you know, per their you know where they have availability.

That process It takes a long time, and often we're interviewing people multiple times people down at the program level that are critical for us to understand what the program looks like. And then again later on when we have objectives to understand what they do with respect to that specific audit objective. So it's a process. So it is not it is not as simple or as quick as, oh, it's only one week. It is a it is a process.

So do you find this to be, pretty common when you audit other departments. It seems to get really convoluted.

The process doesn't change partly because we are following government auditing standards. The cooperation that we get from departments, it does vary. So Department of Education is certainly on the on the plus side. We have issues now with some ongoing audits about the information that we're able to get and the timeliness of that information. I say that about the department, but we had issues with whether or not they had documents where the documents were.

So when they are able to locate documents, they are very responsive in providing us those documents. There are documents that you'd expect them to have that they don't have. That's a different issue. I will say, if I can just make another comment, I didn't see the superintendent's testimony, and I appreciate the fact that he values an audit because we are a resource for the Legislature, the public and the department to provide some free assessment as to how the program is performing.

But really, the first level of that is his office and below.

They should be assessing program performance and holding people accountable for doing their job. Our job is to come in and help you folks understand how a program that you've created and you fund how even though you're getting reports from the department, how they're really doing so we get to dig deeper than perhaps you guys get to dig. And that's our value.

But there's still responsibility by management to do its job, which means to hold the department accountable and the people who are running programs accountable for doing their job and achieving program mission and program goals in the audits that I mentioned or the report and the two audits. Certainly that was not the case that they were not achieving the mission or the goals of both of those programs or in being able to be accountable for the $100,000,000 that was appropriate to department to air conditioned 1,000 classrooms.

That is why these resolutions and these audits are surfacing because of those things. And the fact that, you know, you shouldn't have to wait for an audit to know what is going on and what is faulty in your area. I watched the whole the whole presentation to the board of education on the food the local food

Farm to school. And, you know, kept hearing from Sean saying, oh, you know, we really appreciate the audit. You've pointed out all these things. Now we know what to do. Now we're gonna do it.

Farm to school.

What do you mean now? What do you mean you you needed an audit to tell you that? And that's the problem. You guys need audits to tell you folks everything, and that shouldn't be. It shouldn't be putting the cart before the horse.

Just to clarify the Farm to School Audit, Senator. We do appreciate the state auditor's recommendations that he provided to us for the front to school audit. I think what assistant superintendent, Jima was sharing was that, we are in the process. We have already started actually all of the processes to address the recommendation.

I think it was 15 recommendations

of the of the state auditor. Yeah. I think it was it was also shared.

I watched the whole thing, so I know I know what he shared. Okay? And still, I think that you folks are far behind what you should have been doing. And you don't have shouldn't have to wait for an auditor, and that is why we're saying that because it's through the auditor, every single one of the of the audits, the last three, four audits had of the same problem. And the fact that you don't even have the records is another issue.

So, you know, they were left without it being able to to do a lot. And, again, this falls on the department.

The, the audit that Leslie's referring to, for the, the air conditioning audit, that was actually, if I'm not mistaken, the that project started,

created I know it's right way before you, but the people some other people in your departments have been there, were there for it, and they should have gotten the records. And whether they did or didn't, the people that came in after, you hired them to do a job, and they should be doing that job. And yet they wait for an audit to to figure out that we don't have the records. I mean, that's terrible.

And and the driver's ed audit, Senator, we we did I I believe by the time we, responded to the audit, we had all all of the recommendations were met except for, I believe, one that had to do with, other, section. Administrative rules. Administrative rules. Thank you.

Yeah. But superintendent, you didn't even know that that the program was mandatory. You wrote a whole letter three months later after they had asked for you to to comment, and you didn't. And three months later, you sent in a letter saying you don't agree with everything he put forward. And when he came back, then you said, oh, yeah.

Okay. You're right. I mean, come on. Right? We didn't even know that.

That that I don't know. That's not acceptable. Any other questions on this? Okay. Thank you.

Okay. We are moving on to SR 198 and SR 186, requesting the auditor to conduct a comprehensive performance and fiscal audit of the governance structure of the administrative leadership of the Department of Education. And, again, superintendent, you are up.

Okay. Chair, vice chair, Senator Hashimoto, Tammy Chun, deputy superintendent. We provided a lot of detail and references and links in the written testimony, but I'll summarize. The Department of Education shares the legislature's goal of ensuring that funds are used efficiently and to maximize resources for learning. We respectfully offer comments on this resolution.

We have a number of, steps in place that cover the content of this particular resolution regarding the administration of the Department of Education. So first of all, in terms of the types of review we're doing of executive administration, one, we the board audit committee the Board of Education restarted a standalone audit committee. Second, we conducted a external review of state office organization the state office organization, in 2024. We are taking action on those recommendations from the Council of Great City schools.

Third, we have been in the process of reorganization, looking at our starting with our state offices.

That includes having the Board of Education approve any changes regarding establishing or abolishing a new office or complex state level office or complex area. We have completed 11 reorganizations that were effective as of 07/01/2025, are in the process of doing another 18 reorganizations of state offices this year. Fourth, regarding fiscal and performance data, the Department of Education completed an executive compensation study last year. We have, on the Board of Education, established performance targets for the Department of Education that are incorporated in the superintendent's evaluation.

And finally, we do an annual fiscal and compliance audit.

So we are proactive in looking at these issues identified in the resolution. Thank you.

Thank you. Office of the auditor.

Les Kondo, the Auditor. I don't think I have anything to add more than what I was talking about on the first, Concurrent Resolution. I'm happy to answer any questions specific to this resolution. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Johnnie Mae Perry? Not sure anyone else wishing to testify in this measure. Hearing none, questions.

Tammy? So all of this work that you folks are doing and all of these reorganizations, any of it then reveal that the superintendent couldn't create positions that last longer than one year?

The, the current work we're doing did not address the issue of creating the topic you just mentioned.

This goes back to governance. Right? This goes back with why we're asking for audits. It goes back to the whole government's issue. The fact that we don't even know that, isn't that troublesome that it's in the statute that we don't know or the DOE does not know?

So so just to be to be clear, we are aware of the Hawaii revised statutes 302A 1116 that gives superintendent authority, to create temporary positions. The work that we've been doing around reorganization is separate than that particular issue.

But that ordinance, I mean, that law, right, the next line says it. So when you guys look at the law, you guys don't see the rest of the law. I mean, it's not a big old 10 page thing. It's half a page. Half a page, like, five sentences, and it's right there.

So so so I guess, Senator, I'm trying to I I wanna be responsive to your question, but trying to under to to understand,

Well, okay.

What you're asking in terms of the the work we're doing with reorganization.

What I'm asking is you folks are saying that that you don't want this reorgon you don't want this resolution because you're doing all of these things. Right? And I'm saying that, yes, you're doing all these things. So what is that going to make you more cognizant of what's in the law? Is it going to make you folks I mean, better?

No. It doesn't seem to.

So so I would say that we are, the re organizations are making us are making us better. It's making things more aligned.

That are making you better. Right? It's the audits. Obviously, these are things that any reorganization have not have not uncovered.

I guess, Senator, I would say that the audits cover have the cover that the auditor has mentioned have covered very specific subject matter, and the particular work we're doing is broader than what the audits have covered.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. If you could stay thank you so much. In your, testimony you had shared about the, Board's, audit committee overseeing, compliance and controls. And I think my concern is that how how is that oversight, I guess, translate into because right now, this department is is really top heavy right now. And so, I see the board's audit committee as being more of a conflict than it is for providing transparency and accountability.

So, I guess I'll take the statements in order. So the first one is, when we look at data comparing the Hawaii Department of Education to other districts and to other states, we are not top heavy. Our percent spent on administration is less than our counterparts, our peer organizations.

Compared to other districts, you guys are not top heavy. What districts? We're we're talking about the whole department.

So when we looked at the, national account the NCES data, the National Commission on Education of the States that compares information across the different states, we have less spent on administration than other, states, for example. And we have similar information about districts. So we have more of our resources in terms of the budget being spent at our for our schools.

I mean, it's it's a little unfair to say that you folks are not as top heavy compared to other states because we have a much smaller population. So I don't know what you're comparing that to.

So that would be when we compare on similar metrics such as percent of budget or when we look at the percentage of, our ratio of administrators to students or we would find that we're have more efficient administratively or spending less administratively than peers. But to the audit question, he also asked questions about the audit committee. So the audit committee, it had been consolidated with the board's FIT Committee, Finance and Infrastructure Committee, and then recently separated as a stand alone committee.

I think the committee is in the idea would be to bring the audits to that committee, and I I think that just brings more transparency to the process.

So has the board's audit committee ever found the same reportings that our state auditor has found, whether it be with the ACs in the classroom, driver's license, food to table, farm to table, reports that the state auditor has found?

So the, the committee the stand alone committee was recently reestablished. The stand alone audit committee of the board was recently reestablished, and it met last month, and it it reviewed the farm to to school. And I believe Senator was referencing that she watched that that that meeting.

So this is a new committee or new members?

It's newly established as a stand alone committee with its own with its own charter.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. I just I just don't see how yeah. Go ahead, chair.

No. I mean, it's it's interesting how it has to be a stand alone before the audit audit division or audit committee or whatever it was embedded into the board, then we'd follow follow these things. I mean, it's just, again, mind boggling that we gotta go through these different cut steps before we get true audits or through through reports on what is actually going on in the department, and the department should be knowing what that is. Okay. I have a question for the auditor.

So I understand your testimony, and I understand that some of these were asking for large bites and that you want us to narrow it down, possibly or or moving it over to the internal office, which I will be making some recommendations.

So in the light of the fact that the DOE didn't even know that they could create positions or the superintendent could create positions, but it was one year limited, so do you think that an audit on the process of the superintendent in creating these positions could be audited?

I think so. I think that, perhaps, there would also be a part of that maybe that we would also consider looking at or legislature could consider asking us to look at the board of education's oversight over that. I mean, the board's responsible for holding the superintendent accountable.

Okay. So an audit of of the process by which the administrative and program positions are created, you could do that. And that, also the board of education's role in that. Is that what you're saying? And then what about, looking at the, the review of the department's supervision and evaluations of area complex area superintendents?

We we can do that for sure. Okay. So if we don't have a problem process that we can look at. I think for the committee, my suggestion would be that because there's so many audits in the legislature that are being requested and then more specifically the Department of Education that there needs to be some process by which the committee or maybe the legislature more generally prioritizes the ones that they think are more important to them.

Honestly, for me, personally, I would suggest the CIP projects, looking at the CIP program that the department has in their process to oversee and manage that program, which is the Concurrent Resolution that's set for Wednesday.

That to me sounds much more interesting than assessing the superintendent's authority to create temporary positions and the oversight of CAS is I got you. But Performance. I suppose, though, from the last few years, I recall there being issues with money's lapsing. And, I mean, we see schools that are not construction not moving forward.

So we're glad you're going to find that interesting to do.

So anyway, thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Okay. If not, we are moving on. We are on Senate Concurrent Resolution 101, Senate Resolution 95, urging Department of Education in coordination with the Board of Education to develop a plan to transition the school buses used for public transportation to electric buses to expand the benefits already demonstrated in other places.

We have Department of Education.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Jesse Souki, Deputy Superintendent of Operations. We provide comments on this resolution. But in summary, we support the intent of the bill, to reduce the carbon footprint of the state, and the DOE. But we have some concerns about, the resolution as proposed.

The department doesn't have a fleet of buses. It's through vendors. The cost is, very prohibitive as we talk about in our testimony. The infrastructure for charging is not there at the moment, something that the department doesn't control. And the third point we wanted to make was that there used to be an EPA federal program that provided support for this kind of transition, but the current administration has stopped that program, so that opportunity is no longer there.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Let's see. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Hearing none, questions? Members, any questions? Senator Hashimoto?

Do we? So so I guess when when they had this specific program in place, did the DOE actually seriously consider what were the pros and the cons of trying to accommodate something like this?

My my understanding is that, we did, support, vendors who were interested, in, benefiting from the program. It's a reimbursement program, so they need to, upfront purchase the bus, put the bus that they're replacing out of service, and show evidence of that and other other things before they get the reimbursement through the department, through the EPA. We know of, well, I know of one charter school that was able to take advantage of the program.

So when when was the department did the department ever embark on a study to see if, you know, it would be less expensive for you to own the bus and then let the third party then run it? Right? Like, I think that's how I'm sure that's how the city and I know Maui County operates in that manner.

They they they own the physical asset, but there's a third party, you know, contractor maintaining it and running it to just get a baseline understanding of, you know, is there any synergies or efficiencies because I think that's how they are being able to achieve these at least hybrid buses at this point Right, versus I don't see any progress at least in the school bus side of it.

Yeah. The I think the the way the bus for the city is run is is real different. They have an economies of scale. They have many more routes. And, they they own the fleet, but they, you know, have a contract for operators, which the city pays for.

They do have some electric buses for the shorter in town routes. You know, it's just really different for how DOE runs its bus system. We we do have, and I'm I'm aware of, we have done sort of a back of the napkin kind of assessment of, you know, if we were to bring all the buses in house and we ran it, how much it would cost? And it's significantly But that's not what we're asking.

Right? That that would be that's not what we want.

I think what you gotta look at is, are there models out there that we can look at and and potentially adapt to? But I think the first thing is just seeing if there's some type of feasibility assessment. So you guys haven't done that then?

Well, I have my, bus administrator here.

Just let me turn and see. Have we, in the past, done an assessment like that? No.

We because because what are there federal funds that we're leaving on the table that we know of?

Not not at this time because the program was.

Right. Right. But there are is there no other ways, you know, federal DOT or anything else that you know that we're not getting access to?

We can certainly explore that. We're supportive again of the intent.

Because I think if, if, if you say that, you know, it's it's not necessary work, you gotta look at a lot of the the school districts on the Mainland. There there must be something to it if they a lot of them are owning their own buses. Right? They don't necessarily contract it out because they have their school district all across The United States.

They they own those buses likely, or they have some type of, you know, some some type of partnership that allows them to put their name on it.

So I would assume that there's something out there that we may be missing, or you know, are you can you bifurcate it? Is there a different model for the neighbor islands versus Oahu, right? Is but I think we're just going to keep doing the status quo. It doesn't help any of us because, you we're just not going to change and we don't know if we're not going to continue to assess, right? So I hope that we can start to look at it.

I think that to me that was the spirit of the rezo, I think, to but I think we have a lot of area that we can we should be continually looking at to make this more efficient. I know it's not a core function, but I think

it's a really important business I know it's not a core function, but I think it's a really important business function of the DOE.

I, I agree that we should continuously look into it. I do. Yes.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

I had a question.

K. Thank you. Thank you.

Senator Concurrent Resolution 113 SR 106 requesting Department of Education to submit a report to the legislature detailing farm to school implementation, local food procurement, regional kitchen alignment, and federal farm to school grant participation. And then we do have the department of education.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Jesse Souki, deputy superintendent of operations. We stand on our testimony with comments, but essentially, in summary, our testimony is asking that, we not repeat what's already required by statute. We report many of these items in three zero two eight dash four or 5.6. And the part of the result that talks about local purchasing.

We're actually working on a strategic plan, to as in a response to the audit to get that local purchasing strategic plan in place. So we'd like the opportunity and flexibility to report on these items through those, existing work activity that we're doing. Okay Thank you.

Thank you. Sharon heard. Apartment bag. Not here. And Johnnie Mae Perry in support, not here.

Okay. Members questions. I just have a question here. Just see. Okay.

So this resolution is is introduced by Senator Dela Cruz, and he is well aware of the farm to school, the regional kitchen. He's well aware of the audit. So why do you think he's why do you think this resolution is being rejected?

He's already reporting all of this, and he's very much aware of these things.

Yeah. I'm not sure this this

Did they contact you to us?

Not not yet.

Why not? Folks knew about this. You obviously said you wanted to it to be combined and were already responded. So why wouldn't you contact the author of the measure to find out why? Obviously, there's areas that is probably not satisfactory that's already passed, or I would assume that he's very much aware of all of this.

Right?

I I would assume he's very involved. Yes.

So why wouldn't you have contacted him?

We will. That's a good recommendation. I'm sorry that we haven't.

Okay. Any other questions, members? Hearing none. Thank you. Okay.

SR 194, SR 183. This is urging Department of Education to meet the criteria necessary to officially recognize cheerleading as a title nine sport in Hawaii. And we have sure we have the Department of Education. Yes.

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, members of the committee. Sean Bacon speaking on behalf of the department. The department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. Just to give a little bit of context too, in 2024, the DOE recently initiated girls flag football. Additionally, this past school year, we, surfing was recognized as a sport and I think recognizing cheerleading as a sport will provide additional opportunities for our students.

So we stand ready for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Lasmin Chaine. I'm sorry. I didn't say your name correctly. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Llasmin Chaine for the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. Tortilla. That's what we gotta always remember, the two L's are like a Y. Okay. I stand on our written testimony in support of these rezos because equitable access to athletic opportunities is a core component of gender equity.

And Title IX remains a critical tool in ensuring that women and girls receive fair treatment in educational settings, including sports. Thank you for your consideration and support.

Thank you. Jody Lynn Bill in support Susan Hawes also in support anyone else wishing to testify in this measure. It's not Sean. Can we have you back up?

We certainly appreciate the fact well, I don't know if everybody, certainly I do appreciate the fact that women's girls' flag football

Correct.

Was instituted. How long has, girls' flight football been around?

I'm gonna turn it over to our, gender equity and athletics administrator, Dana Takahara-Dias, to help answer a few of these questions.

Aloha.

Thank you for the question. So we are proud to say that we are in our second year of a full fledged girls flag football season.

But how how long before that was was there any kind of organized flag football for girls?

Not at the interscholastic level, but it is a very big sport in the community youth level. Okay.

How long has cheerleading been around?

It has been around since 1999 with the Maui League having the first competition.

Okay. So why is it that cheerleading has not been considered a sport, and you didn't like football before you even did cheerleading?

That is a very good question, and I really appreciate it. We are under federal court law that in 2010 did not recognize competitive cheer as a title nine sport. But most importantly to note that the courts left the competitive cheer open. It didn't bar having competitive chair as a sport, but it needed to be better organized with rules and a robust, schedule.

So that's where we're at now in Hawaii, and that's where the current where we exist is we are working towards meeting their criteria as based by the Office for Civil Rights US Department of Education.

Good thing. You're saying 2010. This is 2026.

So yes.

Sixteen years to figure out how to organize cheerleading, and you did women's girls flag football within no time at all. So they at barring or saying we shouldn't have that. I'm just saying, how how do we have a sport like cheerleading that's been around for decades Yes. And then you folks knew from 2010 you need to organize it better, but it didn't take place.

So there are 31 states, including the District of Columbia, that recognizes competitive cheer as a Title IX sport. So we are one of the emerging sports that we believe with some changes in our interscholastic competitive cheer program to have a robust competitive season, we will meet the criteria as stated in the Office of Civil Rights. So that's where we're at today.

I know where you're at today. I'm just saying, why only today? How come you folks weren't met 2015, 2016? I mean, why why has it taken 2020, 2021? Why has it taken so long to not acknowledge cheerleading, which although has boys in it, but is primarily a girls' sport?

You are absolutely correct. And last year, our numbers, we had over 500 student athletes across the state.

Argument. You're making my argument again. Why has it taken again the department this long? Maybe you can answer that.

That's a very good question, but I think what we're really wanting to do is ensure that we're trying to have equitable access for all of our students across the department. Yes.

Yes. We've been wanting that for day one of cheerleading or maybe day year or year 10 of cheerleading. We're into we're I I don't understand. Why do you guys drag your feet when it comes to women's women's sports? And and we know we know that there needs equity.

We know it has to be done, but why did why is it taking so long? And why do we have to do a resolution? I know that you're saying you're doing it, but, again

Yeah. I mean, it's it's in the pipeline for us to continue to do at this point right now. I mean

When is it gonna be officially done?

So we are recognizing the fact that, we are meeting the criteria. So the leagues, all four public school leagues, are working right now to increase their number of competitions. So this next school year, you will find all leagues having a robust competitive season that's aligned with other varsity sports. So that was the only component, Senator Kim, that we did not meet for OCR standards to count that as a title nine sport.

So now we are working to ensure that our criteria is met with a robust competitive season.

So when will it start when it's actually a

So we are very hopeful. We have had meetings that every league is committed to increasing their number of competitions next school year.

So not this coming school year?

We have already completed our competitive season. Our cheer was in the fall.

K. So it's gonna be okay. But so the 2026. No?

Yes. We that is That's what we're aiming for. Our goal.

That is your your goal to make it

All leagues will meet the criteria.

How do you how are you guys able to do flag girls flag football so fast?

That one was a unique sport because it did not have current case law that stated it wasn't a sport, And then we met the criteria based on the office of civil rights, and that was a joint partnership between donations and the NFL. And we were able to get that sport going in two years' time, but it was something that was in the works.

There was discussions previous about flag football, but we're very grateful that the timing was right to add a new sport for the girls' flag.

Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

SR 195 192 requesting the Board of Education in collaboration with the Department of Education to revise public high school graduation requirement to include successful completion of the standard stand alone financial literacy course. And, recommendation is okay. Keith Hayashi of Board of Education, I mean, Board of Department of Education for Heidi.

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Members of the Committee. Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. The department provided comments on SCR 195. And in our comments, we highlighted our upcoming 26-27 school year requirement for students to complete a flexible standards aligned financial literacy opportunity before graduation.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. David Miyashiro, testifying for Hawaii Kids Can. Aloha.

Aloha. Aloha, Chair Kim, Senator DeCorte, Senator Hashimoto. We're in strong support of this measure. I was actually part of the working group established by the Department of Ed and Board of Ed in 2024. And I'll never forget, we had a student representative, I believe, from Campbell High School, and she said, whether or not we make financial literacy mandatory in our schools, it is mandatory in real life, so we can avoid it.

We had a grant to go out and engage with community members and students across every island, and continually, we heard this is one of their number one concerns. They see a world with cryptocurrency, with gambling, with AI. There was just a headline in the New York Times that said young graduates face the grimmest job market in years. So the PTP is a good start. Putting financial literacy in there is a good start, but it won't fully address equity concerns.

And lastly, in the fall, the department had collected a number of, testimonials through a public survey. We have not seen those results yet, and we also haven't had a further conversation or debate at the board at a level about graduation requirements. So the PTP decision was done outside of the board, discussion. Thank you.

Thank you. You might wanna sit there. We have Johnny May Perry who's not here. So, David, can you come forward in that? So you sat on the task force.

Right? And the task task force expressed concern that, PTP integration may be too late for effective, instruction. Is that Yes. Correct? And stand alone course identified as a preferred pathway to ensure skill support and accountability.

Correct.

So was that all shared with the DOE and with the board of education?

Right? Correct.

Yes. So the task force, the the role of the task force was not to select one path forward, but really debate the pros and cons. And it had folks come from every walk of life there, including, the financial, organizations. But, yes, that those were some of the the challenges that I brought up. And I believe the report itself was something like a 160 pages.

So that was presented to the board of education, I believe, that summer, 2024. But there was no action taken. It was purely, for discussion.

Read the correct report. Right?

Yeah. And as far as we've tracked the board agendas, there hasn't actually been a formal agenda item looking at the graduation requirements to add financial literacy. In January, the department announced the change related to PTP. But I think because PTP is already part of the existing graduation requirements, Anything that goes into the cocktail that makes up the PTP doesn't necessarily need board approval, which is why I think putting the financial literacy piece there, happens so abruptly, in in my opinion.

So why do you think they didn't want to put it so that the board approves? I mean, why would they just stick it in as a cocktail and not as a main course?

I speculating. I do think that in order to provide a high quality, and I focus on high quality, financial literacy experience for every single graduating, student, that will be, you know, a conversation about money and priorities and timing and schedules. Right? But, again, as that young woman shared in the task force meeting, this our students are gonna be expected to deal with a world that requires them to have financial literacy.

And so I think it's worth the time, the effort, and money to discuss how to make that possible so that we're not sending our kids out into a world once they cross that stage.

And they're being taken advantage of scams all over social media, cryptocurrency, and people losing their meager life savings. And so I think if there is a conversation worth having, this is one of those topics that absolutely should be at the board level.

So what are you guys doing as a as a group to urge or to get the board of education to recognize this and to have a discussion, full on discussion about it?

We've reached out to a number of the Board Members, and so I don't know I don't the process for getting an item on the board agenda isn't always the clearest to me. But we've been, you know, as much as possible, kind of raising awareness to them. And like I said, we've had a grant funded campaign to actually go out and have conversations with community. So we've done our own survey, and I've shared those results with each of the Board Members and the board staff as well.

So I hope that there will be some board agenda item in the near future where we can kind of give this, give this topic the the time it deserves.

So do you think we need to look at makeup of the board to ensure that we have accountability by the board in some of these areas that the legislature itself has introduced? Bills, not just resolutions, but bills, to have, financial literacy as part of the, not an elective and not where students can just go on when when they have time to watch a video, that it'd be embedded into the whole curriculum and possibly be require a requirement for graduation. That obviously, I don't know.

Your your report is not enough for for them to be held accountable to why they haven't even had a discussion?

My guess is that, I think unlike, the legislature, folks don't necessarily know the board of education members. And so while you folks meet with students and, you know, the State Student Council and some of these different organizations and, again, if you spend any time with students and ask them what they care about, financial literacy is inevitably gonna come up. But the board of education, as far as I've seen, doesn't necessarily have the same mechanisms for providing that engagement.

Because I'm sure if Board Members spoke with students as often as I do, as often as you folks do, I would hope that financial literacy would rise to the level of priority. So, I mean, I think it's a good conversation about the makeup of the board.

We have it we have and I have encouraged that the board or a member of the board is present at these hearings because the at these hearings, we hear these measures. We hear from the public. They can hear from us. And every time we've heard this measure, it's always been supportive of financial literacy for them not to know or understand that.

And, yes, they're volunteers, but they agree to serve, and so they're shutting their responsibilities by not even have a discussion or have a board agenda item.

And today, we have nobody from the board of education here, do we? So again, they're they seem to not be taking this thing seriously or taking our committee or the legislature or the public's views seriously to be involved or be on Zoom or be in this hearing, which is very troubling.

I agree.

And there's any questions? Any questions? So

so I guess, you know, what so was there any action at the board then? So it was just an overview of the PTP PTP, and that was the discussion at the board from your understanding?

From what I remember about that board agenda is so there are three different task forces at the time that were created. And, basically, they're looking at these hot topics that come up every year at the legislature. So computer science, financial literacy, and I believe civic engagement. I was part of the computer science and financial literacy, and what they did is they took each of those three reports and then brought it to the board for awareness and discussion.

But, again, that memory serving me correctly or not, I don't remember a follow-up meeting where any formal action was taken on either of those three potential graduation requirements.

So, I think one of the hopes with a resolution like this is that it does build some momentum to actually have that vote one day, and students actually have that high quality financial literacy experience before they graduate.

Can we get the DOE?

Yep. DOE, please. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks for being here. So I guess maybe you can explain to us because my understanding was that there was gonna be some, you know, deeper dive into financial literacy. And I guess I'm just trying to get my wrap my head around what action actually happened on your commitment to financial literacy.

You are correct. And the department has adopted the jump start financial literacy standards. So any program that is approved to be used for financial literacy does address all of these national standards, not just hopping on for thirty minutes to learn financial literacy. So, the department is absolutely committed. We've heard the students as well, to implementing a robust financial literacy curriculum in our secondary schools.

Yep.

So starting in school year 26-27, completing a course that addresses, our adopted Jumpstart National Financial Literacy Standards, is expected. So starting with the freshman class of 2026, so that means the graduating class of 2030, will all have graduated with a course in financial literacy that addresses all of those standards.

By incorporating the p the financial literacy coursework into the PTP, which is a personal transition plan that is a, a tool that, students, it helps them with post secondary, but it's also a it can be a repository of coursework taken. That is a credited course. And one of the starting with the class of 2030, which they would be freshmen in school year 2627, all students have to have completed a financial literacy course and have it recorded in their PTP, which is a required credit for graduation.

So how are they going to fit that in? Is it in the elective or is it

a There's so it's not a one size fits all. We do have options for this. So the first option is a standalone elective course. So schools already do and can continue to do or start new courses a student can take as one of their elective credits financial literacy. If a student chooses or if the school doesn't offer at this time to take a standalone course, they might want to take a world language, they might want to participate in CTE.

They might want to join JROTC. So if they don't want to use their elective credit, for financial literacy, it's still a requirement for graduation. Schools have the opportunity, to embed the financial literacy standards, which are well defined in existing coursework. Or option three, a student can take a self paced, course by very reputable, programs. And if we're happy to show you those programs, they have been vetted.

They're not just a one shot twenty minute, I've taken a financial literacy course. Any program, that is synchronous or asynchronous has been vetted to meet our adopted jump start financial literacy standards. So students' schools can use either advisory or homeroom. These are just some options where students complete their financial literacy coursework in a schedule that has been developed by the school.

And the fourth option that students have that they're currently doing, in some areas is taking the financial literacy course as a, asynchronous self paced course during the summer.

Some schools have opened up spaces after school where students go to report to complete their financial literacy coursework, which they are engaged in through a vetted synchronous or asynchronous financial literacy program.

So it seems like it's it's great that you have a lot of options. But my fear is, especially if you take option number two, which is leave it to the school to embed it into the curriculum, I feel like you're gonna get a whole lot of different outcomes of what the delivery is gonna be. And, you know, if and it's good in some respects if you're a high quality learner, but, you know, if it's not your interest, you're just kinda, you know, pushing it along.

And I think, you know, the whole purpose of this is is to teach people, okay, you know, the the basics that every there should be a baseline understanding of what how to balance your checkbook, how to, you know, how to, you know, manage your finances. And and so I I hope you you you folks have a plan of making sure that that baseline is happening in in some of the schools that may be like, okay.

I'm just gonna bend in my curriculum so we just check it off the list, and then you get really lower quality. Right?

You're absolutely correct on that and that is the most difficult option. And in the review, which is not comprehensive yet, it's looking like the most natural fit would be in courses such as AP business with personal finance, and not all schools offer that anyway. So, it would be a very robust, task to implement those standards in an existing course because the existing course is also held to the content that gives it its ACCN number. So, you're absolutely correct.

That would be probably the most challenging, but there are some courses, like the courses I just mentioned, where it could it could be a fit and not impact the integrity of the course.

So so when will you have some preliminary data? Because you're gonna start next year. Right?

So you guys should at least have some semblance of a plan, I would assume, unless unless they take it in later years or they what year do they start taking it?

Correct.

So it is four years. So that that is so it is four years. And currently, we do have the data for the students who are taking financial literacy. And it's not every student. And our the expectation and the requirement is in order to graduate in 2030,

everyone has to have requirement is in order to graduate in 2030, everyone has to have taken it. So the numbers will skyrocket after this. But we do have, the numbers of students who are taking financial literacy as an elective course. We also have the numbers who are taking, the courses such as EverFi financial literacy education program. So we do have the data of what exists, and we will continue to collect the data moving forward.

But again, if financial literacy is required as part of a graduation requirement that it is, you have to take it before you've met your requirements for graduation.

Thank you, Chair.

Great to follow-up on that. So when will the option to have it embedded, when will because there's they should be able to start in 2026.

It will start that the options, and these are just options. So if a school elects not to embed it in existing coursework, that's the school decision. What is not negotiable is that all schools must offer financial literacy starting with school year 2026 so that students graduating in the class of 2,030 have a financial literacy

So the options is not the students' options, it's the options for the school. Correct. Okay. I thought it was for the for the students, but now you're leaving up to the school.

Well, a student excuse me. A student can take a course if the school offers it as an elective, but they might not choose to take the elective. They might choose another elective and still have the opportunity to take one of the other.

Number two and the school didn't offer that, didn't have that embedded in. They that wouldn't be an option.

Well, they wouldn't choose number two because the school doesn't offer it.

Wouldn't have that wouldn't be an option too for the student.

Correct. Right. So doesn't offer it.

Wouldn't have that wouldn't be an option to for the student. Correct. Right. So the student would be left with only three options. Correct.

Right. And I have concerns about three and four because this is self paced. This is async. Async, they can turn on the video and walk away.

These courses have been vetted. They've

I understand that. But they still can turn it on and walk away. Because it's done with no professor on the on the

Then they might pass the exams already knowing the content.

Yeah. But they might not understand under they might be able to answer the test questions and pass the test questions, but common sense or or actual practice of it, they might not have an idea. I've had students graduating from top top schools here in the state, and when it came to understanding these things, they they knew nothing. I'm not going to name the schools obviously, but they knew nothing.

So that's a joke that goes around, you know, so you can pass a test, but still not be competent in that area, especially if it's an async class.

So again, the the task force and everything that points to that this should be embedded into the curriculum or be a stand alone and not be an async course that that anybody can just turn on the computer and then walk away. So I don't understand your data and, you know, the fact that if the school doesn't do number two and if the student doesn't take the standalone, they're obviously gonna choose to do an ACN class.

And I don't think that that achieves the purpose of what we've been pushing. And I would hope that the border that the Department of Education would be more in line with wanting to make sure that our students leave DOE with a solid foundation for financial literacy, if nothing else.

And these courses do allow a student to leave with a solid foundation in financial literacy.

Tell me if if it's an async self paced. I I I tend to disagree. Okay. Any other questions? If not, okay, moving on.

Requesting the no. Concurrent resolution one nine six and SR 184 Requesting Department of Education to develop a standardized bell schedule framework for department schools. And we start with Department of Education.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, Senator Hashimoto, Tammy Chung, deputy superintendent. The Department of Education provides comments on this resolution about mandating a standardized bell schedule at each of the different grade spans. The department of currently, each school's bell schedule is set to meet school's needs. The bell schedule is established through a collaborative process that is led by school administration and based on, decision rules that are established in the HSTA collective bargaining agreement. Schools' bell schedules must meet the minimum instructional time that's in statute.

If a collaborative process does not result in a approved bell schedule, the school would default to one of the model bell schedules that the department, maintains. This resolution, moving all schools in elementary, middle, and high respectively would create a one size fits all bell schedule, which is not flexible to school's needs. Thank you.

Okay. We don't have anyone else testifying on this measure. Can you just sit there? Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Hearing none.

Okay, so Tammy, a tiered, a tiered bell schedule. So a standardized schedule for elementary, standardized for middle, standardized for high school. And if you read the resolution, it does say requested to consult with school administrators, teachers, collective bargaining, representative, parents, students, transportation providers, the development of a standardized health schedule framework. So that is all talked about in this measure.

So we're not saying that you're going to, or we will amend the resolution, not to say that you're going to implement it, but you're gonna come up with some kind of, a plan and proposal to be looked at and discussed because as you said in other situations, so not just yourself, Department of Education, is that things keep changing and that we keep wanting to improve.

And so perhaps it is time to relook at the bell schedule and and consult in coordination with buses, the need for for drivers, the the the lack of buses, perhaps school buses, or transportation available to the students all kinds of changes are going on, that this is what this resolution is geared towards.

So Senator, if it, we definitely are gonna be relooking at the what we currently call the model bill schedule that's referenced in the collective bargaining agreement with HSTA, which meets the minimum instructional requirements, as well as the collective bargaining agreements. We're definitely doing that. That's a collaborative process. Moving all schools, all elementary, all middle, and all high to the same bell schedule is a bigger, bigger decision. We can have that conversation as part of the model bell schedule.

And that's what this resolution calls for. Thank you. Any other questions, members? Senator Hayashi, Tommy?

I I guess so have there been any preliminary, you know, looks at some type of unification? I know when we were having concerns over the buses, you know, your former facilities person, maybe two facilities people ago, essentially said that you were looking at the Campbell area to to figure out some type of of bell schedule adjustments. Right? But I don't know what what is the current strategy. Sure.

At the complex area level, there have been discussions, led by complex area superintendents about whether coordinating bell schedules in the, in the complex area in the region would help us to get, maximize for more, bus routes. So that that discussion I'm just gonna double check with our student student transportation. They have had those discussions and made some changes in some cases. But that was a coordinated schedule as opposed to a, uniform standardized schedule.

But I would assume that that those conversations need to flow up, right, in terms of, okay, what is a master schedule look like or that's coordinated amongst the state? But if you're not having those conversations, it's kinda hard to, like, figure out where what the direction is that we should be heading.

I think that we definitely, have been tracking those conversations about coordinating, school schedules to help with the school bus. I think the schedule But

it's not only school bus, though. It's many other things, right?

Yes.

But we have not that conversation, I would has not moved to moving to more uniform schedules at this time.

Okay. But Yeah. So so what is if we don't pass this reso, what what are you guys going to do?

Well, we are already going to convene the stakeholder group that will look at reviewing the model schedules. So those would be so in the collective bargaining process currently, schools have the flexibility or sorry, not, not collective bargaining in the way it's school schedules, bell schedules are set up. Schools have flexibility to propose a schedule, that meets the minimum instructional time as well as the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement and their instructional needs at the school. Right.

If but to approve that schedule, which and changing schedules are hard at the school.

You need to get agreement from the teachers in in and I'm not remembering exactly right now what percentage have to agree on the new schedule. Two thirds need to agree on the schedule. Two thirds of high bar. And so if the school cannot the teachers can't reach agreement on a new schedule, then they default to this model schedule.

So we we're gonna convene a work group to look or to meet and look at the model schedules and propose other, refresh the options.

Okay.

Okay. But then there's no there's no consideration then when if once the school approves it, then somebody's going to look at it from a regional perspective?

We could consider doing that. That's not that we just hadn't been part of our

I'm just trying to understand what is the process right now.

That's currently not hang on. Let me just double check. So

Yeah. So. So you could have a holiday on one, waiver day on one day yet the, the middle school is in waiver day on another day. Oh. And then the parents are like, okay, what do I do with my kid who that has one elementary is off, middle school has to go to school, Middle school has another day that they're off.

Right?

So waiver days are non instructional days that, that's a different process than that's a different, concept than bell schedule. So understanding the concept.

Right? You start at a certain time or Yes.

Just start at a

different time. And pick up another kid at a different time. It's just it's just I think it has to be logical, right, for for for it all to make sense. And so I'm just I think why why I bring it up is because I think it's right a point of just it's I think, great. You wanna give the school some flexibility and power, but then it just creates other unintended consequences.

Right?

So so, Senator, the the approach that started with Act 51 was to give more flexibility and authority for site school level decision making because they know their students best. They know their community the best and or to organize, to organize education at that level with some checks and balances. And so the bell schedule has been part of that, that work. And we know that over the last twenty years that student achievement has increased.

And so I think we have, but we can always look to operational efficiencies.

And so we will, you know, we'll take that back to our complex area superintendents and, and discuss how we can.

Well, in theory, we're supposed to have a unified calendar as well. Right? I sat on that committee when I was a student. So I know.

So we do have a Right after

Jack 51 was passed. Yes.

So we do have a common school calendar. Do. What we do with the exception is that schools have might have non instruct the non instructional days are floating.

That's right. So I don't know. We gotta we gotta really think about the, the, you know, I think the ease of use of all this and the, the integration of all this. Aye, as I said, Aye, I understand where you're coming from with Act 51. I know the whole Genesis of Act 51, but then there's, there's a level of coordination that still needs to happen.

Right.

So just to clarify for everyone, we do have a The overall calendar is common though with the start and end times, and all being the same and the start and end times of the quarters and breaks are the same. But to your point, Senator, there are different days that schools, have their non instructional days scheduled.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Any other questions? We are moving on to SCR 200 SR 188 requesting Department of Education to implement the National Education Association micro credentials pilot program developed in collaboration with the Department's office of curriculum and instructional design and the Hawaii State Teachers Association. And we have department of education.

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, members of the committee. Sean Bacon speaking on behalf of the department. Department stands on its written testimony and we support SCR 200, and we are preparing at this point right now to launch a pilot program during the 26-27 school year that will allow our teachers to earn professional development courses, and able to reclassify through the NEA's micro credentials. So we stand by for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Osatui for, HSTA with baby.

Aloha, chair and vice chair. Sarah Milianta-Laffin on behalf of HSTA. I was excited to see this one. The micro credential thing is something done nationally where a lot of other states already offer credit for these modules that have been built. I think it's important too because these have been vetted by national teachers.

I've actually helped write some of these modules myself. I wanna find ways for our teachers to get credits and reclassify so they can move up the pay scale. For instance, I've kinda told the story to this board before that, I was able to get my master's through HSTA and Spalding University, and I wanted that for a long time. So those master's credits allowed me to get from class two, even where I was at eleven years experience, to now class five finally.

These micro credentials, if these were available, I would completely do all of them to be able to reclass up the pay scale.

Also, with us today, we have Diane Gibson, who's HSTA's professional development specialist. She can answer more questions about how micro credentialing works, and she's available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Johnnie Mae Perry, who's obviously not here. Anyone else wishing to testify on SCR 200 SR 188? Hearing no others, questions, members?

I guess, Sean, you come forward.

So, Sean, what has been the reason for the delay in the implementation of this agreement?

So currently, we've we've been working with Diane, who's here also. She's been great to work with, on this. We have been working about the last year to get this implemented. We've been working with our office of curriculum and instructional design to kind of vet some of the courses. Currently, right now, a consultation was sent over to the HSTA, in February, and we're want to just ensure that we're all on the same page.

And at the end of the consultation, we plan to implement and move forward with the process.

So the consultation isn't isn't concluded?

It is not concluded at this point.

Can I Diane, can you come up? My understanding is completed. And is it not completed?

My understanding is that Colleen spoke with Michael on Friday. So Colleen Bird, who is our negotiation person, spoke with Michael Azia?

Azuma.

Azuma. Regarding the memo that was sent to us and the letter that was sent to us to confirm that, yes, what was in there is is correct so that we can move forward with the process to to launch it.

So it's been completed as of April 1? The notice has been given that it's completed?

Well, it may have been completed between the two of them. I don't know if Michael has actually spoken to the other other stakeholders.

And who's Michael?

Michael is our one of our chief negotiators in our office.

So aren't you in contact with him on a regular basis?

I am. I will go back and check with him, but I have not seen anything official come back to say from the HSTA that they are ready to move forward with this. But I believe we're pretty much on the same page and ready to go with this at this point.

So is Terry Ushijima here? From my understanding, the agreement was made with Terry Ushijima and HSTA back in July 2025, and that this was supposed to get done the summer of 2025.

So I I think there's I think

was a consultation letter.

So I think there's multiple components in it and there's different parts of the department. So there is the office of correct curriculum and instructional design. They're typically the office that does review the different courses to ensure that they meet the reclassification criteria. And then the office of talent management, which I'm overseeing, does the collection of the credits ensuring that the appropriate movement towards the reclassification does happen.

So it is it is a a work between a few of the different offices and also with this project too working closely with the HSTA.

Just to clarify, the the final work with the committee that I was working on was done in March 2025 to be sent forward. At the last TECC meeting, superintendent and I and Sean talked about that it was ready to go forward. After that, we did not hear anything back. It wasn't until February when I was asked how the pilot was going, and I and I explained that it wasn't because we hadn't done the meet and confer process that it was looked into.

And I I do have to thank superintendent for that because he immediately got on it, looked into it, and found out why it wasn't moving forward.

And we had a letter within two weeks.

So the TECC meeting was when?

Yes.

The last TECC meeting last year was April or May. I believe it was April.

Of 2025?

Right. And my understanding is an agreement with Terry Ushijima and HSTA was done in July 2025. Superintendent, you're not aware until you she told you that the process wasn't moving forward?

No. No.

I did I did speak with

Can you switch places with him.

When I did speak with Diane, she notified me that there was there was some delay. So I did look into it and work with Sean's office. And it was my it's my understanding too that that that the process is completed, though we have sent the documentary the document history and we're waiting for it to be returned to us.

Yeah. But it seems like it's been a taken a year or ten months that it was these processes should have taken place. And you you I guess you probably understood that it was, and it wasn't. So what again, where is the disconnect?

So so we we can double double check, Senator. I I my understanding is we're waiting for it to be turned. Micro credentialing is a we are as, ASB can share, it is a way for us to work together with HCA to give teachers the opportunities for professional development designed by teachers.

Yes.

And with with with us in conjunction. So definitely, we're in favor of it.

No, we know that. And but I'm just trying to get to it. Why these things get delayed? Where is it? There's a disconnect, obviously, because my understanding is this agreement was done and with with HSTA, which is what's required back in July 2025.

And we just heard from Diane saying that it was in March or April and that she didn't hear anything after that. So, again, till she ran into you and told you, and then in two weeks, you got it done.

Well, we we got we got the process going, Senator. And so it's again, it's my understanding that the document was sent to HSTA.

We're waiting for it to be returned. We will follow-up with them today.

Was it returned?

The document was sent to us February 11. Colleen and I conferred Friday because she wanted to verify some some information with me, and it's my understanding that she, spoke to her counterpart, in the DOE on on I'm sorry. Not Friday of last week. That was a holiday. Wednesday of last week.

And, that the that we are letting them know, that it should be moving forward. And, in fact, we are actually ready to start now.

Since it was supposed to start last summer, we're ready to actually start now with it if possible.

Let's get it up and starting now. Okay. So if yeah. When we confirm that it's been received or you get it today, why can't you start it?

We need to confirm it with them, then we can get the information out to our mem our our teachers, their members, and we can collaborate on how we're gonna communicate that in the process.

Okay. So you don't have to wait until the 2026.

And and the courses that they will be taking in courses.

Would wouldn't it be helpful if before you came today that you would double check? So that maybe these would have gotten the responses so you could have responded in a different manner?

But my understanding, the last that I spoke in, I just actually got information from Mike Azuma. We have not received anything officially in writing back from the HSTA as of this point right now.

Okay. So I will follow-up with Colleen, once once I'm out of this meeting.

I would like to see that in writing. Yeah. Because that goes back you you you wrote this testimony 4/06. Okay? It's dated 04/06.

And this testimony, you're saying that, you know, once you receive the completion consultation process with HSTA, so I called them to find out where it was. So simple. Pick up the phone and find out. Is it complete? Yes.

It's complete. So I don't understand why in preparation for this hearing that you wouldn't double check to make sure that where the process is. Right? Because then you're saying you're not gonna start until the upcoming 2026 year when we can really actually start sooner if we double check to see where it's at.

Because they can the courses that they are able to take with this part of the consultation was is any of the micro credential courses from July '23, I believe.

July '23 to 06/30/2027.

So if they've taken any of them already, they'll be able to use those towards reclassification credits. So the reclassification process happens twice annually. So, they'll be able to submit those courses once we get the information out for the reclassification for the following for the following window.

I do just want to clarify that, there are only 35 out of the 250 available micro credentials that are approved for this pilot at the moment that the DOE has agreed to allow teachers to use.

Any reason why it only that many?

I was told that it was to keep it small to see if it worked. I did recommend that there be some other ones added to it, but they weren't added. And right now, we don't really and this is something we need to confer on we don't have a process for adding other ones to the list as we move through that pilot. I know that that it was mentioned that the delay was that they had to be vetted for reclassification, but

these are these are, micro credentials that are designed by the NEA for teachers, and they are, they have actually been reviewed nationally. So they they should be exactly what teachers need, you know, and and

They don't have to be re vetted? That's what you're saying?

Well, I I'm not sure why they have to be so so so vetted in the first place because of the organization that they're coming from. If it were some company trying to make money off of the micro credentials or something like that, then that would be very prudent. But these are designed for teachers by the National Teachers Association. So, you know, they're very, very meticulous in what they're putting out there because if they're not, they get scrutinized heavily.

Okay. Questions, Senator? So

So thank you. What's the estimated cost of this pilot program?

So currently, right now, for the teachers to be able to take any of these NEA micro credentials, as long as they are an HSTA member, they the cost for them to take these is zero cost. If there are non HSTA or non NEA members, it's, I believe, $75 per micro credential.

What What does it cost the department?

So for for the department, I mean, what will happen is is they will be able to then reclassify towards the next credit or the next class. Currently, right now, for a teacher to reclassify from one class to another, like when we added the class eight in the past year to go from, like, class seven to class eight, it is approximately a 4% increase in their salary. So it's going to depend again on how many teachers go through this micro credential process.

And I think that's part of the pilot is to see how many actually will go through it, and to see from there what the, what the, anticipated cost may be for the department. And so again, we wanted to start with it small.

I think like Diane has also mentioned too, there are many other courses. And, you know, depending on how this works, we'd like to expand it to others as we move forward in this process.

So sorry, Cindy. Well, I just to

just to get more information on it, you guys both agree that the program is warranted and wanted, but have you guys sat down to talk to work out the details rather than us having to urge you guys to do this?

I think we're really close at this point. You know, I think is with this consultation, which is a formal process that's re that is required, Once we get over this hump, we'll be ready to get the information out. I think HSTA does always a great job of getting information out to their members. We will also communicate it to our teachers so that we can get this process started.

So how far are we from the finish line? What else needs to happen for this to be completed?

So it sounds like, I need to work with, our lead negotiator to get the formal letter sent over to them. And then as, the DOE would need to send the memo out, and from our side, it's just a matter of sending out through member matters that the inform that the DOE has approved this pilot, and then teachers will have that they they already have access to everything. It's just now getting the information out, which on our end is very quickly. It's a week at the most.

Thank you. Okay. Again, you know, I don't think there's any disagreement about this program. I think the problem is that the the timing and the delay from the department from when agreements were made with HSTA, which is why we have this resolution. Again, you guys have to look at what why these resolutions occur or these bills occur because there's complaints out there that you folks are not acting timely.

Took you a year or ten months to get the process going when already agreements were being made were made with HSTA. So, again, I and then you come here not double checking to see where it's at so you can give us a good sense. So, you know, and luckily, I try to find out before I hear these resolutions where it's at. I think you can do the same or you should be doing the same. Right?

Thank you.

Any other questions, miss? Thank you. Thank you, chair. K. Finally, we're on SCR 203, SR 191, urging, this body to establish a public charter school working group to examine and support systems, available to state public charter schools and determine whether the establishment of a centralized public charter school district or similar service cooperative would provide improved support to public charter schools.

And first to justify is Ed Ngo. You know you're not Ed Ngo, but please come forward, identify yourself.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee, PJ Forr, deputy director on behalf of Doctor. Ednaud, executive director. And we stand on our submitted testimony in support of the intent of this resolution and look forward to working with all the parties involved and, making some constructive steps forward.

K. Thank you. John Thatcher?

Yes. I am not John Thatcher. My name is Gene Zarrow. I am the, chair of the Hawaii Public Charter Schools Network. Testimony was submitted, and I'll stand on those comments.

But I would like to make some comments as one of the founders of Kihei Charter School, who is ending its twenty fifth year, this graduating class, and I'm on their governance board. So, thank you, chair Kim, vice chair Kidani, Senator Hashimoto, and Senator De Court for the time. For me, it is a good idea whenever stakeholders can come together to

explore

the good things and the things that need solutions when it comes to a state, institution. And that state institution is charter schools. So bringing people together to address the successes and the chronic issues is always a good idea. We're not quite sure what's gonna come out of this, but bringing people together to do this is a good thing. So that's all I need to say, but I'm here to answer questions.

Okay. Why don't you just stay right there? Matthew Zatello? Not here. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure?

I have a question. So, Hawaii Charter Schools Network, you represent them. So do you folks have a website?

Yes.

And is it functional?

Yes. If you were looking for it, it's Hawaii Public Charter Schools Network.

K. Hawaii Public. So I'm not sure if it's a name we looked up the right that you can double check that. Yeah. Apparently, we looked up, Hawaii Charter School Network and And found that the website no longer is functional and social media was mass updated in 2023.

wanna make sure it's a current entity.

Yeah. I just

It it's it's working. It's working.