[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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",6183026,"mediaKeyId","5100673-7a9d8e7e52199813a97c32874d91cc06","parentId",5100673,"title","American Preparatory Academy presents data‑driven model, reports strong reading growth and warns against restrictive rubric changes","audioSeconds",2202,"startMs",2539000,"endMs",4741000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5100673-7a9d8e7e52199813a97c32874d91cc06&start=2539&end=4741","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5100673-7a9d8e7e52199813a97c32874d91cc06/thumbnail_2539000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6183026/Utah/American-Preparatory-Academy-presents-datadriven-model-reports-strong-reading-growth-and-warns-against-restrictive-rubric-changes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6183026-b65c9b442d28a81f6845d9f7c5c7586b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770811554&Signature=ix~seZGyY5aGp5Ez5ncHLYVNLsM9WdZIJXwTe-s93IHG49GitcnMI65Q4HAq1KhzhZdIXrk3oCJBk7M9C3kmk~qlImoTBs98f5BtwSotc3bYJZP6QgLmvnQH3PVCswFQY5SyPUkaXBEmNX9lwa7SS5UAm120MXxpa0syXBOsjthGLfR~G0DwWhDpJXd3-LuttB2~~v0tK--CCFGnVfQBRxh2PpKCViL2Wav6pnpkVOYkBfEaamzr1iA1bvt6kUGF3Mvy20C7~WGjmQ4ogCZPGI-thlb-B1OXdBl3bvjYDnc4A03kLvxvu12GSohbtS7EJ~uY07nObSKHt3YxbDKCFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Legislature","date","2025-06-18T00:00:00Z","article","Carolyn Schrett (American Preparatory Academy superintendent) described APA’s multi‑campus, data‑driven instructional model to the Interim Education Committee and presented outcome measures the school said reflect its approach.

Schrett said APA uses small instructional groups, an additional adult in every classroom, weekly and monthly data reviews, and intensive end‑of‑year data days to adjust instruction. She described the network’s use of evidence‑based reading programs, a dyslexia center with multiple intervention tracks, and a coaching model in which trained staff sometimes step in during live instruction to coach teachers side‑by‑side.

APA presented spring assessment rankings it said placed its Draper campus among the top third‑grade reading performers statewide, and the network reported high median growth ratings in both reading and math for certain campuses. Schrett told the committee that Draper campuses served hundreds of third graders (she referenced 515 third graders in one slide) while achieving performance above the state target for on‑grade reading. She also cited scholarship and college‑matriculation outcomes for recent graduating classes and described a large after‑school music and academic support program in West Valley City.

Schrett recounted a regulatory dispute around the state’s effort to implement the 'science of reading' legislation. She said USBE developed a rubric to identify whether a school’s program met the state rubric; APA’s program initially did not meet that rubric and APA was told it would need to change its program. Schrett said the board later dissolved that rubric requirement after discussion and that APA continues to use its existing evidence‑based reading model. She asked that policy and rules be aligned so legislative intent is reflected in administrative guidance.

The superintendent also discussed facility financing and said APA has combined financing tools such as qualified school construction bonds and new markets tax credits to reduce costs when constructing and refinancing campuses. She urged the Legislature to look at allowing public charter operators first right of refusal to reuse buildings when traditional public schools close.

Why it matters: APA used the hearing to offer a concrete example of a sustained evidence‑based model that the school links to student growth, to raise implementation concerns about state rubric development, and to request policy changes on facilities reuse and administrative rule alignment.

What’s next: lawmakers asked for additional detail on APA’s teacher supports, training cadence and the district‑level outcomes Schrett presented. APA offered to share more materials; committee staff and USBE flagged potential follow‑up on program alignment and access to state technical assistance.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Education Interim Committee - June 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Carolyn Schrett, superintendent of American Preparatory Academy, told the Interim Education Committee that APA’s data‑driven model of small groups, co‑teaching and weekly progress monitoring has produced sustained reading and math growth at several campuses.","taxTitle","2025 Utah Legislature, Utah Legislature, Utah Legislative Branch, Utah","taxId",78171,"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},6183041,"Legislative audit: English learners face largest proficiency gaps; auditors urge faster data cycles and review of interventions",744,191000,935000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5100673-7a9d8e7e52199813a97c32874d91cc06&start=191&end=935","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5100673-7a9d8e7e52199813a97c32874d91cc06/thumbnail_191000.jpg","/articles/6183041/Utah/Legislative-audit-English-learners-face-largest-proficiency-gaps-auditors-urge-faster-data-cycles-and-review-of-interventions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6183041-aa5ae0422bd050baeea549eb33268c82/orig.mp4?Expires=1770811554&Signature=Ym3nuawsxTR7v~ONXzp8V04NxROOQP-d2nG0V1wQNwLkyJKVrS9im1fYo50086fMknLINYqjc7rbWMa2iOriGutWSNIstcrN~eZVTU4sgQpPERH-trLu8RdU80TZ0nPbQ07rALgWS6c3yOir3XqQcGVUhfa2FasNlPADtjhLA49Ctse-kQgD5Eb2CgEvlUIgqEK32b4TEHd8xbLc5fWjKv~ycUtLpAnycH7NIuan~n9rec-xRDcxlvZnj1OIf1XCFFZ3HZWAsglubyCWBratGHzVxO4VsdjsIGoNfzOBGFLltTWRiqVLD7QzA23e4BWsL4S4fVG60nl6Si~-Cmc2TA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Nicole Luscher, an analyst from the Office of the Legislative Auditor General, told the Utah Legislature’s Interim Education Committee that statewide assessment data show persistent proficiency gaps and very limited year‑to‑year movement in student proficiency.

\"The gap for multilingual learners is still above 30%,\" Luscher said, referring to a roughly 35% spread between English/multilingual learners and higher‑performing student groups on the statewide assessments. She said the auditors analyzed statewide results from 2017 through 2024 and built an interactive dashboard to let LEAs examine gaps by subgroup, grade range and subject.

The audit identified three primary objectives of the review: trends in testing by demographic and other factors, practices used in both high‑ and low‑performing LEAs, and whether prior performance correlates with future results. Luscher said auditors found that students who are proficient in one year tend to remain proficient the next year, and students who are nonproficient also tend to remain nonproficient — net movement was less than 1 percent between the 2022 and 2023 school years for English language arts on state summative measures.

The auditors told the committee that higher‑performing LEAs commonly use internal, timely data and intervention systems, maintain designated data analysis teams, and provide training for principals on using internal student metrics. Luscher said the audit does not claim causation — the office did not test whether the identified ‘‘best practices’’ directly caused higher performance — so a key recommendation was that LEAs evaluate whether their interventions actually move students toward proficiency.

Committee members asked whether the audit tracked how long individual students remain in the English/multilingual‑learner category. Luscher replied that the audit used the USBE dataset for each school year (students indicated as multilingual learners in a given year were included in that year’s counts) and did not follow individual students longitudinally within the report; she said state staff could likely provide longer individual‑level timelines.

Several legislators pressed on related context: Representative Hayes asked whether the pattern predates or follows COVID; Luscher said the COVID year showed a much larger drop but the post‑COVID recovery returned some metrics to pre‑pandemic levels. Representative Walton asked about ties between attendance and performance; Luscher said the audit includes a section on chronic absenteeism but the auditors did not link individual attendance records directly to test results in this report.

Leah Voorhees, deputy superintendent for student achievement at the Utah State Board of Education (USBE), delivered the agency’s response. She said USBE and the superintendent have acted on the audit findings by emphasizing formative assessment, creating assessment‑literacy modules for educators, and providing toolkits tied to interim measures such as Acadience. \"Teachers get reports immediately,\" Voorhees said, while acknowledging that system‑level analysis for the state is available later in the year after testing and standard‑setting are complete.

Why it matters: the audit highlights student groups — especially multilingual learners — where proficiency gaps remain large and persistent. The report’s recommendations aim to shorten the interval between assessment administration and usable state analysis, and to encourage LEAs to show that their interventions actually change student proficiency rates.

What’s next: auditors said they will issue a best‑practices manual for LEAs this fall. USBE said it will continue to provide formative tools and professional learning cohorts and offered to provide the committee with additional follow‑up data such as average time to English proficiency for multilingual learners if available from state records.

","Nicole Luscher, an analyst from the Office of the Legislative Auditor General, told the Utah Legislature’s Interim Education Committee that statewide assessment data show persistent proficiency gaps and very limited year‑to‑year movement in student proficiency.",{"_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},6183030,"State Charter School Board finalizes MOU with USBE, shifts toward supportive oversight and details authorizing process",508,4352000,4860000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5100673-7a9d8e7e52199813a97c32874d91cc06&start=4352&end=4860","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5100673-7a9d8e7e52199813a97c32874d91cc06/thumbnail_4352000.jpg","/articles/6183030/Utah/State-Charter-School-Board-finalizes-MOU-with-USBE-shifts-toward-supportive-oversight-and-details-authorizing-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6183030-259f5408ea18176bea312d34b2e5f05d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770811554&Signature=EM3MG7kG8~28mCDqmwhz6c4oVVQstROlsikuhlNdDumLqzkVq~rfb8JSpFRmZWnZPXHzqFWfZ7~CSeyTVJXLm796huKS5XA2LkJfkG2SKsJwgESRojnP0KJXpG6TAHwBkhz4JcIRfVr-kejGk3YA2~CrR4BWPMuyOQ23L227sqc41ES9KEgSVpwKL3KKfh~XPgNWOzZmwFp649JVEPxzmxwenAEjGD78rzyuhQvjYBOE1eYD982Rn-6PWtSDzhtw-uJ10k89ePObuTS~GRUetLp1n2VfmUvOvap958VdD1zHVg1WYp9tt9-uojB38ieYnXTfoPjWh1SgfPCb58~c5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Director Kramer (State Charter School Board executive office) and board members told the committee the board finalized a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Utah State Board of Education in December 2024 to clarify roles, streamline operations and emphasize supportive oversight of charter schools.

Kramer said the MOU reflects months of collaborative drafting, public board hearings and a mediation clause for resolving disagreements. Among tangible changes, Kramer said the State Charter School Board relocated its offices to a Department of Health and Human Services building in Sandy and now works directly with state human‑resource and finance divisions to reduce administrative routing through USBE.

Board members described the MOU as a step to rebalance autonomy and accountability: the state charter authorizer retains operational independence to carry out authorizing functions while remaining accountable to the public through USBE oversight. Kramer said the MOU references statutory provisions that shape the relationship and is intended as a ‘‘living agreement’’ that can be improved over time.

Clint Biesinger and other board members outlined the board’s two‑stage approval process for new charter applicants: an initial short proposal and capacity interview (September), followed by a full‑application boot camp with USBE and a second, full application review in January. Biesinger said applicants who receive a final ‘‘yes’’ are authorized to open in roughly 18 months; staff then conduct readiness‑to‑open reviews in subsequent public meetings.

The board reported application activity from the last cycle: seven initial applicants, four of which moved forward after the first review; of the three full applications, two received final approval. The board also described satellite campus approvals (2 of 2), small school expansions (5 of 5) and large expansions (6 of 6) during recent cycles.

Board members said the MOU and authorizing changes were in part responses to the Legislative Auditor General’s recommendations that roles and responsibilities between USBE and the state charter board be clarified. The board also said it has shifted from a tone of strict compliance and penalty toward ‘‘supportive oversight’’ including training, authorizer‑provided contracted support for applicants, and increased outreach and feedback mechanisms such as third‑party surveys of portfolio schools.

Why it matters: the MOU alters how the authorizer and USBE interact operationally and is intended to improve turnaround times, reduce bureaucracy and encourage replication of high‑quality charter schools while maintaining accountability.

What’s next: the board said it will continue to track feedback from charter operators and other authorizers and is exploring collaborative authorizing practices and funding models to support a healthy authorizer ecosystem.

","The State Charter School Board said it finalized a memorandum of understanding with the Utah State Board of Education to clarify roles, improve operational efficiency and emphasize supportive oversight. Board members also outlined a two‑stage charter authorization process and recent application outcomes.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6183036,"State staff brief committee on charter funding: local replacement, one‑time charter aid and per‑pupil comparisons",400,2978000,3378000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5100673-7a9d8e7e52199813a97c32874d91cc06&start=2978&end=3378","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5100673-7a9d8e7e52199813a97c32874d91cc06/thumbnail_2978000.jpg","/articles/6183036/Utah/State-staff-brief-committee-on-charter-funding-local-replacement-onetime-charter-aid-and-perpupil-comparisons","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6183036-515a62d93ef0f62bacd02f5da4f0e82f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770811554&Signature=HpkA9d26QtDn1AZVrnE2wTlM42aDcVEmvBz5Q8y1i9f2OJ6iE1Jmgq-TC71ByCnVc2bvJp0kvvzKIMXRAUrJHLPvLmC2DMyWpgTso~9mk-~dYH2qQ9gl5oKEn0LsFCBGjT7m6ZCOHaB3X-KYmLCbpY8jb73Fh-8aKW7cyJz5CHw1PxIMx9dZSUxTrOLB8WzN9~hX0SnqdHZZNCEgs2bbCd95kYjrj2kzzXCtwGK5sJ0HPi7u7JR1xZBN5-1Y8Dz4ZEzbdCnkPwmxpVK~aJ67Z2BTED7cmTOdB~we7eOk7YllzRPlqYnqSFZ-28lR8fxiVbrF-VZwOa0w1h7YDvcOwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Scott Jones, deputy superintendent for operations at the Utah State Board of Education, told the interim education committee that charter school funding flows from a mix of local replacement payments, state formula allocations and federal sources.

Jones described Utah Code (cited in his presentation as the statutory driver) and highlighted the local replacement mechanism that exists because charter schools cannot levy district property taxes or issue local bonds. For fiscal year 2025 he provided the per‑student local replacement amount used by the board to calculate district obligations for students who attend charter schools.

Jones noted that charter schools are excluded from the state pupil‑transportation line; charter operators that provide bus service must do so within their own budgets. He also described a one‑time ‘‘charter school‑based funding’’ allocation that has been provided in recent years and said that his staff will recommend the State Board of Education consider whether that funding should be made ongoing or adjusted in the next formula‑setting process.

The briefing included a visual comparison of state, local and federal funding percentages for district and charter LEAs and a per‑pupil current‑expense comparison (current expenses exclude debt and certain capital costs). Jones said the state portion of funding for public education grew substantially between fiscal years 2023 and 2024, a change he attributed primarily to recent legislative increases in the WPU (weighted pupil unit) and other appropriations; he offered to provide a detailed fiscal breakdown to the committee on request.

Committee members asked for more detail about the ‘‘local’’ portion of charter funding that appears on property tax notices; Jones said that local replacement contributions are attributable to the district where the student resides, not the district where a charter campus sits. He offered to send district‑level breakdowns showing the local replacement amounts each district pays per charter student.

Why it matters: the briefing explained key mechanics behind charter school financing in Utah — how money follows students, how charter schools are treated differently on transportation and debt, and how a mix of state appropriations and local replacement funds support charter operations. Jones framed the one‑time charter funding as a policy choice that the state should revisit for long‑term sustainment.

What’s next: Jones said staff will prepare analytics and a district‑level breakdown of local replacement amounts; the committee requested that information for future interim briefings and for budget planning ahead of the next legislative session.

","Utah education operations staff explained how charter schools are funded, including the local replacement payment that substitutes for district property‑tax authority, a one‑time charter‑based funding allocation and state/district/federal funding shares. Officials flagged the temporary nature of some charter aid and recommended further review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

American Preparatory Academy presents data‑driven model, reports strong reading growth and warns against restrictive rubric changes

Legislative audit: English learners face largest proficiency gaps; auditors urge faster data cycles and review of interventions

State Charter School Board finalizes MOU with USBE, shifts toward supportive oversight and details authorizing process

State staff brief committee on charter funding: local replacement, one‑time charter aid and per‑pupil comparisons