Could Hawaii public schools see consolidation of campuses?
Hawaii public schools to see these price increases
The Department of Education initiated a discussion based on decreased student headcounts over the past decade.
HIDOE said they will spend the spring 'to engage with stakeholder groups and gain feedback on its process.'
How, where to see total lunar eclipse tonight on each Hawaiʻi island
While no particular schools have been listed, identifications could be made in fall 2025 once enrollment counts have been completed.
Check out more news from around Hawaii
Officials said the following factors would be considered:
What to know about U.S.'s addition to human rights watch list
Enrollment trends and the ability of neighboring schools to accommodate students
Physical condition and usage of school facilities
Operating costs and potential financial savings
Social and community impacts
'This proposal will happen in the midst of next session and I can assure you there will be pushback. No matter what the list looks like, there's going to be political pushback,' said Roy Takumi, Board of Education chairperson.
Is the 'American Dream' dead in Hawaiʻi? New report reveals 8 issues
Superintendent Keith Hayashi emphasized the department's commitment to delivering high-quality educational opportunities to Hawaii students and wants to make the best use of public resources.'This review is an important part of planning for the future of our public school system. We understand the concerns that arise around school consolidations, and we will keep our communities informed throughout the process,' Hayashi added.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Trump Admin Gets Ready to Seize Congress' Power of the Purse
The Trump White House is planning to send a second rescissions request to Capitol Hill in the coming weeks, hoping to extract a legislative stamp of approval for its efforts to impound funding that was previously authorized by Congress. This new request would come on the heels of congressional Republicans approving the administration's first rescissions package, which made official $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting cuts and effectively rubber-stamped the Trump White House's constitutionally backwards infringement on Congress' power of the purse. This time around, the package will reportedly target the Department of Education, though so far it is unclear how much the administration will ask Congress to rescind or when the request will formally be sent. But looming over the whole rescissions process are administration officials' repeated threats to challenge the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) in court and to try out a maneuver that Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought has repeatedly previewed: so-called 'pocket rescissions.' The term describes a loophole Vought and his allies believe they have found in the budgeting process that, they claim, allows them to declare congressionally approved funding rescinded if a rescissions package is sent to Congress close to the end of the fiscal year when funds will expire. A formal rescissions request starts a 45-day clock in which the executive branch is allowed to withhold the cash in question that it is asking to claw back. But if the request comes in 45 days before the new fiscal year is set to begin on Oct. 1, Vought contends, the White House could withhold the money for that timeframe, regardless of whether Congress takes action on the package, and then claim that the funding is expired with the end of the fiscal year. 'Normally Congress needs to say yes, unless you ask too late at the end of the year?' Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, asked sarcastically, summarizing the logic of pocket rescissions. 'Like, give me a fucking break. It's obviously illegal.' Any rescissions package sent over in the coming weeks could turn into an attempt by the Trump White House and the OMB to test out their theory of pocket rescissions, Kogan said. 'I would argue that any rescissions package sent up now would constitute a pocket rescission under the GAO definition,' he told TPM, referring to the Government Accountability Office. The GAO, a nonpartisan legislative branch agency tasked with deciding if the president is impounding funds in violation of the ICA, has previously declared that pocket rescissions violate the law, and that 'affirmative' congressional action is required to make any cuts official. A 2018 GAO report states, 'amounts proposed for rescission must be made available for prudent obligation before the amounts expire, even where the 45-day period for congressional consideration provided in the ICA approaches or spans the date on which funds would expire.' It is 'illegal to do a pocket rescission, full stop,' Kogan, who served in the Biden White House as adviser to the director of the OMB, told TPM. 'It would undermine the entire intent of the law for it to be legal,' he said, referring to the ICA. 'A Mistake' Some Senate Republicans are also advising Vought and the White House to steer clear of another rescissions package and to instead allow lawmakers to work within the appropriations process to make changes to federal spending. 'I have personally told Mr. Vought that I think that would be a mistake,' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told reporters on Tuesday when asked about reports the White House may send over a second rescissions package. 'If they want to do an additional rescissions package, they should run it through the appropriations process. That's been done in the past. And I think it would be good to try to do that again in the future.' Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) has even gone as far as saying she thinks the tactic violates the law. 'Pocket rescissions are illegal, in my judgment,' Collins told Politico in June. 'And contradict the will of Congress and the constitutional authority of Congress to appropriate funds.' Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are saying the move is an attempt by President Donald Trump to grab more power and upend the historically bipartisan government funding process. 'There's a serious question about the legality but also a question about what the White House is trying to accomplish,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told TPM on Thursday in the Senate basement. 'OMB Director Vought has said he thinks there's too much bipartisanship in Congress and that he wants to use rescissions more aggressively as a way for the White House and only the White House to determine what laws are enforced in America. That's not what the Constitution says.' 'If Republicans in Congress can't grow a spine and stand up to Trump they threaten undermining the whole democratic process,' Warren added. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said last week during a floor speech that Republicans 'are using pocket rescissions to poison the bipartisan appropriations process' and 'to break the law to steal funds that Congress appropriated.' 'Worse, they're letting Donald Trump decide for himself which programs to defund, and that puts everything at risk — health care, education, food assistance, public health,' Schumer added. 'Everything — everything — becomes at risk.' The Prospect of the 'Impoundment King' When and whether the administration will attempt a second rescissions request is still a question mark, but any package sent over to Congress over the next two months could be used by the White House to test its ability to do a pocket request due to how close we are to the end of the fiscal year — September 30. Kogan told TPM even if pocket rescissions were legal or one were to make the argument that they were, they would still be 'unconstitutional' because they violate appropriations legislation that has been signed into law. 'It would be unconstitutional because it would be granting the president the ability to change a law after the fact,' Kogan said. 'In the line item veto act case the Supreme Court said you actually may not grant the president the power to unilaterally change laws after the fact.' Warren agreed that 'the Constitution says no.' 'Donald Trump is trying to set himself up with the powers of a king,' Warren told TPM when asked about the unconstitutionality of pocket rescission. 'School children learn about separation of powers and checks and balances as a way to keep our democracy strong. Trump is actively undermining that with this move on rescissions.' An attempt to utilize the pocket rescissions would likely end in a legal battle, Kogan told TPM. 'Allegedly, what we're going to see is they're going to cut education,' Kogan said, referring to a possible second rescissions package. 'And any of the school districts or states or local governments that should have gotten the money will sue.' From there, the case is bound to end up in the hands of the highest court, he said. 'It will go to the Supreme Court, and then hopefully the Supreme Court will rule the correct way,' Kogan said. 'Hopefully the Supreme Court will not say that the President is an impoundment king, an appropriations king.'
New York Post
9 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump admin threatens to pull funds from Virginia school districts over transgender bathroom policies
The Department of Education said it plans to pull federal funding from five Northern Virginia school districts after they rejected the Trump administration's request to rescind their transgender bathroom policies. The five school systems — Prince William, Fairfax, Alexandria, Arlington, and Loudoun counties — announced this week that they will continue allowing students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity, despite a Friday deadline from the Education Department. Advertisement The districts were urged to change these policies after an investigation by the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found the schools to be in violation of Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. The OCR issued a proposed resolution agreement, asking the districts to rescind these policies voluntarily or 'risk imminent enforcement action, including referral to the US Department of Justice.' Education Department spokesperson Madi Biedermann said that the department would begin the process of suspending or terminating federal financial assistance to the five districts, in a statement shared with Fox News Digital on Friday. The Department of Education is threatening to withhold federal funding from five Virginia school districts over their transgender bathroom policies. jdarius – Advertisement 'The US Department of Education generously granted an extension for five Northern Virginia School Districts to come into compliance with Title IX and follow federal law – unfortunately, the additional time did not result in a fruitful outcome,' Biedermann said. 'The Agency will commence administrative proceedings to effect the suspension or termination of federal financial assistance to these divisions. The Virginia districts will have to defend their embrace of radical gender ideology over ensuring the safety of their students.' Loudoun County was the first district to announce it was keeping its gender policy. At a closed-session meeting on Tuesday, the board voted 6-3 to keep its Policy 8040, which allows students to use the locker rooms and restrooms that correspond with their gender identity. A Loudoun County school spokesperson said that the federal interpretation of Title IX conflicts with current state and federal law protecting transgender students. Advertisement 'After consultation with legal counsel, the Board voted 6-3 not to comply with this request due to the tension between the OCR position and current law. We will continue to monitor developments closely to ensure continued legal compliance and the protection of all students,' the county said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital on Wednesday. The other four school districts released similar statements on Friday. Fairfax County, currently at risk of losing up to $160 million in federal funding, Arlington County, Alexandria, and Prince William requested that the department delay pulling federal funding while the issue is being clarified by the courts. Advertisement A demonstrator holding up a sign protesting Loudoun County Schools' 'Policy 8040' on transgender bathroom and locker room usage. FOX 5 'In responding to the US Department of Education, we have noted that the US Supreme Court will hear arguments this year and make a decision whether Title IX restricts or protects access to facilities based on gender identity. Until then, we will comply with current laws with respect to Title IX, including the Virginia Values Act,' Arlington Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Francisco Duran and Board Chair Bethany Zecher Sutton wrote. Alexandria Public Schools similarly rejected the Education Department's request and called the proposed resolution agreement an 'attempt to define transgender students out of existence' in a letter sent by the school's lawyer to the Office for Civil Rights. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! The Biden administration finalized Title IX regulations in 2024 to expand protections for LGBTQ+ students, interpreting the law's prohibition on sex discrimination to include gender identity and sexual orientation. Following President Donald Trump's return to office in 2025, his administration has moved swiftly to reverse Biden-era education policies, including transgender protections under Title IX.
UPI
11 hours ago
- UPI
DOE announces student loan forgiveness program rule change
1 of 2 | Student debt relief activists rallied outside the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023. Monday, the Department of Education announced a rules change in the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness program. File Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo Aug. 18 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Education issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Monday that would prevent benefits under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program from being "improperly provided to borrowers whose employers are engaged in activities with a substantial illegal purpose." The notice allows open comments, though the agency isn't required to act based on those comments. It's an attempt at government transparency, required by the Administrative Procedures Act. "President [Donald] Trump has given the Department a historic mandate to restore the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to its original purpose -- supporting public servants who strengthen their communities and serve the public good, not benefiting businesses engaged in illegal activity that harm Americans," Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a statement. "The federal government has a vital interest in deterring unlawful conduct, and we're moving quickly to ensure employers don't benefit while breaking the law." The statement said the "unlawful conduct" includes "supporting terrorism, aiding or abetting discrimination or violations of immigration laws, or child abuse, would be excluded as qualifying PSLF employers under the proposed changes." The statement didn't offer examples, and the language about determining which organizations will be disqualified is vague. "Public Service Loan Forgiveness was enacted in a bipartisan way to help incentivize hardworking people to go into public service," Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, told NBC News. "The Trump administration is trying, through executive authority, to limit who can access this benefit based on a litmus test of who they like and who they don't like." Comments on the proposed rules can be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at The department will not accept comments submitted by fax or by e-mail or comments submitted after the comment period closes. The department must receive comments on or before Sept. 17. President George W. Bush signed the PSLF into law in 2007. It allows many not-for-profit and government employees to have their federal student loans canceled after 10 years of payments.
