Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House circles 'Highly Impacted Schools' bill after extended debate over funding formula
Summary
After hours of debate over eligibility criteria and whether funding should be handled through the weighted pupil unit, the Utah House voted to 'circle' House Bill 65 (Highly Impacted Schools) for further study. Lawmakers clashed over use of 'number and percentage' in the funding formula and whether ethnic-minority measures should be criteria.
The Utah House of Representatives on Jan. 31 placed House Bill 65, the 'Highly Impacted Schools' measure, into the committee 'circle' after extended floor debate over how the program identifies and funds struggling schools.
Sponsor Representative Shirley Jensen, who presented the bill and data from 40 pilot schools, said the program had shown strong results and needed codification into the minimum school program. "In the first term of school, 80 percent of the students participating in the academic coaching program are no longer failing," she said, describing the program's academic-coach intervention as a key success.
Opponents pressed whether the bill's funding formula should be a stand-alone targeted program or folded into the state's weighted pupil unit (WPU). Representative Chard argued for placing funds in the WPU to ensure adjustments would be weighed across districts; Jensen and supporters said the separate program more effectively targets limited, high-need schools. "We're taking a scalpel and we're going in and we're concentrating the money right at the point where it needs to be," a backer said in floor remarks.
Several amendments were offered on the floor. One set of proposed changes would have struck language the sponsor described as potentially ambiguous about whether resources were for "individual assistance to students" versus school-level resources; that motion failed. Representative Alexander and others proposed removing the phrase "number and" from multiple lines in the eligibility criteria (arguing the wording was redundant or confusing); that amendment failed in a recorded vote (21 yes, 42 no). Multiple members raised concerns about whether the criteria (including the number/percentage of students receiving free lunch, student mobility, limited English proficiency and ethnic-minority status) would fairly identify schools in need or unfairly exclude some schools.
Supporters emphasized the program's targeted results and oversight by the State Board of Education, noting the program includes reporting and evaluation requirements. Critics said more technical clarity and time were needed; several members asked that floor time be saved and that staff and sponsors meet again to answer outstanding fiscal and implementation questions.
After debate, the House approved a motion to 'circle' HB65 — removing it from immediate floor consideration so committees and sponsors can refine language and address members' questions. The clerk announced "the bill circle." The sponsor said the action would allow further work to resolve concerns about weighting, criteria and the program's parameters.
The House proceeded to other business; no final policy decision on the program was made during the Jan. 31 floor session.
