Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Usdb Funding And Placement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
USBE committee backs response to PEA recommendations, urges study of funding and preserves option for 504 students to attend USDB
Summary
The Utah State Board—s standing committee on Schools for the Deaf and Blind voted to send a revised response to PEA recommendations to the full board, insisting the board retain placement authority, preserve the option for students with Section 504 plans to attend USDB, and request study of a USDB-specific WPU weight and additional operational funding.
The Utah State Board of Education—s Standing Committee on Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind voted unanimously to send a drafted response to the full board that pushes back on several recommendations from the Public Education Appropriations (PEA) memo and asks for further study of funding and operational details.
The committee, chaired by Leanne Wood, said the letter will emphasize that placement decisions should remain with IEP teams and local educators while preserving an existing option for students with Section 504 plans to attend USDB programs when appropriate. "We are trying to maintain this option that they currently have now, that Utah currently allows them to have," Wood said during the meeting.
Why it matters: PEA proposed changes that would, among other things, move USDB-designated students into the standard K—12 Weighted Pupil Unit (WPU) and special education add-on funding model and narrow where comprehensive high school services are provided. Committee members warned that while WPU inclusion could stabilize funding through enrollment and inflation adjustments, the WPU model alone is unlikely to cover USDB—s unique operational costs.
Key outcomes and next steps: The committee asked staff to prepare cost analyses and to study a USDB-specific weighted WPU. Member Cindy Davis proposed, and members supported, language asking the legislature to study a USDB-specific weight so funding would better reflect the agency—s small-campus, high-need caseload. The committee voted to forward the draft response to the full board for review and approval, with technical edits and a requirement that an accessible version be provided to the public.
Funding details and data cited: Dr. Tanner, speaking for USDB, said about 15% of the agency—s students are served under Section 504 plans rather than IEPs. The transcript of PEA materials cited an assumption of roughly 325 full-time equivalent students and estimated that moving campus students into the WPU could increase WPU costs by about $4,000,000; committee members said that figure points to the need for a more tailored funding solution or an additional appropriation.
Other issues discussed: Public commenters, including parents and advocates, urged the committee to preserve the current service model and warned that language in PEA recommendations could effectively limit comprehensive services and parental choice. Mary Walker, a parent of blind adults, raised concerns about oversight and possible commingling of funds flagged in recent audits; committee members asked staff for clarification of funding flows for USIMAC and the State Library for the Blind.
What the committee did not decide: The meeting did not enact statutory changes. It approved sending the drafted response to the full board and requested follow-up work: staff cost modeling of a WPU-based change, clarification of how USIMAC and APH funds are accounted for, and a timeline to include USDB-designated students in the October census (the committee discussed targeting fiscal year 2028 for implementation). The full board will review the response at its next meeting.
"We agree with much of the work that has been done," Vice Chair Randy Booth said. "But here are our reactions to the recommendations and where we need more discussion."
