State board declines letter asserting intent to manage federal education funds

The Utah State Board of Education voted on April 3, 2025 to reject a letter of intent that would signal the state's interest in managing certain federal education funds, including Title I and special education dollars.

The board first defeated a substitute draft dated 04/02/2025, with two members voting in favor (Member Boggess and Member Greene) and the motion failing. The board then considered the original intent letter dated 04/03/2025, moved by Member Jenny Earl, which failed on a 10-4 vote. Members Carrie, Hall, Kelly and Earl voted in favor of distributing the April 3 letter.

The letter of intent urged the federal government to allow states to manage funds locally; Member Jenny Earl, who moved the April 3 motion, said the letter was intended to signal that "we are interested in having the resources and the funds stay within the state of Utah" and that the state has the "expertise" to administer those dollars. Earl told the board the intent letter was not a commitment to change existing protections but a statement of capacity: "We're asking that that funding remain in the state and that we are able to use that funding for the purposes of providing for our students."

Opponents warned the board that shifting management to the state could reduce national cohesion and weaken protections for vulnerable students. Member Rios argued for a unified national framework on education policy, saying, "I am a true believer in federalism and I love states rights, but I believe there is a deep importance for us to be unified as a nation." Rios cited federal data-collection projects and national research programs as reasons to retain federal oversight.

Member Lier voiced concerns about the state's record managing education funds and the possibility that funds could be redirected into the state general fund, saying, "I have no confidence that this money could come to Utah and go into the general fund." Lier also warned that smaller programs, like McKinney-Vento funds for children experiencing homelessness, could be at risk if state priorities differed from federal requirements.

Board member Kelly referenced recent federal enforcement actions and the political risks of state-managed funds, noting a Department of Agriculture action in California and saying the episode "speaks to the divisive nature of politics that we're in right now." Kelly also cited Deputy Superintendent Scott Jones' estimate that the share of federal funds at issue was "a little bit of a range" and noted figures discussed by other members that put the state share at roughly 8–11 percent of certain education funding in a given year.

Several members stressed that even if funds moved to state control, statutory obligations remain. Member Bollinger pointed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), noting that states would still be required to meet federal legal obligations even if federal dollars were removed: "Even if we don't get those federal dollars, we're still responsible for following those laws."

Board staff reported on related work the board has already directed. A staff member said the board had set aside $150,000 for a workplan described as an audit or engagement and estimated an expected timeline of about four to six months to complete that engagement, subject to the chosen vendor's final report.

The discussion touched on several specific federal programs (Title I, Title II, Title III, IDEA, McKinney-Vento) and state legislation referenced by board members (SB 97 and SB 37). Members who supported the letter said it would position Utah to act if federal policy shifts toward returning funds to states; opponents said the state's track record, risk to vulnerable students and uncertainty about legislative follow-through made the proposal premature.

The substitute motion (04/02/2025) was moved by Member Boggess and failed with two votes in favor (Boggess, Greene). The main motion to distribute the April 3, 2025 intent letter, moved by Member Jenny Earl and seconded (second not specified in the record), failed 10–4; those recorded voting in favor were Members Carrie, Hall, Kelly and Earl.

The board did not adopt any language requesting a specific statutory change (for example, repeal of the Every Student Succeeds Act) and did not direct staff to implement a plan to assume federal funds. The meeting record shows only discussion, substitute and main motions, and the votes noted above.

Looking forward, several members urged further work with the state legislature if the board seeks authority to manage funds and asked for clearer guarantees that state control would not reduce funding for high-need programs. Board members also requested additional analysis and timelines for any future proposals.