Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Competencies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board amends special‑education competencies to clarify behavior‑support expectations
Summary
After targeted debate, the Utah State Board adopted changes to the Special Education Preparation: Foundational Competencies document — clarifying behavior‑support standards, functional behavior assessment and BIP expectations, and the requirement to separate behavioral data collection and disproportionate representation analysis.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah State Board of Education adopted a revised incorporated document that spells out competencies for special‑education teacher preparation on March 26, 2025. The board’s action centered on Standard 6, which addresses behavioral supports, and included language intended to clarify how teacher‑preparation programs should teach functional behavior assessment, behavior intervention plans (BIPs), and the collection and use of behavioral data.
What changed - Language additions specify that teacher candidates must be able to apply functional behavior assessment results to develop and implement BIPs that are generalizable across settings and feasible for general‑education teachers and team members to implement and monitor. - The competencies now require knowledge and use of valid and reliable behavioral-data collection methods and reference federal assessment selection language (34 CFR 300.304) for clarity on assessment materials. - The document replaces some broad or inconsistently defined phrases with more concrete tasks (for example, describing “issues related to disproportionate representation in special education” rather than broader, less specific phrasing).
Why the board amended the standard Board members said they wanted the competencies to read as prescriptive, usable guidance for educator‑preparation programs and for the board’s own program-approval reviewers. Several board members pressed staff during debate to remove vague, “buzzword” formulations and to ensure the requirements mapped to practices teacher‑educators can train and assess.
Who spoke - Member Earl introduced the set of edits and framed them as clarifications meant to align the competencies with existing federal requirements and established practice. - Leah Voorhees, interim Deputy Superintendent for Student Achievement, told the board staff had coordinated wording with special‑education and math specialists and that the edits were intended to make competencies “parallel to the literacy information” already in board materials. - Kim Fratto, director of special‑education programs, explained to the board how a “program”‑level approach to supports (an IEP that includes behavior and academic supports) is different from a stand‑alone BIP and why the competencies needed to reflect that integration.
Board action and next steps The board adopted the incorporated competencies and then approved the related teacher‑preparation rule (R277‑304) as amended. Staff will publish the revised incorporated document and the finalized rule and will update guidance for educator preparation programs and for licensing changes consistent with the new language. The rule and competencies will inform program approval reviews and endorsement guidance for qualifying special‑education teachers.
Why it matters The changes will shape what educator‑preparation programs teach new special‑education teachers about behavior assessment and supports, and they will also change what USBE program reviewers look for during program accreditation and endorsement verification. The added references to federal assessment selection (34 CFR 300.304) and to data‑driven BIP development emphasize the board’s intent that teacher candidates be prepared to evaluate and monitor behavior supports using validated tools and cross‑setting implementation.
Ending Staff will release the updated incorporated document and teacher‑prep rule text, and the board asked for implementation updates to come through the Standards & Assessment committee and Law & Licensing in follow‑up reporting.
