On September 16, 2025, the Utah Education Interim Committee convened to discuss the current landscape of Student Information Systems (SIS) used by Local Education Agencies (LEAs) across the state. The meeting highlighted significant findings regarding the costs and challenges associated with these systems, as well as potential pathways for improvement.

The committee presented a bar graph illustrating the distribution of students across various SIS vendors, revealing that Aspire, a free option provided by the Utah State Board of Education (USBE), is utilized by a majority of smaller LEAs, despite serving only 16% of the student population. Notably, some districts, such as Davis and Sevier, have developed their own customized SIS solutions, reflecting a trend among smaller LEAs to seek tailored systems that meet their specific needs.

A Qualtrics survey conducted by the committee estimated the total annual cost of maintaining these systems at approximately $10 million, with staff dedicating around 773,000 hours each year to data management tasks. The committee identified several limitations affecting LEAs, including personnel challenges due to high turnover rates and inconsistencies in data collection stemming from varying interpretations of federal requirements.

In response to these findings, the committee proposed four potential options for improving the SIS landscape in Utah. The first option would maintain the status quo while imposing additional requirements for compliance with the new USIMS system. The second option, favored by the committee, would allow LEAs to choose their vendors with enhanced support from USBE. The third option would involve a small group of state-approved vendors, while the fourth would establish a single statewide SIS.

The committee's preference for the second option reflects a desire to balance LEA autonomy with the need for oversight and support from USBE. This approach aims to ensure that all vendors meet essential functionality requirements while providing LEAs with the flexibility to select systems that best fit their needs.

Financial estimates for these options varied, with the second option projected to incur additional costs on top of the existing $10 million. The committee acknowledged the complexity of calculating potential savings, suggesting that options three and four could yield long-term savings if maintained over a decade.

As the meeting concluded, the committee emphasized the importance of ongoing discussions regarding data management and the implications of each proposed option. The recommendations will be further evaluated as the state moves forward in addressing the challenges faced by LEAs in managing student information systems.