Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Standards Revision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee approves 10-year standards-review framework with lead liaisons, forwards to full board
Summary
The committee voted to forward a revised standards revision process (example June 2026) that moves to a 10-year review cycle, creates concurrent research/review and writing committees, and assigns lead liaisons to improve board engagement and streamline public comment.
The Utah State Board of Education’s Standards & Assessment Committee approved, and forwarded to the full board, a proposed overhaul of the standards-review process that moves toward a longer review cycle and more structured stakeholder engagement.
Megan Everett, director of teaching and learning, presented an "example full standards process" dated June 2026. The proposal would adopt a 10-year cueing cycle (committees would not cue a standard for revision until at least six years after implementation), add a separate research/review committee to synthesize comparative research and recommendations, and create writing committees to draft standards. Each committee would name two-to-three lead liaisons who would serve as points of contact between committees and the board during four designated collaboration points in the process.
Under the proposal, board members would have specific collaboration moments to review drafts and ask questions; staff would continue to facilitate work and ensure continuity. Public comment windows would remain but be shortened in draft length (the proposal requested statutory authority to reduce the public comment period to 45 days) while preserving an opportunity for meaningful community input and board feedback.
Committee members debated whether board-member feedback should run concurrently with public comment. Some members argued concurrent input could shorten timelines; others said significant board recommendations should be worked through before public release to avoid confusing stakeholders. The committee ultimately approved the process as presented and sent it to the full board for final approval.
What’s next: The proposal will appear before the full board for final approval; staff said they will continue to refine liaison roles, privacy and participation agreements, and budget estimates for committee participant support.
