Rep. Nelson introduces bill to let school districts try ‘local innovation’ plans

Representative Jack Nelson, R‑District 26, introduced RS32624 to the House Education Committee on March 6, saying the bill would allow local school districts to set aside certain administrative rules and pursue locally designed “innovation” plans for up to two years with approval from the State Board of Education.

Nelson said the measure is meant to bring innovations pioneered by charter schools into traditional public districts. “This is a, purpose of this is to let local school districts, set aside a few rules and do some innovation, with their operations,” he told the committee, adding that the state board “has to approve it.”

The bill’s co-sponsors, Representative Mark Sauter, R‑District 1, and Representative Dan Garner, R‑District 28, described the measure as an opt‑in pilot process. “I think the crux of the bill is the local innovation plan means a plan developed by a school district that provides a comprehensive program for innovative education,” Sauter said, citing the bill language that would let districts identify administrative requirements that “inhibit the goals of the plan.”

Supporters said the proposal would let districts experiment with scheduling, career and technical education pathways and other locally determined changes without the state prescribing exact methods. Sauter said the bill includes a “loop process” for districts to report successful practices to the Department of Education and the State Board so other districts can adopt them.

Committee members asked for specifics and cautioned about constitutional and statutory limits. Representative Tanner asked for examples and how student performance would be measured; Nelson replied that measurement would be worked out between the district and the State Board of Education and that the bill intentionally does not “dial in and tell people what to do.”

Representative Harris pressed a constitutional concern, arguing that allowing the State Board to designate some districts as “innovative” could undermine the state constitutional requirement for a “uniform and thorough system of public free common schools.” “If the state board of education is allowed to pick this school as an innovative, or this district gets to be an innovative district and this district does not, that is not a uniform system of public free common schools at that point,” Harris said.

Garner, one of the bill’s sponsors, and Sauter replied that the proposal is opt‑in and intended to preserve districts’ constitutional duties while allowing experimentation. “I see this as an example not necessarily of student performance of an uptick in their reading scores... It could be reading scores, but it also could just be getting more kids to graduate,” Sauter said.

Representative Clow moved that the committee introduce RS32624 and asked the sponsors to provide examples and more detail at the public hearing. The committee approved the motion to introduce RS32624 by voice vote; members did not request a recorded roll‑call.

The committee took no final action on the bill beyond agreeing to introduce it for further consideration and public hearing. Sponsors and committee members requested that the subsequent hearing provide specific examples of exceptions districts would seek and clarity on which statutory provisions (for example, references were made in committee to “title 33 10”) would be eligible for waiver under an innovation plan.