State Board supports goals but seeks details, wants key rulemaking kept amid governor’s education plan

State Board of Education Chair Jennifer Deck Samuelson told the House Committee on Education on Feb. 5 that the board “supports the goals” of the governor’s education transformation proposal but cannot endorse the proposal without more specific details on funding, formulas and implementation.

The board, appearing through Chair Jennifer Deck Samuelson and Vice Chair Tammy Colby, said it backs the proposal’s stated outcomes — expanding early childhood education, increasing afterschool and summer programs in underserved communities, guaranteeing essential arts for students, improving access to school mental-health services, strengthening college- and career-readiness pathways and raising teacher salaries — but raised multiple unanswered questions about the foundation formula, revenue sources and operational impacts.

“We support the idea of increased transparency and predictability in establishing the tax rate,” Samuelson said. But she added that "without more specific details, the board is unable to comment on either its support or lack of support for the foundation formula contained in the proposal at this time." The board held a special meeting Feb. 3 to discuss the plan and took nearly 20 minutes of public comment, Samuelson said.

Vice Chair Tammy Colby pressed the committee on where rulemaking should sit under any transformation. Colby said the board agrees some rules could be shifted to the Agency of Education but argued that "the EQS, the independent school rules, the CTE rules, and the special education rules should all be in one place" under the State Board. She added that district standards should remain consistent with those rules to avoid incoherence across the system.

Board members and committee legislators raised three recurring concerns: lack of detail about the foundation formula and its assumptions; how weighted funding would reflect differing student needs; and who would decide school or district closures under a new funding or consolidation framework. The board noted an example from the proposal’s staffing model for middle schools that, as written, may not reflect smaller schools’ non‑linear staffing needs.

The board also flagged governance and transparency risks if rulemaking authority moves from the board to the Agency of Education. Samuelson said the board is an independent, neutral body appointed by the governor and that moving rulemaking to the agency could make the process more politicized and reduce public visibility. "If you take away the rulemaking authority from the board and hand it to the agency, there may not be that same level of transparency," she said.

Committee members asked practical questions about resources and oversight if the State Board retained or regained rulemaking duties. Colby and Samuelson said the board does not currently have the resources to perform substantial rulemaking and that any statutory retention or reassignment of rule series would require a conversation about staffing and capacity. "If we retain any element of rulemaking, we will need the resources to allow us to do that," Samuelson said.

Legislators referenced the 2012 governance change and other past reforms as part of the context. Members and the board described broken feedback loops since the board’s oversight role changed, leaving the board hearing issues it lacks authority to resolve. Former Commissioner Armando Villaseca was cited by witnesses as having testified about that shift.

Several committee members suggested a middle path: keep high-level, system‑defining rules with the board (EQS, special education, independent schools, CTE and district standards) while designating routine, operational items to the agency — provided there is a clear, published framework, public engagement and sufficient resources to support the board’s responsibilities.

The State Board offered one concrete next step: bring specific questions or topics the committee wants the board to address at its next regular meeting. Samuelson said the board will finalize its Feb. 19 agenda by Feb. 14 and invited the committee to submit items for that meeting.

No formal votes or statutory decisions occurred during the Feb. 5 committee hearing; lawmakers asked for further detail and for a proposal that outlines which rule series should stay with the board, which should move to the agency and what resources or oversight changes would be needed.

The committee and state board agreed on the need for a coherent regulatory framework that aligns with larger policy goals and noted that implementation capacity and oversight are central questions the legislature would need to address if rulemaking responsibilities change.

Ending note: The State Board will hold its next regular meeting on Feb. 19 and offered to report back to the committee; the board asked the committee to submit specific questions by Feb. 14 so the board can place them on the agenda.