Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects resolution on gifted-student commitment after heated floor debate
Summary
House Resolution 5, urging support for gifted and talented education, failed after an attempted amendment to broaden the language to "all students" was defeated and sustained debate about labeling, fiscal consequences and program design; final vote was 32-39 against the resolution.
The Utah House considered House Resolution 5 on Feb. 13, 1997, a nonbinding measure urging support for gifted and talented education. Representative Gary F. Cox, the sponsor, said educators and parents brought the idea forward and emphasized the resolution carried no fiscal note.
A floor amendment that would have changed the language on page two to read "levels of performance for all students, including gifted students" was proposed. Representative Bryson and others supported the amendment as a way to avoid singling out children; Representative Carnahan and others opposed it, saying that making the resolution generic would reduce focus on students who currently lack appropriate challenge. The amendment failed on a recorded vote.
Floor debate continued at length. Opponents raised the risk that a symbolic resolution could be used to justify requests for additional appropriations in future years, with Representative Rowland warning that passage could be used as "justification to come back to the appropriations committee." Some members worried about creating a separate class of students or imposing mandates on teachers and schools. Supporters argued that the resolution would encourage educators and local boards to evaluate and improve programs for gifted learners without immediate fiscal impact.
After a call of the House and other procedural steps, the resolution failed on a roll call, 32 in favor and 39 opposed. Clerk's announcements indicated the resolution will be filed.
Because the measure was a resolution, it did not by itself appropriate funds or change statute; however, sponsors and critics both said it could affect future legislative priorities if advocates pressed for funded programs in subsequent sessions.
