Legislative Updates

This powerpoint was shared in the April 24th Administrator's Retreat by Royce Van Tassell. This is a summary of the legislation passed and how it affects you at school and what, if any, policies you will need to create/implement.

Download the POWERPOINT. 

The required policy samples from the USBE will be updated as they are prepared.

The USBE has approved 4 vendors that are deemed compatible. Schools are not required to use these systems, but these systems have been vetted for compatibility and may have opportunity for cost savings. Please see the following Award Justification Statements for comparisons:

• CGI
• Powerschool
• Tyler Tech 
• Skyward

Discussion from Legislative Zoom meeting:

• Executive Appropriations Committee met on Friday, February 24th. Followed the Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee recommendations with one significant difference: Charter school base funding for charter schools recommended at $115/student for charter schools with less than 2000 students. No funding for charter schools with more than 2000 students. Five charter schools have more than 2000 students. UAPCS discovered this error this morning and is working to correct it. The fix would be for charter schools with 2000-5000 students be funded like smaller districts at flat rate of $215,000. We had hope that schools would receive $150/student for charter school base funding, but the amount was adjusted due to $115M less that projected revenues, so cuts have been made. 
• Sensitive Materials Policy-Some teachers have not respected previous laws passed regarding sensitive materials (thankfully, not charter schools), so HB 138 addresses the issues. HB 138 requires schools to pull material from the shelf when a parent brings an example of pornographic content in the material until a review of the material can be made by the school. If an material is found to be inappropriate, then the school is required to keep the materials off the shelf indefinitely and contact the State Board to notify them of the inappropriate content. The State Board would then notify other schools of the inappropriate and sensitive material and they would be required to likewise pull the material. This follows definitions of pornographic materials in Utah Code 76-10-1227. If passed, it would take effect in May 2023.
• Earmark in Public Education Funding-SJR10 is the vehicle to remove the earmark for public education funding, higher education funding, and services for people with disabilities. Enrollment in public education is expected to be flat for the next 5-10 years and perhaps decrease. Overall funding for public education will be held harmless, i.e. WPU will go up even in overall enrollment numbers go down. The USBE, State School Board Association, UEA, and UAPCS have been part of these discussions. There is a strong drive in the legislature to remove the earmark and provide concrete guarantees for funding public education. This amendment, if passed, will go before voters fall 2024 with an incentive of 2% WPU added if passed. Over the last several years, education funding has seen significant increases in the WPU. HB 357 (passed in 2020 with Amendment G) added an equation to fund inflation growth within the WPU. Constitution Article XIII (Revenue and Taxation) details are not public, but are expected to support public education. 
• Value of WPU will be $4,280 (6% increase). Another 5% effective increase comes in all-day kindergarten funding and teacher salary/benefit increases.
• Question: Did the 35% of state-restricted funds flexibility remain in appropriations recommendations? Answer: Yes!

Watchlist (Current Friday, February 24, 2023)

Discussion of the following legislative items:

• HB 465-Rep. Welton-Requires schools to have an online platform that allows parents to view materials that the child checks out from the school library. There was a request from the UELMA (State Library Association) to gather data on what library management software programs schools use, we will email out the spreadsheet gathering that data again. This information can be used to identify the cost and burden to schools. 
• HB 138 5th substitute-Rep. Ballard-This bill amends requirements and prohibitions of sensitive materials, particularly addressing the time to respond to a complaint. Next substitution most likely to stipulate concerns need to be addressed within 60 days.
• HB 464-Rep. Ivory-Another sensitive materials bill that has more stringent requirements. It is unclear whether the Senate has an appetite to address school materials sensitivity issues since the passing last year of HB 374 and the application of that law still being worked through.
• Constitutional Amendment- Senate Joint Resolution 10- This amendment would remove the income tax earmark from public education (higher and k-12) and serving disabled citizens to allow more flexibility in spending. Royce stated that since public education is a priority among lawmakers, this change would not affect the money going into public education. 
• Revenue projections are updated. The press release for updated funding is found at https://senate.utah.gov/updated-budget-estimates/ or this PDF.
• SB 265-Sen. Anderegg-This bill addresses student data privacy. LEAs will be able to request the name/address of a student from the USBE for students not attending their LEA.
• HB 477-Rep. Spendlove-All day kindergarten bill provides 0.9 WPU for kindergarteners in full-day kindergarten instead of 0.55 WPU for half-day kindergarten students. It does not require full-day kindergarten, and allows for LEAs to provide half-day kindergarten as requested.
• Budget items: Discussion to what budget items are solid to pass, and what other budget requests are still being considered:
  • LRF-per student increase of $175 is fixed
  • $6000 bonus (salary and benefits) for teachers is solid
  • WPU-3.4% increase included in base budget
  • Other items subject to Executive Committe budget recommendations include items discussed by Sen. Fillmore and Rep. Pulsipher in last week's update. See notes from February 6, 2023 for their recommendations. Recommendations were received favorably by leadership.
  • Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee Recommendations

Member Meeting/Legislative Update:

We were joined by House and Senate Chairs of the Education Appropriations Subcommittee, Rep. Susan Pulispher and Sen. Lincoln Fillmore.

Highlights of the Ed Approps Committee:

• Overall, the idea is to provide large streams of funding instead of funding small programs with many small grant programs. This flexibility is based on the idea that schools know their needs and will put effort into their chosen programs more than in programs that someone else (the legislature) forces on them. It is important the funding be adequate and flexible.
• $175M toward safety programs. This large stream of one-time money allows for school safety upgrades and capital needs.
• $50M toward instructional delivery and support. This is one-time money.
• $64M toward teacher professional development days.
• 35% flexibility of state restricted funds continues indefinitely. This was previously one-time.
• $35M funding for all-day kindergarten including an adjustment in the WPU.
• $19M funding for those not ready for all-day kindergarten-to help get ready if desired.
• Charter school base funding will be on-going (not one-time as it was in the previous years).
• Effectually, this is a 14% increase in the WPU in on-going money.
• An additional 7% increase in the WPU is one-time money.
• It is important that the public, teachers, your school communities, and legislators know how this large, unrestricted allotment is spent. It is good to share the news about how you meet the needs of your specific school community. Responsible use of these funds will bolster public confidence in funding public education in the future.

Questions and Answers:

• Q: What are the next steps in the funding appropriations?  A: These funding recommendations will go to the Executive Appropriations Committee. They will look at all the requests and come up with their own recommendations. According to Senator Fillmore, the recommendations were received positively and he would be surprised if the recommendations from Ed Approps were not taken.
• Q: What adjustments will be made to LETRS training, if any? It is causing some teachers to leave the profession and burnout in others. A: This is not addressed the in the Education Appropriations Subcommittee. Royce responded that he doesn't expect any changes to LETRS training this year.
• Q: How will educators be paid through HB215 (scholarship and teacher pay increase bill)? A: Funding will come through the Educator Salary Adjustment line item, as have previous additional monies for teachers.
• Q: Will the teacher pay raise be part of the budget? A: The Executive Appropriations Committee will provide recommendations in about 2 weeks, so we will not know until then. There are 3 weeks left in the session.

Announcements:

• Training Opportunities: ACES, February 21st & 28th at 4:30pm, Administrator Lunchtime Series, March 1st, 12-1pm.
• Job Fair, March 18th, 9am-11:30am, Summit Academy High School, Open to current UAPCS Member Schools, REGISTER HERE

Op-Ed, Deseret News, 1/14/22

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2022/1/14/22878963/utah-legislature-education-funding-restricted-money-programs-evidence-based

Opinion: Utah should lift restrictions on education dollars

The Utah Legislature uses about 60 separate funding streams to provide more than $5 billion per year to Utah’s 41 school districts and 135 charter schools

By Chris Fawson and M. Royce Van Tassell  Jan 14, 2022, 7:01am MST

The Utah Legislature uses about 60 separate funding streams to provide more than $5 billion per year to Utah’s 41 school districts and 135 charter schools. Roughly three-quarters of that money has virtually no strings attached. The school board in Washington County can use that money to meet its students’ needs. The Alpine school board can and does use its share of that money quite differently, because its students and teachers and staff have different needs.

With that last quarter (just over $1 billion), the Legislature restricts how school leaders may spend those dollars. If you want your share of paraeducator funding, you need to follow R277-324 and UCA 53F-2-411. If you want your share of the funding for accelerated students, you have to follow R277-707 and UCA 53F-2-408. And so on.

One way to think about these restrictions is to compare that funding to a piano. With unrestricted funding, school boards and administrators can play whatever music they want. If their students need The Killers, they can play that. If their students need Beethoven, they can play that. With restricted funds, however, school boards and administrators can play only one tune. The students in a given district may not respond to that tune, but that is the tune.

These restrictions do not alter a school’s obligation to meet the needs of its students. Those obligations exist in state and federal statutes, independent of how schools pay to meet those needs. The restrictions only limit how schools can meet their students’ needs.

Utah’s restrictions are hardly unique. The most recent survey of states’ education budgets (2013) shows that the number of restricted “programs” in state education budgets ranged from one (Florida and Montana) to 64 (Iowa). Remember, Utah has 60! Legislators restrict funding either because they believe this regulatory structure will get more money to the students who need it, and/or because they believe that legislators are better consumers of the research on what will improve outcomes in public education.

The problem is, there is little reason to believe either of those assumptions. As researchers Thomas Timar and Marguerite Roza write, “No consistent evidence proves such programs do, indeed, have their intended effects.” In other words, the restrictions legislatures across the country place on how schools can use state education funds do not change the outcomes of the students they hope to target.

Even more troubling, the restrictions placed on these streams of funding create enormous burdens on local and state school leaders. For each program, school administrators and principals have to complete reports describing how they used the funds. Then the State Board of Education has to audit and monitor each of those streams of funding to make sure the schools used them according to the restrictions.

To change the analogy, school leaders at the state and local level spend oodles of time worrying about how much sugar went into a cupcake, rather than whether the cupcake actually tastes good. If these restrictions don’t actually move the academic needle, the restrictions are well-intended, burdensome and, it appears, unsuccessful.

So, what should Utah’s legislators do? Instead of using 60 separate programs with scores of restrictions, why not narrow the field of restricted funding programs to those where evidence suggests they can have the most impact on student learning outcomes?

It seems more reasonable to let local school boards, school administrators and teachers who have daily interaction with our children, and their students, decide what tune to play, what kind of cupcake to make. Our trusted local boards are most likely to know the learning needs of their students better than our good friends on Capitol Hill.

Let’s lower bureaucratic burdens where possible and move more of our limited education resources to where they can have an enduring impact on the lives and learning experiences of Utah’s children.

Chris Fawson researches the economics of education at Utah State University. M. Royce Van Tassell is executive director of the Utah Association of Public Charter Schools.

1/13/2022: The latest notice regarding Test to Stay Program during the pandemic:

Letter from Governor Spencer Cox, State Senator Stuart Adams, State Representative Brad Wilson, and State Superintendent Sydnee Dickson:

DOWNLOAD LETTER HERE

2022 Legislative Session Summary

DOWNLOAD PDF

Our Representatives: