Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects first‑substitute SB159 after debate over Singapore Math pilot
Summary
Lawmakers debated whether to pilot Singapore Math statewide or continue the existing 4–6 initiative. Amendments to allow local choice and a motion to substitute the bill failed; the first substitute SB159 failed on final vote 30–43.
The Utah House debated Senate Bill 159 on March 12, a proposal to fund a pilot of the Singapore Math program, but rejected the first substitute after extended debate over curriculum choice, funding and local control.
Representative Newbold introduced the bill and described it as a pilot to continue math improvement efforts (Representative Newbold, SEG 1292–1374). Representative Menlove proposed an amendment to allow districts a choice of curriculum when applying for the grant, arguing for comparative study and local fit; she cited conversations with university math educators who urged options (Representative Menlove, SEG 1376–1390).
Supporters of the Singapore Math pilot said it offered proven approaches to teaching math content and could boost student achievement; opponents cautioned that local districts using the existing 4–6 math initiative had shown measurable gains and that reallocating limited funds in a tight budget risked cutting support from programs already achieving results (Representatives Byrd, Berg, Newbold, SEG 1548–1576, SEG 1560–1576, SEG 1700–1730). Debate included fiscal detail: the fiscal note cited $500,000 total program funding, with $250,000 proposed in committee recommendations and up to $250,000 in non‑lapsing balances from the 4–6 initiative (discussion at SEG 1708–1720).
Representative Berg moved to substitute the bill to instead continue the existing 4–6 math initiative; supporters of that substitution pointed to multi‑year training gains in districts that had implemented 4–6 math (Representative Berg, SEG 1548–1560; Representative Byrd, SEG 1598–1606). After a call of the house and division votes, the motion to substitute failed and the first substitute SB159 failed on final passage 30–43 (SEG 1671–1673; 1861–1865). The bill was forwarded to staff for filing.
The floor record shows the debate centered on two competing priorities: piloting a new internationally recognized approach to accelerate math performance versus continuing an established statewide initiative where some districts had seen gains. Questions of timing and funding amid the state’s fiscal constraints were decisive; some representatives urged postponing new pilots until a less constrained fiscal year.
