Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Board asks legislature to address funding for schools with high special‑education rates
Summary
The Utah State Board voted unanimously to seek legislative changes addressing special‑education funding for LEAs and schools with unusually high rates of students with IEPs (for example, greater than 70% ADM), and to continue work on self‑contained funding and related fiscal models.
The Utah State Board of Education voted unanimously to ask the Legislature to consider changes addressing funding gaps for local education agencies (LEAs) and schools with unusually high concentrations of students served under special‑education plans.
The substitute motion that passed asks the board to ‘‘work with the legislature to address the issues related to special education funding raised by LEAs and schools with unusually high rates of special education students (e.g., greater than 70 percent).’’ Chair Davis framed the request as a response to ongoing concerns raised by Spectrum Academy and other LEAs that current funding formulas do not adequately reflect the cost of serving very high‑need populations.
Why it matters: Board members and staff described persistent fiscal stress in schools where a single campus serves an unusually high share of students with individualized education programs (IEPs). Members discussed earlier work on self‑contained funding and said further legislative collaboration is necessary to identify sustainable models.
Next steps: Staff and board members said they will continue work with the legislative fiscal analyst office and other stakeholders to refine potential policy requests and to consider whether separate policy language addressing self‑contained placements or per‑school adjustments is needed. The board did not adopt a specific statutory text at the meeting; it approved a direction to pursue legislative change and continued stakeholder engagement.
Context and dissent: Members clarified the motion is broader than a single numeric threshold—some members supported focusing on schools with >70% special‑education ADM as a demonstrative case, while others emphasized that the policy work should address multiple funding mechanisms, including self‑contained funding. The board emphasized collaboration with the superintendent and legislative analysts to develop options to present to lawmakers.
