Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Education.college Career topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Utah House rejects three-year college and career counseling pilot after debate over cost and overlap

Utah House of Representatives · February 10, 2012
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House debated a three-year pilot to place specialized college-and-career counselors in high schools, citing potential scholarship gains and an $800,000 fiscal note. After questions about cost, local capacity and prioritization, the bill failed 31–42.

Representative Becky Arendt presented House Bill 65, a three-year pilot to place specialized college-and-career counselors in high schools to help students navigate admissions, scholarships and vocational pathways. Arendt said the program would rely largely on graduate students training for school counseling and include accountability metrics and a three-year sunset.

Arendt told the chamber that the pilot aims to help students who lack family experience with postsecondary options and cited committee testimony that a single high school counselor had helped secure “$11,000,000” in scholarships for students. She said the program would focus on rural schools and could stretch to certificate programs, UCAT, community colleges and four-year institutions.

Representative George Butterfield questioned the fiscal note; Arendt said the cost is $800,000 and that she is seeking new money rather than diverting funds from the WPU (weighted pupil unit). Butterfield and others argued some districts already partner with universities to obtain similar services at low or no cost and warned against creating narrow pilot line items instead of boosting base funding.

Representatives who supported the bill said rural students and first-generation college attendees often lack specialized help and that a targeted pilot could provide measurable gains. Opponents pressed for fiscal prioritization and local flexibility. Representative Wright successfully moved to cut off debate; summations were waived.

The House voted 31 in favor and 42 opposed; HB65 failed and was filed. The sponsor said the funding question would be addressed separately and described the day’s discussion as focused on whether the pilot itself would be effective for students, not on final funding decisions.

The House proceeded to other calendar items and adjourned until Feb. 13 at 10 a.m.