Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the At Risk And English Learners topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses decision on at-risk and English learner reporting rule after debate over 'or' versus 'and'
Summary
Committee members and public commenters debated whether the draft rule R277-632 should require LEAs to submit either outcome data or an intervention-effectiveness report, or both; staff recommended collecting both types, but the committee postponed final action to the May finance meeting.
A planned vote on R277-632, the proposed rule covering funding for students at risk and students learning English, was postponed after committee members and public commenters questioned whether the draft’s reporting requirements matched statutory text.
Rose Van Tassel, executive director of the Utah Association of Public Charter Schools, told the committee the statute’s language provides an “or” between two reporting options (either LEA outcome data or a report of intervention effectiveness), but the draft rule as written used “and,” which would require LEAs to provide both. Staff and program coordinators explained that outcome data alone may not show the effectiveness of interventions and that a narrative report on intervention effectiveness would typically rely on the outcome data; staff therefore proposed including both elements in the board rule to enable the agency to report program effectiveness to the Legislature.
Tanya Albernoz, the prevention coordinator, told the committee that an intervention-effectiveness report would be difficult to produce without the underlying outcome data and that the staff interpretation was to use both elements together. Committee members indicated they were not ready to adopt expanded reporting requirements and raised concerns about imposing additional reporting burdens on LEAs. The maker of a motion asked to postpone consideration to allow broader committee discussion and input.
Votes and next steps: Committee member Christina (last name recorded as Member Boggess in the transcript) moved to postpone action; the motion to defer the item to the May finance committee meeting passed. Staff noted an October 1 report deadline for related reporting, giving the committee some time to finalize the rule language before required reports are due.
Background: The discussion reflects a practical tension between statutory permissiveness (the Legislature used “or”) and staff desire for consistent outcome and narrative reporting to assess program impact and meet legislative information needs.
