USBE and advisory committee recommend vendor choice with state support for student‑information systems

The State Board of Education and a 24‑member advisory committee presented a report required by HB 508 on Sept. 1 that evaluated Utah’s student‑information systems (SIS), estimated costs and staff time, and advanced four policy options for the Legislature to consider. The committee’s recommended option — allow local education agencies to keep vendor choice while increasing USBE support, monitoring and vendor coordination — received the most committee votes in a ranked‑choice process.

The report, summarized by Elise Newey (deputy superintendent for policy) and State Board Chair Matt Hymas, found Utah supports multiple SIS vendors across the state: eight vendors serve districts and charters, with the state’s free Aspire system used by many smaller LEAs and proprietary vendors serving large districts. The committee estimated the total annual cost for SIS procurement, hosting, licensing, training and related staff time at roughly $10 million and estimated LEA staff spend about 773,000 hours per school year on SIS‑related activities (data entry, error correction, training).

What the options would do. The advisory committee developed four pathways: 1) status quo with additional requirements and updated Aspire; 2) LEA vendor choice with increased USBE support (the committee’s preferred option); 3) a small state‑approved vendor pool (3–5 vendors) with contracts held at the state level; and 4) a single statewide SIS. Cost estimates were imprecise but the report projected that options 3 and 4 would have significant one‑time and ongoing costs (example: one‑time $3 million and ongoing $15 million in fiscal modeling for a small group vendor approach) and that potential savings appear after long time horizons (roughly 10 years) if a single vendor remains in place through multiple RFP cycles.

Data quality and enforcement. Committee members and USBE officials emphasized a central problem: data quality. USBE staff reported that about 70% of LEAs that submit nightly data to the state produce at least one fatal error — errors that block state systems from ingesting required fields, such as incomplete course transcripts or missing concurrent‑enrollment flags. Jared Felt, USBE IT director, described examples: “Course name is not on the course transcript that gets sent to us,” and “a student is enrolled in concurrent enrollment, but that field is left blank.” The board has $10 million appropriated last year to address data issues; USBE told the committee the appropriation is available and could be used for pilots, vendor support or data‑cleaning work.

Committee reaction and next steps. Legislators expressed differing views. Some argued a single statewide SIS would most directly reduce inconsistent data and cybersecurity exposure; others and many district representatives warned of “sunk costs” — districts’ investments in bespoke systems and integrations that would be costly to replace — and favored a state role that focuses on technical assistance, auditing and stronger definitions. The advisory committee voted for option 2 in ranked choice voting: preserve LEA vendor choice while expanding USBE resources for vendor oversight, training and error remediation. USBE and the advisory panel plan a second report next year focused on reporting burden and data retention; legislators discussed using some of the $10 million appropriation for pilots or vendor bridge solutions.

Ending: The report will inform legislation and appropriations as the Legislature considers whether to fund additional USBE staff, require standardized reporting definitions, or pursue a state‑held contracting model. Committee members asked staff to return next year with the second HB 508 deliverable on reporting burden and data retention.