Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
USDB committee postpones final action on Bridges post‑high program after budget and overlap questions
Loading...
Summary
The USDB standing committee voted unanimously to postpone final action on the Bridges to Community Readiness post‑high policy to the next meeting, asking staff for multi‑year enrollment data, a per‑student and overall budget, and a side‑by‑side comparison with adult service providers.
The Utah State Board of Education’s USDB standing committee on Jan. 13 postponed final action on a new policy governing the Bridges to Community Readiness (BCR) post‑high program after members requested more data on costs, enrollment and overlap with other adult services.
Chair Leanne Wood opened discussion after staff from USDB described Bridges as “a specialized competency transition launchpad for students with vision loss who have completed high school” that focuses on expanded core curriculum, orientation and mobility, assistive technology and employability supports. Robin Clark, principal of the Bridges program, told the committee the program addresses disability‑specific gaps “that maybe other agencies don’t have the bandwidth to cover,” and emphasized individualized transition planning and a safe exit process for students who leave.
Board members pressed staff for budget and scale details. Superintendent Tanner described an immediate enrichment funding gap for the deaf school: “We have $200,000. We need about $300,000,” and said USDB had cut after‑school programming and was seeking donations, grants and foundation support. Multiple members asked for a side‑by‑side comparison of Bridges services, the Division of Services for People who are Blind and Visually Impaired (DSBVI) and vocational rehabilitation offerings, plus per‑student and multi‑year enrollment figures that may be sensitive and provided to board members only.
Member Erin Longacre moved to postpone action until the next USDB standing committee meeting; the motion passed unanimously. The committee instructed staff to return with the overall Bridges budget, per‑student cost information, enrollment counts by category (standard diploma, alternate diploma, certificate of completion, high‑school students), and a draft of clearer exit requirements or standards for documenting student exits.
Superintendents and Bridges staff said the program has small cohorts (staff reported 12 students in the secondary program currently), uses state line‑item funding rather than restricted special‑education federal funds, and coordinates with adult service agencies to prepare students for the next step. The committee’s delay aims to give members time to review detailed fiscal and programmatic comparisons before taking final action.
Next steps: staff will return with the requested financial and enrollment data at the next USDB standing committee meeting.
