Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Online topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances statewide online‑education plan after debate over cost and accountability
Summary
Senate debate on Senate Bill 65 focused on establishing a statewide online education program, provider accreditation and payment tied to student competency; sponsor said providers receive 60% up front and 40% on competency, while colleagues flagged fiscal‑note uncertainty and completion rates for existing programs.
Get email alerts on the Education Online topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Bill 65, which would create a statewide online‑education program governed by the State Board of Education, advanced on Tuesday after an amendment clarifying local district flexibility and a $250,000 appropriation.
Sponsor Senator Howard Stevenson described the bill as a step to "vault Utah into national leadership in education innovation," saying eligible students could enroll in accredited online courses and that payment would be performance‑weighted: providers would receive 60 percent of funding while courses are taken and the remaining 40 percent only after a student demonstrates competency.
Several senators pressed the sponsor on the bill's fiscal implications and whether the program would become self‑supporting. Senator Hilliard asked whether the $250,000 appropriation was a one‑time start‑up sum; Stevenson said analysts were still updating the fiscal note and that fees and the current student funding model were expected to support ongoing costs after start‑up. Senator Maine raised concerns about duplication with the existing Utah Electronic High School and completion rates: the sponsor said the incumbent program's completion rate was reported at roughly 30 percent and that creating competition would reward higher‑performing providers.
The bill draws a mix of supporters and skeptics: backers cited increased student access and accountability tied to competency; critics warned the fiscal note needed clarity before final passage. The Senate voted to place the amended bill at the bottom of the third‑reading calendar for further consideration.
