Audit of the Department of Education and the Department of Transportation’s Administration of Driver Education Programs

from Office of the Auditor, State of Hawai`i, April, 2025 (excerpts)

A STATEWIDE DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAM in Hawai‘i dates back to the 1960s, when the Department of Education (DOE) started offering classroom instruction and behind-the-wheel training at its public high schools, as directed by Act 42, Session Laws of Hawai‘i (SLH) 1966. That act declared that the need for such instruction was a matter of “urgency,” noting that driver education and training can reduce needless traffic fatalities. Driver education, though, was optional, meaning young drivers weren’t required to complete driver education instruction. That changed with the passage of Act 175, SLH 1999, which made driver education a requirement for anyone under 18 wanting to obtain a driver’s license starting at the beginning of 2001, and gave the Department of Transportation (DOT) its own driver education responsibilities….

House Concurrent Resolution No. 125 (2022 Regular Session) requests the Auditor to assess DOE and DOT’s administration of their respective driver education programs, including their associated policies and procedures. The resolution raises concerns about fair access, noting that many students attempting to enroll in driver education are turned away due to a backlog that predated, but was exacerbated by, pandemic restrictions during the 2020-2021 school year. The resolution also requests that the Auditor examine this backlog of driver education opportunities and programs, including insufficient instructors and courses.

We found that both departments – DOE and DOT – have not understood that division of responsibilities, and as a result, DOT has asserted control over aspects of DOE’s driver education program, apparently without objection by DOE. While DOE had been offering driver education for nearly six decades, the department had never promulgated the administrative rules it had been authorized to do – and required to do – since 1966. It did not exercise its rulemaking authority in 1999 when a law was enacted requiring formal driver education for those under age 18 to obtain a driver’s license. And it did not engage in rulemaking in 2005 when the Graduated Driver Licensing law was enacted, which introduced a three-phase licensing process for drivers under 18. Without administrative rules, DOE’s driver education program remains structurally incomplete, with none of the necessary details about how the department intends to provide instruction at its high schools, including the priorities and prerequisites for student enrollment that the Legislature directed the department to establish. Without that required structure, we found driver education is heavily dependent on high school principals and driver education coordinators who decide whether to even offer driver education at their respective schools and, if instruction is offered, who can enroll. That has resulted in driver education being offered at only 35 of DOE’s 68 high schools, with schools doing things markedly differently.

In contrast, DOT did promulgate administrative rules as it was directed to do in Act 175, albeit six years later in 2006. The rules describe how DOT is meant to carry out its driver education responsibilities, starting with the DOT Director certifying the curricula for student, instructor, and master trainer courses. DOT’s other responsibilities for driver education are limited and primarily ministerial: the department issues certifications to driver education instructors and annually renews those certifications, upon receipt of the documentation listed in the rules.

We found the DOT Director has not certified any curricula, which is foundational to the driver education instruction in DOE high schools as well as to commercial driver education schools. In the absence of action by the director, a DOT Highway Safety Specialist arbitrarily approved courses for master trainers as well as for instructors. That lower-level employee also unilaterally created other policies and procedures in matters that exceeded DOT’s legal authority, creating uncertainty, havoc, and even potentially exposing the department to liability. Both the DOT Director and the Motor Vehicle Safety Office Administrator, who is the administrator of DOT’s driver education program, told us that those actions were never authorized and that the Highway Safety Specialist had not been delegated any of the director’s responsibilities. Until our audit, the Highway Safety Specialist’s actions, generally, were unknown to DOT management.

While DOE and DOT have distinctly different roles and responsibilities in the State’s high school driver education program, we found that both departments lack a fundamental awareness of what those roles and responsibilities should entail. In addition, to varying degrees, each department has failed to fully complete foundational parts of their respective programs, elements that guide policies and procedures, which for both departments are often vague or incomplete, if they exist at all. …

Summary of Findings:

Department of Education: The Department of Education’s driver education program is incomplete, a loosely organized and inconsistent collection of school-level practices, that is incapable of being meaningfully evaluated.

Department of Transportation: A lack of meaningful management oversight and interest in the Department of Transportation’s driver education program resulted in an unequal certification process for instructors and impeded efforts to expand access to students statewide .…

read … Full Report