[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6317320,"mediaKeyId","2374200-ed0c1014311ba6e486b7f2e23cd6827f","parentId",2374200,"title","Board reviews multiple education bills; directs staff to work with HB508 sponsor on scope and timeline","audioSeconds",2548,"startMs",2316000,"endMs",4864000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2374200-ed0c1014311ba6e486b7f2e23cd6827f&start=2316&end=4864","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2374200-ed0c1014311ba6e486b7f2e23cd6827f/thumbnail_2316000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6317320/Utah/Board-reviews-multiple-education-bills-directs-staff-to-work-with-HB508-sponsor-on-scope-and-timeline","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317320-934dfbf14185b30b66a31c0e26b4ded0/orig.mp4?Expires=1774835196&Signature=QVNoSQ~1pnvqwLTpd-Cz3NyDJzKqMJrUFwFpggFN07R28uwq4VeGOqQBdvqeUQUjDYSuqpsRNHfBXa7HngoAO2C9LpGcg8N9E0uBbjic5FM7XtWOJRYx9k9GttUxPhczThNm5JIDL6gBdR4GTjFjHRvSLHTSwgAwiQrwMwwtQnNmAkdKPgsbGxr7dkSe27xgi9rA4Wj0W1OIEC1s~pY0W1T~X~nwKga2YWf6aBCKIlyDDP0vTOmkrxecFEXJIE5Oa41o-8HTeZDKfQu8NiE3xdv7hohh4IZeQX9o3dAz-c2qvj0lWkzfJ3CaKE6qUFozknH8x2IxiNpAKjxUOGrAQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Financial Operations","date","2025-02-21T23:27:30Z","article","The Utah State Board of Education reviewed multiple education bills and took a formal action on House Bill 508 (school data amendments). Board staff briefed members on several bills; after discussion the board voted to direct staff to work with the HB508 sponsor on the study’s timeline, fiscal impact and the burden on local education agencies.

Why it matters: HB508 would require the State Board to study how student data are collected, used and retained and report to the education interim committee by September 15; staff told the board that completing the study as drafted would likely require additional staff time and resources.

What staff told the board: Deputy Superintendent of Policy Elise Newey summarized multiple bills. On HB508 (Representative McPherson), Newey said the bill would create a study and final report on LEA student‑data collection and usage, and staff recommended at least one full‑time equivalent (FTE) or a six‑month full‑time contractor to accomplish the work — the data team estimated an 18‑month effort to complete the work comprehensively. Members raised concerns about the timeline, the expected workload on LEAs, and whether the report deadline (September 15 following a May 7 effective date in the draft) was realistic.

Other bills reviewed (summary):
- HB497 (Representative Katie Hall): Would expand State Board authority to address LEA compliance and direct rulemaking for prioritizing UPAC cases; staff noted potential unintended consequences for lower-level cases but said UPAC generally favors prioritization flexibility.
- HB483 (Representative Walter): Proposes changes to the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration structure, including sunsetting an Advocacy Office for trust beneficiaries; staff noted the Trust Lands Advisory Committee had not reached a formal recommendation and the bill was assigned to House Natural Resources.
- SB2607 (Senator Johnson): Charter authorizer bill; staff said it would require authorizers to charge fees and could create equity issues between very small and large charter schools; the State Charter School Board and its executive director reported they were engaged and working with sponsors on a narrowed substitute.
- SB99 and other bills: staff noted some technical changes and effective-date clarifications in recently filed substitutes and offered to circulate written comparisons to the board.

Board action on HB508: Member Davis moved and Member Boggess seconded a motion directing board staff to work with the HB508 sponsor on “reasonableness of fiscal impact, burden on LEAs, and timeline to complete the study.” The board voted to approve the motion; the tally announced in the meeting was 14 yes, 2 no, Kelly absent. The two members recorded as voting no were Boggess and Bridal (the transcript identified the two no votes); Member Davis and several others voted yes as announced during roll call for the motion.

Why the vote matters: staff recommended clarifying expectations and resources before the board takes a formal position on the bill; the board’s direction asks staff to negotiate and communicate feasible scope and timing with the sponsor so the study requirement is practical for staff and LEAs.

Ending: Staff agreed to follow up with the bill sponsor and with the data team to report back to the board. The board proceeded to adjourn after finishing legislative items.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","20250220 USBE 2025 Legislative Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The State Board reviewed several pending education bills and voted 14–2 to direct staff to work with the sponsor of HB508 (school data amendments) on fiscal impact, LEA burden and a realistic timeline for the required study and report.","taxTitle","Financial Operations , Utah Board of Education, Offices, Departments, and Divisions, Organizations, Utah Executive Branch, Utah","taxId",67095,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6317325,"Rep. Thurston outlines narrower HB 156 to define board-legislature roles and superintendent selection process",1462,750000,2212000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2374200-ed0c1014311ba6e486b7f2e23cd6827f&start=750&end=2212","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2374200-ed0c1014311ba6e486b7f2e23cd6827f/thumbnail_750000.jpg","/articles/6317325/Utah/Rep-Thurston-outlines-narrower-HB-156-to-define-board-legislature-roles-and-superintendent-selection-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317325-d10be6914b5c07394b46516c0e5fb66e/orig.mp4?Expires=1774835196&Signature=ObguNaDxGHJiBRGlnU1Z5O6f~qoyKFQJbnUILLhpiND1vGu8KKTNHzeyZWS6sUA43xnWTxKqLHqnpgRb7TtRfQR-oRqTw2bGN-eWuTU-UHcpIz3uw34ZHijiaippdb58vVcDIBIwjnCqdaTdp7lBa5QFsAQJR2F4H-7uhSUS4JbCG97aTqQYTDfS~CQAoeDkM5CvE0x9PUbgvfW1DmKKesIbfNHsBJrXVgrMqiUGcmraujpYTeJeg5m51CcSE4MYaMKWInpmpBa9CGGXL2I-3HOVoFmY71FmNdi8~AWHPjFRG4skmPmJ82yRZ1BZQ8RdaouzLTTY3PafhB9G7jSgzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Thurston told the Utah State Board of Education that the draft of House Bill 156 is intended to clarify long‑standing questions about the relationship between the state legislature and the elected State Board of Education, and to set a process for superintendent selection and contract terms while keeping the board’s ultimate hiring authority.

Why it matters: the bill would write into statute a high-level description of the roles and relationships among the legislature, the board, the state superintendent and board employees; it also prescribes a process for creating and consulting with an advisory committee when appointing a superintendent and requires a multiyear employment contract for that position.

Thurston said the bill started from competing, broader proposals and was pared down to focus on “relationships and responsibilities at a very high level” among the legislature, the board, the superintendent, and rulemaking authority. He said the draft leaves final hiring authority with the state board but would require the board to establish and consult with an advisory committee “that represent[s] the interest of public education, including legislators, other elected officials, and stakeholders.” He explained that the advisory committee would be purely advisory and that the board could ignore its recommendations.

On contracts and term limits: Thurston said the draft requires a written employment contract (he described a three‑year contract in the draft), modeled on local practice for district superintendents, but preserves the board’s discretion to set the contract’s substantive terms, including probationary periods or termination for cause. He also said the draft includes a provision intended to prevent a departing board majority from hiring a short-term superintendent immediately before a new board takes office (a so‑called “lame‑duck” protection) so a newly elected board would have the opportunity to select the superintendent who will serve with them.

Constitutional and legal concerns: board members raised constitutional concerns about language that could be read to limit the board’s exclusive authority to select the superintendent under the state constitution or to direct contract terms. Member Lair said some attorneys interpret the constitutional phrase “shall select a superintendent” as vesting exclusive selection authority in the board. Representative Thurston responded that the bill explicitly leaves the final selection to the board and that the advisory committee is only advisory. Several board members requested a formal constitutional review; Thurston said the bill is still in draft and that he would request a constitutional review once the text is finalized for committee consideration.

Other clarifications: Thurston said the draft distinguishes among (1) nonbinding advice from the state superintendent; (2) responses to requests for information; and (3) binding communications regarding compliance, which he said the draft preserves as a power to enforce state board rules within statutory limits. He said the draft does not itself attempt to resolve the full range of compliance processes and that other compliance items were intentionally left for separate consideration.

Board reaction: several board members thanked Thurston for listening to feedback and for narrowing the bill. Board members asked for a constitutional analysis once the sponsor circulates a final draft prior to committee; Thurston said such analyses are public when completed and he would seek one once the committee draft is ready.

Ending: Thurston said he was trying to strip controversial elements out of earlier drafts, to keep the bill focused on core process questions. He asked the board for input and said he hopes the draft will be a compromise most stakeholders can “live with.”","Representative Thurston presented a narrowed draft of House Bill 156 to the Utah State Board of Education that would clarify the relationship among the legislature, state board, and superintendent and require an advisory committee and a contract-based superintendent appointment process while preserving the board’s final hiring authority.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6317330,"State Board told PEA recommended 1% WPU increase atop statutorily required 4%; EAC to balance budget",389,129000,518000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2374200-ed0c1014311ba6e486b7f2e23cd6827f&start=129&end=518","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2374200-ed0c1014311ba6e486b7f2e23cd6827f/thumbnail_129000.jpg","/articles/6317330/Utah/State-Board-told-PEA-recommended-1-WPU-increase-atop-statutorily-required-4-EAC-to-balance-budget","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317330-c7c369ca510919ca6a5589df96ba890b/orig.mp4?Expires=1774835196&Signature=eXdsEFU8gRFcMJcRvHgVbcK3pKrKdsYecaK9849y9fYLkbm71iihsFkNxI8WjTYWuOc3aaZ73IlAxVRbDdQzaXsTjInWP79UynYSei9FBqBooj1D8ovUt~uu~cmR7w~H5uRitYYVwj6QU9if76vm3TEO8i-h9MBcy2cw8-yiJqmPefjuYdwe74Wt995P5N7t-nnV4WEaY1I3bf1FzV~7MFLexAZGQV9d5HhlATcfp6D4lHuYxVWcjTgzmC0N0h45AIyir-E~Nt1zhSKVquvTpkCmkjol1H~LpWuZQXrYVs0fribSrbLCS~r--MTei1Pb1BHT7aZRY21xOTM~Gq-D6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Deputy Superintendent Scott Jones told the Utah State Board of Education that the Public Education Appropriations Committee (PEA) presented its funding recommendations to the Executive Appropriations Committee (EAC) and that EAC will begin detailed balancing work next week ahead of final motions in the last week of the legislative session.

Jones said the PEA asked for a 1% discretionary increase in the value of the Weighted Pupil Unit (WPU) on top of a statutorily mandated 4% inflation adjustment, and that the 1% amounts to roughly $43,000,000. He asked board leadership to meet with EAC chairs to answer questions and press the board’s priorities before EAC finalizes motions.

Why it matters: motions EAC makes next week will determine which education funding requests survive a reported revenue squeeze and become part of the session’s omnibus funding bill.

Jones summarized next steps and timing. He said EAC members begin the detailed balancing process next week and typically make final motions during the last week of session; as of his briefing the legislature’s adjournment date was scheduled for March 7. He also flagged a media-reported revenue shortfall earlier in the week — characterized as roughly $110 million statewide, with about $75 million considered one-time and $35 million ongoing — that could force cuts or re-prioritization across state requests.

On specifics: Jones pointed the board to the PEA documents (ongoing request priority list, one-time request list, reallocations and appropriation adjustments, intent language) and noted staff were available to answer questions. He clarified an earlier internal rounding estimate for the 1% WPU amount (previously reported about $45 million) and said the finalized figure presented to EAC was approximately $43 million.

Jones and board members discussed the recommended timeline for board leadership to meet with EAC chairs and the practical effect of the budget balancing process. Board members asked whether board-approved funding priorities and carry-forward balances could be shared with every EAC member; Jones said the board’s leadership had scheduled meetings with EAC chairs and that a read-ahead would be provided for those chairs before meetings.

Board members and staff repeatedly noted that the PEA presentation to EAC is a recommendation and not final, and Jones reiterated that the board should plan for follow-up advocacy over the next two weeks if it wants to preserve particular items.

Ending: Jones urged board members to review the full PEA packet and to coordinate leadership meetings with EAC chairs next week; he said staff would provide requested, user-friendly lists of the board’s funding priorities to the chairs during meetings already scheduled for the coming Monday and Tuesday.","Deputy Superintendent Scott Jones briefed the Utah State Board of Education on Public Education Appropriations Committee recommendations presented to the Executive Appropriations Committee, noted a reported statewide revenue shortfall, and urged board leadership to meet EAC chairs before final EAC motions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board reviews multiple education bills; directs staff to work with HB508 sponsor on scope and timeline

Rep. Thurston outlines narrower HB 156 to define board-legislature roles and superintendent selection process

State Board told PEA recommended 1% WPU increase atop statutorily required 4%; EAC to balance budget