Transcript Highlights:

• , academic assessments of students.
• Now, when you talk about using assessments to determine where students best need support and so that
• So assessments can help us really figure out where students need the most support.
• We really need to work on how we're assessing those students.
• To me, assessment is literally an opportunity, a tool to see what that student has mastered and where

Committee: Senate Rules

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That time directly supports student readiness and more accurate assessment results.
• When assessments are administered in early spring, students have often not yet received the full scope
• As a result, assessment outcomes may reflect timing rather than true student achievement.
• I come to you today standing solely for our students who need fair and authentic assessment.
• She comes today, I come today, standing solely for our students who need fair and authentic assessment

Committee: House Education

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Students, when they enroll in an institution, pay an assessment as part of their enrollment process.
• Institutions collect those assessments and then provide those assessments to the Bureau's Student Tuition
• To confirm that that is loss, the Bureau's STRF claim adjudication procedures assess whether a student
• To confirm that that is loss, the Bureau's Stryff claim adjudication procedures assess whether a student
• There are disparate rates that are assessed, and students who come to Northeastern may only come for

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Students, when they enroll in an institution, pay an assessment as part of their enrollment process.
• Institutions collect those assessments and then provide those assessments to the Bureau's Student Tuition
• To confirm that that is loss, the Bureau's STRF claim adjudication procedures assess whether a student
• To confirm that that is loss, the Bureau's Stryff claim adjudication procedures assess whether a student
• And number two, it seems fundamentally unfair that one student would pay the full amount of assessments

Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Post-Secondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, with committee chairs and members emphasizing the Bureau’s role in protecting students, overseeing private postsecondary schools, and responding to a changing federal higher education landscape. BPPE and the Department of Consumer Affairs reported that the Bureau has modernized data systems, improved enforcement, increased citations and inspections, reduced pending complaints, and is now meeting its statutory inspection mandate. They also said the Bureau faces a structural budget deficit and has reduced costs through staffing cuts, streamlined inspections, and shifting some student-relief functions to the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF).

Transcript Highlights:

• for the state to assess district student outcome performance both within the state and in comparison
• <02:03:01.880><c> performing</c> assess how a student is performing assess how a student is performing
• accelerate student progress students accelerate student progress towards<03:32:07.279><c> higher</c><
• We have a state requirement for assessment and a federal requirement for assessment.
• We have a state requirement for assessment and a federal requirement for assessment.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Division 2 Finance Committee work session focused primarily on House Bill 115 and a proposed amendment, 114H, which would carry over language from HB 2 into HB 115 and place limits on Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs). Representative Murray described the amendment as a way to keep the 350% federal poverty eligibility cap, require students to have attended a charter public school in grades K-12 for the preceding year before entering the voucher system, and add guardrails against universal eligibility. She argued the state was facing a severe budget crisis, that expanding EFAs would divert money from other programs, and that public testimony and local votes showed widespread opposition to expansion. She also cited a letter from former Finance chair Neil Kirk opposing expansion. Other members responded that the committee should not revisit policy already decided by the House, though some said the amendment was fair to discuss because of its fiscal implications and supported it on that basis. The discussion then broadened into a debate over the fiscal impact of universal vouchers and the reliability of enrollment and cost estimates. Representative Luno argued that prior EFA projections had relied on assumptions that could badly underestimate state exposure, pointing to Arizona as a cautionary example and saying New Hampshire should not expand the program without better analysis. Representative Papovich similarly warned that universal eligibility could create a large, unexpected cost, estimating a potential exposure of about $285 million based on school-age children not currently in public, charter, or EFA programs. In contrast, Representative Weyler said EFAs can save money because public school spending is already high and parents using EFAs still pay taxes and take on more responsibility for their children’s education. After discussion, Representative Murray moved to accept the amendment, and Representative Bean seconded it. There was some procedural clarification about voting on the original bill and the amendment. The transcript ends before a final recorded vote on the amendment or on HB 115 itself, though the committee had also been told it would likely reconsider several retained bills later in the week, including HB 129, HB 133, HB 671, and HB 781.

Transcript Highlights:

• What does it mean to a student?
• learning Other factors, like students with disabilities and students who are multilingual learners,
• qualify for free and reduced lunch, and over 40% of our students are students of color.
• qualify for free and reduced lunch, and over 40% of our students are students of color.
• of 340 students a year.

Bills: SB5808 , HB2254 , HB2385 , SB6006 , SB6351 , SB6198 , SB6260 , SB6353 , SB5949 , SB6129 , SB6228 , SB6231 , SB6229 , SB6173

Committee: Senate Ways & Means

Keywords: health insurance, premium assistance, funding, healthcare access, state budget, HB 2254, Washington, Health Care Authority, partnership access line, psychiatric consultation line, first approach skills training, behavioral health, mental health, assessment, administrative costs, health carriers, self-funded plans, multiple employer welfare arrangement, MEWA, employers

Transcript Highlights:

• And our work this school year has focused on analyzing the K-3 student data to assess outcomes and to
• After conducting an initial assessment, my students teach, observe, and assess their students during
• In my 10 weeks tutoring three students, I was given assessments, collected and recorded data, and tracked
• up</c><01:30:33.520><c> to</c><01:30:33.679><c> three</c> assess students, you know, up to three assess
• So last year, for example, I can tell you because of assessment that 57% of our MathCore students increased

Bills: HF3421

Committee: House Education Policy

Keywords: early literacy, reading instruction, teacher preparation, teacher candidates, teacher licensure, educator licensing, Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board, PELSB, field experience, supervised practicum, evidence-based reading, science of reading, literacy methods, teacher training, preservice teachers, school-based experience, reading intervention, Minnesota education policy, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Students, when they enroll in an institution, pay an assessment as part of their enrollment process.
• Institutions collect those assessments and then provide those assessments to the Bureau's Student Tuition
• To confirm that that is loss, the Bureau's STRF claim adjudication procedures assess whether a student
• To confirm that that is loss, the Bureau's Stryff claim adjudication procedures assess whether a student
• There are disparate rates that are assessed, and students who come to Northeastern may only come for

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It requires a team conducting a behavioral threat assessment on a special education student to include
• ...is deemed a threat assessment.
• And the identification of the students back then, I think they were Title I students that were eligible
• We saw some students who were below grade level. We saw some students who were on grade level.
• We saw some students who were below grade level. We saw some students who were on grade level.

Committee: Senate Education K-16

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 met with a quorum and announced a full agenda, including combined public testimony for two bills related to student personal communication devices. The committee first took up Senate Bill 1262 by Senator Nichols, a school safety cleanup bill following House Bill 3. The bill would allow TEA to commission peace officers for school safety purposes, require annual renewal of good-cause exceptions to armed guard requirements, create a new report based on intruder detection audits and vulnerability assessments, and require behavioral threat assessment teams to include someone with specific knowledge of a special education student’s disability. Committee members asked about the difference between TCOLE licensing and TEA commissioning, the scope of the officers’ authority, and how the good-cause exception would work. The committee substitute was adopted, and public testimony included support from school safety and drone-response advocates, Disability Rights Texas in favor of the special education provisions, and a student witness raising concerns about the mental health impact of repeated lockdowns and the need for immediate, reliable school safety responses. The bill was left pending after testimony, then the committee briefly recessed and later reopened testimony to hear the student witness. The committee then laid out Senate Bill 2252 by Senator Creighton, a major early literacy and numeracy bill for kindergarten through third grade. Creighton said the bill builds on prior literacy efforts by funding teacher stipends for literacy and math academies, providing free and clearly administered screeners and assessments, expanding screening options, clarifying how results are used, supporting high-quality pre-K, and increasing the early education allotment. He emphasized low reading performance and the need for early intervention. Members discussed how the bill differs from earlier academy models and whether the assessments are diagnostic or high-stakes; Creighton and witnesses said the tools are intended to identify students needing support, not to serve as punitive testing. The committee adopted the substitute. Witnesses for SB 2252 largely supported the bill. A Uplift Education representative described strong gains from small-group literacy tutoring and said students receiving targeted support can make more than a year of growth in a year. An education specialist explained that the bill aligns general education screening with existing dyslexia and special education practices and helps districts identify students who need intervention before a disability evaluation is required. A Commit Partnership witness cited statewide reading data, the importance of high-quality pre-K, and the need for transparent, consistent progress monitoring and parent engagement. Members asked about the meaning of the growth data, how dyslexia screening works, and how the bill would help identify struggling students earlier. Before finishing all questions, the committee recessed subject to the call of the chair after the floor session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Students, when they enroll in an institution, pay an assessment as part of their enrollment process.
• Institutions collect those assessments and then provide those assessments to the Bureau's Student Tuition
• To confirm that that is loss, the Bureau's STRF claim adjudication procedures assess whether a student
• And number two, it seems fundamentally unfair that one student would pay the full amount of assessments
• There's disparate rates that are assessed, and students who come to Northeastern may only come for one

Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, operations, enforcement, fiscal condition, and student protections. Committee leaders and DCA officials praised the Bureau’s recent improvements in data systems, licensing, inspections, and enforcement, while noting the Bureau’s role has become more important as federal higher education oversight weakens. Bureau Chief Deborah Cochran said the agency has met its inspection mandate for the first time since the law was enacted, increased citations and disciplinary actions, reduced pending complaints, and used data tools to identify risk and monitor institutions more effectively. A major portion of the hearing centered on student harm, especially school closures, transcript access, predatory recruiting, and the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF). Members asked how the Bureau protects students when schools close, whether bad actors can reopen under new entities, and whether enforcement tools are strong enough. Cochran said the Bureau can cite, fine, place schools on probation, revoke licenses, and order refunds, but it is seeking new authority to deny approval to operators who previously closed schools improperly or failed to refund students. She also said the Bureau is tracking ownership data and is concerned about institutions targeting immigrant and visa students. On STRF, Cochran explained that the fund is currently healthy, assessments are at zero because the balance is above the statutory target, and the Bureau paid about 1,100 claims totaling roughly $17 million over the last four years. Several members questioned the fairness of the assessment structure and discussed alternatives such as surety bonds, but the Bureau said STRF is working well and no change is needed at this time. Fee increases and the Bureau’s structural deficit were another major topic. Cochran said the Bureau reduced costs by eliminating positions, streamlining inspections, improving data analysis, and shifting some student-relief costs to STRF, but that legislative action is still needed to address the deficit. She said the proposed fees were based on workload analyses and that application fees generally match service costs, while annual fees are designed to cover most of the Bureau’s revenue needs. Some members and stakeholders criticized the proposed increases as too high, especially for out-of-state registration and campus fees, while others argued the Bureau needs sufficient resources to regulate effectively. Public commenters from private schools, Northeastern University, San Joaquin Valley College/Carrington College, and TICAS generally supported the Bureau’s mission and reauthorization, but urged changes such as risk-based oversight, better transcript protections, stronger limits on repeated provisional approvals, and more targeted fee and STRF reforms. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with no formal action beyond discussion and receipt of testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• , 3.5 million students.
• That’s students and families leaving the state and students and families coming into the state, and the
• Why do you count students?
• Not many students. Not many students, okay. Property rich, pupil poor.
• When you assess value, okay, you're assessing value on that market price, okay?

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for an educational session focused on how Florida funds public schools and how property taxes are assessed and levied. Dr. Jim Zengali of the Department of Revenue explained the FEFP school funding formula, noting that it is built on weighted student counts, a base student allocation, and programmatic add-ons such as transportation, exceptional student education, school safety, and mental health. He said school funding is roughly split between state general revenue and local property taxes through required local effort, with additional discretionary and capital outlay millages contributing to total school funding. He also described the Department of Revenue’s role in certifying property rolls at fair market value and reviewing them for substantial compliance, including the so-called “nuclear option” if a roll is not approved. Members asked about trends in millage rates, county-by-county funding differences, the effect of growth and enrollment changes, and how property appraisals are reviewed. Zengali said aggregate millage for school funding has declined over the last decade while revenues have still increased, and he agreed to provide additional data on county trends, parcel strata, student growth, and enrollment impacts. He also clarified that school funding is equalized so students receive similar resources regardless of county wealth, and that federal funding plays only a small role in the FEFP. Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research then discussed existing homestead benefits. She said about half of Florida’s parcels are homestead properties, most fall in the $250,000 to $500,000 value range, and many seniors without mortgages pay property taxes in lump sums rather than through escrow. Baker explained that Florida’s homestead tax burden is middle-of-the-pack nationally and that the main benefits are Save Our Homes and portability on the differential side, plus the $25,000 homestead exemption and related exemptions on the exemption side. She said these benefits reduce taxable value substantially, with homestead properties receiving a large share of the reductions, and noted that the committee requested follow-up data on exemption usage, portability timing, senior exemptions, and county-level patterns. The final presentation, by Lizette Kelly of the Department of Revenue, covered millage rates and the TRIM process. She reviewed the history of truth-in-millage notices, required taxpayer mailings, public hearing notices, and later changes that tied local millage resets to rollback and majority-vote rates. Kelly explained the difference between proposed and adopted millage, the rollback rate, and the majority-vote rate, and described how taxing authorities include counties, cities, special districts, and MSTUs. She also outlined how county taxable value is calculated from just value through assessment differentials and exemptions, and how certain exemptions, such as the additional senior exemption, apply only to the taxing authority that adopted them. No votes were taken during the meeting, but members requested several follow-up data reports for later discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• students.
• I do want to call out, it's fairly obvious, but not all students with disabilities take the alt assessment
• It is reserved. it's fairly obvious, but not all students with disabilities take the alt assessment.
• year-to-year situation on these types of assessments with this many students, you don't see large shifts
• And where my brain is going, you know, obviously our alternate assessment is our 1% of students.

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then received a lengthy DPI presentation from Stanley Schauer on statewide reading and math assessment data for students with and without disabilities. He explained the assessment systems used over time, the absence of 2019-20 data, and how North Dakota’s standards are set by educators. Members asked about alternate assessments, cohort trends, the apparent drop in proficiency in higher grades, and the new NDA+ assessment. Schauer emphasized that the biggest pattern in the data was the relative stability of students with disabilities, the post-pandemic drop and partial recovery, and the need to focus on reducing the novice category. He also said the state plans to revisit high school standard setting and that future data could be broken out by program, disability category, and schools using science-of-math or other initiatives. Public testimony from special education staff suggested that the flat performance of students with disabilities during COVID likely reflected continued services and intensive supports, and committee members discussed whether the current disparity goal is realistic and whether growth measures would be more useful than simple proficiency buckets. After the presentation, the committee took a short break and then moved into discussion of special education funding models. Chair Richter said members should contact Schauer directly with ideas for additional data views and noted that the committee would continue its work on funding and possible model changes. Brandon Bomback of Grand Forks Public Schools began a presentation arguing that the special education funding formula, especially the weighting factor, should be reconsidered if the committee wants a system that better reflects accountability and student needs. He said his comments were based on the perspective of a larger district and focused on the special education weighting factor rather than other parts of the formula. The remainder of his presentation was not included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do want to call out, it's fairly obvious, but not all students with disabilities take the alt assessment
• It is reserved. it's fairly obvious, but not all students with disabilities take the alt assessment.
• in a typical year-to-year situation on these types of assessments with this many students, you don't
• with students within students without.
• And where my brain is going, you know, obviously our alternate assessment is our 1% of students.

Committee: Joint Special Education Funding Committee

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It seems a little weird to then require schools to offer an assessment for the students who don't plan
• when most students are going straight to college, it would seem weird to require them to do an assessment
• for the students who are... ...straight to college, it would seem weird to require them to do an assessment
• , approaching 50% of the students that don't want to go to college, they have this workforce assessment
• And so we support things like this that give students another opportunity to assess their skills, to

Committee: House Elementary and Secondary Education

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:21:55.919><c> we're</c> assessment to all students, but we're assessment to all students, but
• So, you'll see students in our local supermarket doing math performance assessments or you'll see them
• But if we cut out a certain number of state-required assessments, my question is: if a student takes
• He said that for some of his students, they are going to be novice based upon their math or reading assessment
• . students. students.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:12 Attendance Roll Call: 00:00:33 Kentucky’s New Assessment and Accountability Model Update: 00:03:50 Federal Education Policy and Its Impact on States: 01:00:55 Educational Leadership Training Opportunities in Kentucky: 01:26:44 Consideration of Referred Administrative Regulations: 02:10:38 Adjournment: 02:13:57, 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Committee on Education met for its first interim meeting and established a quorum before taking up its first topic, Kentucky’s new assessment and accountability model. Commissioner Robbie Fletcher, joined by KDE staff and superintendents, described a multi-year effort involving the Kentucky “Now We Learn” Council, more than 50 educators and stakeholders, at least 18 pilot districts, surveys, focus groups, town halls, and four prototype frameworks. He emphasized three priorities for the new model: vibrant learning experiences, innovation in assessment, and collaboration with communities. Fletcher said the state accountability portion would continue to meet federal requirements and identify CSI/TSI/ATSI schools, while shifting toward more emphasis on individual student growth, grade-level equivalency in reading and math, career and technical education, graduation rate, and English language proficiency. He also said science would remain a required assessment but be reported separately rather than counted in the CSI/TSI calculation. He stressed that the model should focus on growth, local flexibility, and meaningful measures that reflect community expectations, while still preserving a statewide framework. The committee also heard from Bullitt County superintendent Jesse Bacon, who described his district’s local accountability work. He said Bullitt County formed a community coalition with broad representation from across the district, business leaders, and community members, met six times during the school year, and worked toward a public-facing dashboard that would show community expectations, evidence of accountability, and areas for improvement. Bacon said the district identified six community-defined pillars, beginning with student learning and foundational academic knowledge, as part of a system intended to communicate strengths and improvement areas to the public.

Transcript Highlights:

• HOW DO WE GET STUDENTS ON IT?
• STUDENTS NEED TO UNDERSTAND WE HAVE STUDENT LED CONFERENCES AT NIGHT WHEN THE PARENTS COME IN AND THE
• TO GUIDE OUR STUDENTS. >> Rep.
• IF YOU HAVE 22 KIDS IN YOUR CLASS YOU DEGRADE THAT WEEKLY ASSESSMENT, YOU HAVE TO GROUP THE STUDENTS
• NEEDS AND KEEPS STUDENTS SAFE.

Transcript Highlights:

• What does it mean to a student?
• The majority of our students come from households living below the poverty line. 95% of our students
• qualify for free and reduced lunch, and over 40% of our students are students of color.
• The consequences for our students, districts, and environment are serious. First, student safety.
• First, student safety.

Summary: The committee opened with a public hearing on Senate Bill 5808, a proposal to require nonprofit health carriers with “excess surplus” to pay 10% of that surplus into the state health care affordability account for Cascade Care Savings. Committee staff said the bill could generate about $330 million one time in 2027, while the Office of Insurance Commissioner would have implementation costs. Supporters argued the bill would redirect consumer premium dollars to help people afford coverage, while opponents from health plans said reserves are needed for solvency, claims, and capital needs and warned the bill would destabilize nonprofit insurers. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 2254, which would let the Partnership Access Line assessment cover administrative costs; HCA and Seattle Children’s supported it as a technical fix that saves general fund dollars, and a child psychiatrist asked that savings be reinvested in behavioral health services. House Bill 2385, which extends deadlines for the Medicaid Access Program because of federal restrictions on new provider taxes, also drew support from provider groups seeking future Medicaid rate increases. The committee then heard Substitute Senate Bill 6286, which would increase fines on private detention facilities that deny Department of Health inspections and dedicate the fines to an account for community repair and assistance to harmed individuals and families. Supporters, including Tacoma’s mayor and family members affected by detention, framed the bill as an accountability measure; fiscal staff estimated Department of Health costs of about $395,000 in the 2025-27 biennium. Senate Bill 6006 would exempt food banks from sales tax on certain services enacted last session, with food bank and tribal representatives saying the savings would go directly to food and operations. Senate Bill 6351 would create exemptions from the new sales tax on live presentations for before- and after-school care, arts and cultural nonprofit classes, and K-12 school purchases; school districts, arts groups, and PTA representatives supported it, while asking for clarifying language and broader nonprofit exemptions. Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1717 would let cities and counties create local sales tax remittance programs for affordable housing projects, and housing builders, Habitat affiliates, counties, and city officials supported it as a local tool to lower development costs. In executive session, the committee received briefings on several tax and spending bills and then voted to advance multiple measures. It adopted a substitute and passed Senate Bill 5949, which narrows a B&O tax exemption related to insurance premiums; a proposed retroactivity-removing amendment failed. It adopted a substitute and passed Senate Bill 6129 on cigarette, tobacco, and nicotine taxes after rejecting several amendments, including proposals to study the tax policy or replace the bill with illicit-market enforcement language. The committee also passed Senate Bill 6228 repealing a preferential B&O rate for prescription drug resellers, Senate Bill 6231 repealing data center sales tax exemptions, and Second Substitute Senate Bill 5965, which retained a bag-fee approach rather than a full ban after adopting an amendment. The committee then returned to public hearing and began testimony on Senate Bill 6353, a major Working Connections Child Care bill that would keep income eligibility at 60% of state median income, lower the provider rate target from the 85th to the 75th percentile, and make other program changes; the briefing was underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• the safety of students?
• students how to I'm sorry education should focus on teaching student students not how to sing not how
• AI instruction and not students, charter school students?
• even six students algebra II.
• even six students algebra two.

Committee: Senate Senate Education Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee first considered the executive nomination of John Snyder to the State Board for Charter Schools. Snyder described his background in municipal finance, charter school financings, and prior service with Arizona charter school organizations, and said his finance experience would help the board evaluate school viability and oversight. The committee voted 6-0 with one not voting to recommend his confirmation to the full Senate. The committee then heard HB 2093, which would remove the statutory requirement that health education include mental health instruction and would repeal related consultation requirements over time. The sponsor argued schools should focus on academics and that social-emotional learning and mental health content belong with parents, while opponents, including students, a suicide-loss parent, and mental health advocates, said school-based instruction saves lives, helps students seek help, and preserves parental choice through opt-out provisions. After debate, the committee voted 4-3 to give HB 2093 a do pass recommendation. Members also considered HB 4043, requiring at least one campus employee trained in CPR, first aid, and AED use where applicable; HB 4005, requiring districts to teach ethical and educational uses of AI beginning in 2027-28; HB 2895, allowing Native American language proficiency to satisfy a world language graduation requirement; HB 2383, renaming trampoline court safety legislation as Ty’s Law; HB 4109, requiring school district public safety policies, notifications, and annual reporting after serious violence or weapon incidents; HB 2376, appropriating $40 million for the school safety program; and HB 2380, requiring public access to board meeting materials and tighter rules on out-of-state travel. HB 4043, HB 2895, and HB 2383 all received unanimous or near-unanimous do pass recommendations, while HB 4005, HB 4109, HB 2376, and HB 2380 each advanced on 4-3 votes, with some members citing concerns about unfunded mandates, criminal penalties, local control, or the scope and timing of required disclosures.

Transcript Highlights:

• All pre-kindergarten students were still more likely to score proficient on iStation assessments at the
• Students in Pre-K programs with higher instructional quality tend to score better on kindergarten assessments
• Executive function is assessed through a two to five minute assessment done on a tablet, but it's done
• What are you assessing? Why are you assessing executive function in a child at that age?
• What if the students don't eat beef?

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• for eligible low vision and assessments for eligible low vision and blind<00:05:47.120><c> students<
• Every single student from kindergarten to third grade would go through some kind of test or assessment
• Every single student from kindergarten to third grade would go through some kind of test or assessment
• Every single student from kindergarten to third grade would go through some kind of test or assessment
• Every single student from kindergarten to third grade would go through some kind of test or assessment

Committee: Senate Education

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Committee on Education and Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs heard Senate Bill 422, which would authorize the Department of Education to award a high school diploma to qualified people whose schooling was interrupted by military service or wartime practices during World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War. The Department of Education testified in support, noting a prior law that created the Kono diploma program before it sunset in 2020. Several members of the public also testified in support. Both committees later recommended passage of SB 422 without amendments, and the recommendation was adopted by voice votes. The committees then heard Senate Bill 530 on Braille literacy. The bill would establish Braille literacy as state policy, require Braille-related literacy assessments for eligible blind and low-vision students, authorize DOE rulemaking, create a Braille Literacy Resource Center, and appropriate funds. DOE and the Department of Human Services supported the measure, as did the National Federation of the Blind, Hawaii Disability Rights Center, and a blind testifier who described the importance of early Braille instruction. The Attorney General’s office raised concerns about statutory language requiring yearly assessments and suggested revisions so annual decisions remain with IEP teams. The committees voted to pass SB 530 with amendments, including the Attorney General’s suggested changes, and adopted the recommendation. The next measure was Senate Bill 532, which would allow school staff and agents trained by a licensed clinician to volunteer to administer medication to students in public schools under certain conditions and clarify who may prescribe such medication. DOE and Department of Health testimony supported the bill. The Attorney General recommended replacing the term “licensed clinician” with the defined term “health care professional.” The Hawaii Academy of Physician Assistants supported the bill but asked that physician assistants be included among providers who may prescribe medications for school administration. After questions about current school health aide duties and field-trip medication procedures, the committees voted to pass SB 532 with amendments, including the Attorney General’s terminology change, and adopted the recommendation.