The Utah State Board of Education’s standing committee on the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind voted unanimously to forward a drafted response to the full board that pushes back on parts of recommendations recently issued by the Public Education Appropriations (PEA) work group. Chair Leanne Wood said the committee’s letter will highlight areas where the board “respectfully request[s] additional dialogue, changes or removal from consideration” and will be submitted to the full board for review and approval.

The committee’s letter preserves the existing option for students with a hearing or vision loss to attend USDB campus programs if their team determines that is appropriate. “We want to maintain the option that Utah currently allows,” Wood said while explaining why the committee opposed PEA language that would exclude students without an IEP. Deputy Superintendent Lia Voorhees explained the legal distinction between IDEA and Section 504, telling the committee, “IDEA requires that the IEP determine needs, then goals, then services, then placement.” She added that Section 504 teams generally determine accommodations rather than placement, and that Utah currently allows some students with 504 plans to attend USDB using state (non‑IDEA) funds.

Public commenters pressed the committee to protect current services. Roberta Dunlap, a third‑generation deaf parent, told members she “strongly encourage[d] USDB to maintain its current service model,” citing the importance of ASL access, campus programs and related therapies. Parent Alicia Ensign said parents valued “the campus programs, the outreach, the PIP, the bimodal bilingual communication model.” Mary Walker, a parent of blind adults, raised concerns about findings in recent audits and urged clearer organizational separation and funding transparency between programs that serve deaf and blind students.

Board members debated the tone and format of the response and agreed to present PEA recommendations followed immediately by USBE responses in a format that is readable and accessible. Vice Chair Randy Booth urged the committee to acknowledge the work of legislators and staff while clearly stating where the board differs, and to provide an accessible document for the public and for PEA.

The committee also approved language clarifying that on‑campus participation should “be an option for students with a vision or hearing loss who have an IEP or require 504 accommodations, including students with multiple disabilities.” The change was aimed at preserving parents’ and IEP teams’ authority over placement while making clear the board’s intent to keep USDB services available to eligible students.

The committee voted to send the response to the full State Board for discussion, review and approval, with technical edits and an accessible public version. The motion passed by voice vote with no members recorded as opposed. Chair Wood said the response will go to the full board next week and could inform legislative drafting on governance, funding and data collection.

The committee adjourned after the vote. The full board is scheduled to receive the committee’s response for consideration at its next meeting.