State board reviews online-education bills, endorses small-school funding formula and other measures

The Utah State Board of Education on Feb. 27 reviewed several bills affecting online learning and school finance and voted to back a new small-school funding formula and two other education measures.

The board discussed three statewide online education program (SOEP) bills and raised questions about procurement language and program structure before taking votes later in the session. Board members then voted to support House Bill 396, the small-school district scale-of-operations formula; House Bill 537, Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind amendments; and Senate Bill 39, the education testing amendment.

The board meeting drew sustained discussion of SOEP-related legislation. Deputy Superintendent of Policy Elise briefed the board on three measures the board staff had been asked to review: SB137 (Course Choice Empowerment amendments), SB35 (Statewide Online Education Program modifications) and HB246 (Statewide Online Education Program amendments). Elise flagged a substitution in SB137 that adds a “neutrality and integrity in educational software procurement” section. Quoting the draft language read during the meeting, Elise said the provision would require that “an educational entity may not express or imply preferences for specific software licensing models or software products,” and staff were uncertain how broadly that would apply to board members or USBE staff.

Quinn Kellis, lead administrator for the statewide online education program at USBE, described a significant change in the SB137 substitute: it removes homeschool students from a private-school–stand-alone manager construct and keeps homeschool students in the SOEP while establishing private school programs under a separate contracted program manager. Kellis said the substitute “extracts homeschool students out of the original bill” (as presented), and that the private-school portion would be administered by an independent program manager under contract.

Board members asked whether the neutrality language could limit the board’s ability to seek cost‑effective providers or to describe differences among software licensing models. Member Boggess and Member Ben Davis both asked whether the language might have free-speech or procurement implications; Elise said staff had only recently seen the substitute and were still seeking clarity from the bill sponsor. Member Davis also asked whether students receiving UFA scholarship funds would have to pay for private-school courses under the amendment; Kellis answered that, under amendment 2, scholarship recipients “would have to pay for their private school course if they are a UFA recipient.”

Board staff also briefed members on SB35, a bill to prioritize course access funding for schools with fewer than 1,000 students. Elise said the board (USBE) would be responsible for developing a process to identify high-need small schools based on criteria such as insufficient enrollment, geographic isolation, limited staff and limited access to college- and career-readiness programming. Kellis clarified that some of the data the bill would request are not currently collected centrally and would require schools to submit application data.

On HB246, which would replace the current registration software used by SOEP (“Seats”), Sam Yuri, school finance director, and other staff discussed the fiscal implications. Yuri reported an ongoing cost estimate of roughly $828,000 per year (noted during the meeting as a multiyear/ongoing cost) for the replacement/implementation discussed by staff.

A larger funding discussion centered on HB396, a reconfiguration of the NEST/small‑school funding program. Staff described the bill as simplifying how the small‑school formula measures scale and said it removes disincentives to consolidation by comparing school sizes across grade bands rather than grade structures. Staff noted the bill would add ongoing funding; the public‑meeting presentation cited an additional ongoing cost of about $16,300,000 compared with the existing program. Several members of the board and representatives of local education leadership supported the bill as the product of a multi‑stakeholder working group and recommended the board take a position of support.

During discussion of other legislation, members raised operational and fiscal questions about HB453 (a revived bill concerning board web presentation and vote/video linking). Staff said a substitute introduced the morning of committee hearings had prompted a fiscal‑note request; an item identified as a cost driver was line 29 of the substitute, which would require audio or video associated with recorded votes, a capability that would substantially affect the web implementation and drive the fiscal-note work. Staff told the board the work to scope and cost the proposal was underway but not yet complete.

Board members also discussed HB483 (Trust Lands administration modifications) and said subsequent draft changes removed earlier problematic provisions and left the bill in a more acceptable form, and they discussed HB540 (school district governance agreements) raised in response to audits and public concern about shared-governance models in a large district. Lexi Cunningham (JLC representative) summarized that working groups and local input had shaped the small‑school proposal and said the Joint Legislative Committee had supported the approach.

Votes at a glance

- HB396, Small‑school district scale‑of‑operations formula: Motion to support moved by Member Davis and seconded by Member Booth. The motion passed unanimously (recorded as a yes vote by all members present). Staff noted the bill would add an estimated $16.3 million ongoing cost versus the current NEST program. (Action: support.)

- HB537, Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind amendments: Motion to support moved and seconded during the session. The motion passed with 14 yes votes and 1 abstention; staff discussion said the measure aligns with governance and finance changes the board and staff have been coordinating. (Action: support; tally recorded as 14 yes, 1 abstain.)

- SB39, Education testing amendment: Motion to support was made and seconded; board recorded the motion as approved (roll-call recorded as yes votes). The bill shifts certain testing arrangements and was discussed in the meeting as part of broader testing and accountability changes. (Action: support.)

What board members asked staff to do

Board members asked staff to: follow up with sponsors and procurement counsel on the SB137 substitute language to clarify whether the procurement neutrality language is limited to formal procurement processes or could be read more broadly; continue to work on the HB246 fiscal note and the implementation cost for replacing Seats; and provide the board with a clearer cost estimate and implementation plan for web/video/vote integration contemplated in HB453. Staff said the Legislative Fiscal Analyst and other offices will continue coordinated analysis through the end of the legislative session.

Ending

Board members framed the meeting as a working review of priority bills ahead of committee hearings. Several members emphasized the need for clearer fiscal notes and sponsor clarifications before final votes in the Legislature. The board moved to action on the three measures listed above and adjourned after the roll-call votes.