H.B. 234 Education Testing Amendments

What this bill does

The bill creates a voluntary, limited pilot that lets a set number of school districts use a national norm-referenced test in place of the state's required summative test. Participating districts would pay the costs, including mapping the test to Utah standards, and the State Board of Education would work to ensure the pilot complies with federal requirements.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 8 yes, 6 no, 1 absentHouse Education Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 30, 2026Who voted how
• 32 yes, 42 no, 1 absentHouse vote, which failed · Feb 11, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 30, 2026 House Education Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (56 turns)

  1. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:10:29

     Thank you to, uh, Representative Koford. We're ready to move to House Bill 2 34. First substitute education testing amendments Representative Libe. All right, representative Libe, thank you. And, uh, if you wouldn't mind, uh, introducing your guest,

  2. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:11:09

     I wouldn't mind. Thank you, committee. This is a good marathon and definitely feeling it in my thighs. But, uh, grateful that you're willing to take some time and, and hear about this bill. This is, uh, Matt Throckmorton and I will let him announce who he is representing here today.

  3. Matt Throckmorton, advocate2:11:30

     Um, I'm actually just an advocate. I'm, I'm not a lobbyist. I'm not representing any interest. I've just been involved in the education public policy space for about 20 years.

  4. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:11:40

     He's also a former member of this body a long time ago. I don't know. How long has it been?

  5. Matt Throckmorton, advocate2:11:46

     25. Thank you, Mr. Smore. We're glad to have you here. 25 years. Okay.

  6. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:11:50

     Well, so we've been talking about this bill for about six months and we've taken feedback and we've made adjustments and, um, we've also been talking to the US Department of Education. And, uh, in those conversations, we're assured that this is within the allowances. This bill, just what it does, it directs our Board of Ed to work closely with the Utah department, uh, or the United States Department of Ed to ensure compliance. It's a pilot, it's opt-in. Um, and the opt-in would be to be allowed to use a national norm reference test in place of the rise aspire for the required summative test. It's limited in the number of LEAs that can participate. And there's no fiscal note because the LEAs who do choose to opt in and participate will pay, um, for the, the cost. And there are many LEAs who are using these national norm reference tests already. So the cost will be minimal to them. Um, in fact, probably most schools are using nationally norm reference tests in some way. So there's a, there's a national group that has raised some questions around statistical validity. Are we really comparing apples to apples or are we comparing apples to oranges? And so I just wanna be clear from the outset that conversions from national norm referenced tests have been happening for decades. And conversion to Utah's accountability system will not be an issue. And that's evidenced by the fact that the US Department of Ed is comfortable with the knowledge that we will be converting between the two. So a quick example is the A CT versus the SAT. Those scores are numerically very different, but there is a conversion that predicts the score from one test to another with high validity. That is an example of crosswalk or conversion. And it's statistically valid. NWEA is another example. One of the first national norm reference tests fielded in 1970. And they have millions of test takers every year. So the data from these tests is highly valid and informative for administrators, for teachers, parents, and for students. We believe this pilot will improve participation overall. Parents who opt their children out of testing frequently do so because they lack trust in the state test, but they still want the data showing where their students stands. And anecdotally, schools tend to get higher participation with these formative assessments and it drops down as the year goes on. Most schools experience this. So will it increase participation instead of anecdotal evidence? Doing this pilot will give us hard data to show. And, um, and we will have more than just a sense. We will, we will know. So we have assurances, again from the current administration, the DOE, that these norm reference test takers will count for the participation rate. Did you wanna add anything?

  7. Matt Throckmorton, advocate2:15:03

     Um, the only thing I would add is that the background of this, as far as my participation is having been involved in charter schools, having run charter schools, you see that the end of year test, there's an enormous amount of anxiety. That's part of why you have a lot of opt-outs. And so in charter schools and district schools, they've, they've really jumped on this informative testing beginning, middle of the end of the year. And that's required in this bill. And you see that kids, they develop a comfort level with this. Um, the availability of information for the teachers is astounding. I was in the legislature when we implemented No Child Left Behind. And the big premise of No Child Left Behind is that we're gonna, no child's left behind. We're gonna get data on every single child. And I remember the pushback from my former colleague representative, not pushback, but in that generation, Representative Moss, one of our concerns was, is that we were not gonna be generating data that's useful for teachers in a classroom. And that's kind of become a little bit of the concern. And when we use these national norm reference tests, you know, the, the teacher and the school, they get their information like highly informative information for those students within days and weeks. And I just received an email from the school leader of one of the larger schools in the state of Utah. They've got about 16 charter schools, they've got about 1600 kids and he's like, Matt, we do our end of year test and we get our results back in like August. And we've already built schedules and, and it's just not super effective for our teachers. But the national norm reference we get back within days and weeks and we can affect instruction that we're doing through the end of the year. And, you know, just really thankful for Representative Liz nbe. And we had a meeting, um, on Tuesday and we invited all interested charter schools and we had 65 charter schools show up and expressed interest. Like this is a very useful tool. It's statistically significant. The conversions have been going on. Actually, fun story. A former colleague of of some of ours, former, um, congressman, former Speaker of the House, Howard Nissen, um, he first got elected in the 1960s. He passed away a few years ago. He would be 97, 98 years. God rest his soul. He was a mathematics professor at BYU. And I remember when we were going through the No Child Left Behind conversation in 2001, I remember him pulling me aside and just telling me a bunch of stuff. And it included the fact that he was part of the team that really invented some of the modeling, statistical modeling that was used in, um, norm referenced tests. And it was no child left behind. He's lived his entire life passed away, you know, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren in the time that this modeling, this statistical modeling was done. So I know some people have expressed concerns, but this is decades old and I would hope you would support this.

  8. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:17:39

     All right, we're open to questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee all thank you. We appreciate that. I do have a few questions for members of the committee. So we'll start with Representative Hayes.

  9. Rep. Sahara Hayes2:17:51

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I just wanna make sure that I'm fully understanding this. So the definition I have of norm referenced is that it compares a student's performance to that of their peers as opposed to the current standard, which is comparing to that of grade level proficiency. So what, um, group of peers, I guess are we looking at? Is this peers and students within a single classroom? And I apologize if this is in the bill and I missed it. Or is this statewide? Is this multi-state? I just wanna know how we're doing that comparison

  10. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:18:23

      with these apples or oranges. That's great, Great guess. Yeah, it's a great question, right? And this gets at the core of the conversation around, you know, how we do the conversion. So the national norm reference, like the NWA I'm most familiar with that. They have 10 to 12 million test takers a year, and they're criterion based, right? They use state standards, they use, and the state standards because of the work of Common Core, they're like 95% nationwide. Um, but they, they take the test, it's based on those criteria. But then instead of giving you a number based upon, you know, we got 30% of the questions, 70% of the questions, right? They show it compared to average test takers nationwide. And so that's norm referencing, that's not criterion referencing, even though the tests that they, these use are based on standards, right? Criterion, but then that enables them to very easily convert like horizontal nationwide, right? Is the national norm reference based on vertical right criterion, it makes it very easy to convert it in a statistically significant manner, um, using a process that engages, cut scores in that into the apples to apples of Utah's conversion or the Utah's accountability. So Utah takes all of their tests, the rise, and they break it into four categories. 1, 2, 3, 4, right? That's our accountability system. So they take this data, they do the conversion that's decades old and they end up with the same 95% validity for 1, 2, 3, 4. Okay. I hope that answered it.

  11. Rep. Sahara Hayes2:19:47

      Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank You.

  12. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:19:52

      Thank you Representative Hayes. Uh, we'll go to Representative Moss.

  13. Rep. Carol S. Moss2:19:59

      Thank you Mr. Chair. And, um, that did address part of my question, but this is the part that I, um, that I'm concerned about. When the norm referenced, which compares students to students as compared to the standards, grade level standards that measure whether students met grade specific goals, counters, what we're looking at right now, and one of the big pushes of the legislature and the governor is to see that all kids are reading by third grade and even proposing that they hold them back if they're not how critical it is. We know that, I mean, I was in education for years even though I taught high school. Um, if kids learn to read by third grade and then they read to learn following that. So if you don't know what level they're on compared to national standards, how are you gonna be able to assess that? I mean, I'm, I I hear you talk about the conversion. I wish you didn't notify me about asking you questions till right before committee, or I would've discussed this with you. But that's my concern with the bill as it is now, is understanding how we would make those, um, how we would make those judgments about kids at third grade reading level, for example. Or math, maybe it's fifth grade or whatever it is. But I think we have to look at how our students are based on the rest of the country, not just among one another. So that's my concern with the bill at this point.

  14. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:21:36

      Yes ma'am. Can I respond? Yeah. So, um, super good point. And this is one of the things that we love about it because like again, the NWEA, I'll beat that dead horse 'cause we used it for years. But what what it could provide is it, it could show a student, it would have a line and above the line it would have all of the standards, Utah standards that that student has mastered. And below the line it would have all those that they have not. And so you could build an individual education plan, not an IEP special ed, but you could just build a pathway for that student and then you could flip it, you could have a standard align and it would have all the, the students that had mastered it and all those that had not. So then a teacher, they know, gosh, everybody's, I've got 10 kids struggling on this. And so it gives them incredible actionable, um, information very quickly that a teacher can use. And that's, that's why you find so many, so many charter schools, I can only speak for charter schools, but so many of them use this kind of, of testing and then you can still convert it and come up with Utah's 1, 2, 3, 4. So we get the best of both worlds.

  15. Rep. Carol S. Moss2:22:35

      Okay. If I may just ask one follow up please. So I understand this is something that public charter schools want to have this option, but what about, um, traditional public schools? I mean, maybe there's somebody here to speak to that because I couldn't make a decision until I heard from them as well and know if that, you know, if that satisfies the kind of testing they do in including the RISE test.

  16. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:23:00

      Could I give a cheeky answer? We didn't invent it, we borrowed it from them. So, and I know a lot of districts are using different, you know, it might be IXL or something else like that. Yeah. And the districts are included in the bill.

  17. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:23:14

      Thank you. Alright, thank you Representative Moss. We're gonna go to Representative Corinne Peterson.

  18. Rep. Karen M. Peterson2:23:23

      Um, thank you and thank you for all the additional information you've provided us this week. I appreciate that. Um, so I, um, I'm gonna back up a little bit. So I, I have had the opportunity at different times to, um, help with ESSA applications and, and through that process and, and, um, there's a couple of things. Um, first USB has had for many years kind of an assessment committee. Uh, all of the assessment experts from all across the state meet together to kind of talk about, um, what works and what's not working and they help with the system design and all of that. Uh, my question is, has that committee had any opportunity to hear this legislation or provide any feedback We've talked to? Oh, thank you Mr. Speak. Uh, Mr. Chair? Yes, go ahead.

  19. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:24:06

      Um, we've talked to, with the state board, um, multiple occasions and with the superintendent on multiple occasions, we assume that they, um, are fully aware of the desires of that committee under them and, and have communicated with us that, um, this will work.

  20. Rep. Karen M. Peterson2:24:24

      Okay. And then my second question has to, um, questions I guess have to do with ESSA. So, um, we have ESSA, you know, we have to have an ESSA plan turned into, um, the Department of Ed. I appreciate the Department of Ed giving more flexibility to states. I think we all welcome that. We're all very interested in that. We appreciate the waiver opportunities. Um, but our ESSA application, I mean, part of that is really, um, being clear about what our accountability system is and it's accountability system, not just for individual students. Sometimes I think when you talk about accountability systems, we think about, um, how do we get information about a specific student? And that's an piece, important piece of an accountability system, knowing how Johnny is doing and making sure we can provide interventions for him. In my mind, a lot of our accountability system and application we turned D-E-S-S-A has to do with a check on the system. How is our system of education doing in Utah? And so sometimes they hear, um, concerns about how the lag in getting information back. And I think think that's a real issue. But for the purposes of the ESSA application, it still is a check on the system. How are Utah schools doing? And um, so my question is, um, if we, um, to GE to even get to qualify, when we had to do our application, we had to be peer reviewed, right? We had to make sure that uh, the tests that we were using were peer reviewed, that we could really demonstrate that they were a check on the system. And there, there's time involved in mapping. Um, if we go this direction, the difference between a norm, uh, reference test and a criterion reference test, there are different tests. And because the rise is uniquely a Utah test, um, we're not gonna be able to just look at the work other states have done. We're we're going to have to do all of that work uniquely ourselves. So my questions are two things. Do we know the cost of going through a peer review again and have those been accounted for in the bill? And second, can we meet the timeline, um, on doing all of that work with the timeline set in the bill of when the pilot would start?

  21. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:26:24

      Yeah. Do you wanna go ahead and then I'll follow Up? I think the answer is yes and yes. Um, first of all, I, I watched another state go through that process that you were part of and it's daunting. I saw it just from a distance. It's a lot and I greatly respect what you went through there. And the neat thing is, and you know, we keep going back to the US Department of Education, there's probably nobody in the room that understands better what that is than you and them. And they know that process and they're totally, you know, they can't reach out and say please do this, but their answer is, we'll help in any way we can to make this work. So they're really excited about that. And so we're really confident that meets all those thresholds, mostly because the people who understand it best are gonna help us get to those thresholds.

  22. Rep. Karen M. Peterson2:27:02

      And then, um, I'm, I'm sorry, what was your second? So the question about, um, the cost of the peer, so in the bill it talks about that the LEAs will cover the cost of the assessment. What I'm not sure is that the LEAs are, are they also covering the cost of the mapping? Yeah,

  23. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:27:16

      That's in the bill as well. Okay. It's, they're both There total. Okay. So they're gonna total, total also help total gonna cover those costs as well. It was very intentional, like we knew there would be costs and yeah, we just wanted to cover that. And thank you. And the LEAs are still excited about it and want to participate. So thank you

  24. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:27:33

      All. All right. Thank you Representative Peterson. We do have a couple more questions, uh, representative Liz Libe.

  25. Rep. Matt MacPherson2:27:37

      So two Representative MacPherson That, uh, and thank you. I, I'll just say that cleared up most of my questions, so thanks.

  26. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:27:47

      Alright. Thank you Representative MacPherson. We'll go to Representative Tracy Millard.

  27. Rep. Tracy Miller2:27:51

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you, um, explain, so on line 1 91, it, it is using reading instead of English language arts. So will there, will they participate in the state writing test?

  28. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:28:04

      No, that's a good question. So do you wanna go ahead and, and answer that? I'm just looking at the, The answer is no. That was one of them, one of the questions that was posed to us. So then I followed up with a number of, you know, these national norm reference and they point out that they didn't do it. And in order to do that, they would have to like, completely remodel everything. And so that, that's probably the only tweak, um, that would take place outside. It's part of the pilot, but the answer's no.

  29. Rep. Tracy Miller2:28:32

      Um, and then just, um, um, just, just overall, um, how, how do I phrase this? I've lost my train of thought. Okay. Let me go on to one more question. Um, so the testing will be three times a year. Um, is there some, is there a benchmark that will be used to be able to compare? I guess my overall issue is, is the reason we have these summative tests is to be able to compare, you know, across schools. And so, um, can you just address that? Like, um, yeah, how that comparison will work.

  30. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:29:09

      So we, that's, that's been the conversation, right? That's the conversion, that's the crosswalk with the summative, just comparing it across the system. But if you want to say anything else about it, that's what we're, Yeah. Part of it, like, my, my contribution to that is requiring the beginning and the middle and the end is to really show that the schools that participate in this are like, fully invested in doing it, right? Like if we're gonna use a national norm reference, which is a formative test, it shouldn't just be something we use at the end, we should use it properly, right? And they are designed to do beginning, middle, and end. So you're showing growth throughout the year. Then we do it at the end of the year properly with a hundred percent fidelity. And then using this process, we then have the accountability. So we'll end up, the schools in this pilot program will end up with a lot more very actionable data than those that are, that choose not to be in the pilot program. And it'll still be tied to Utah standards.

  31. Rep. Tracy Miller2:30:01

      Like the Aspire test is?

  32. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:30:03

      Yes, ma'am. So that's part of the RFP process is that they have to fully comply with, you know, performing to Utah standards. I mean, they, they just, anything short of it, they're not gonna be in compliance.

  33. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:30:15

      Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you Representative Miller.

  34. Rep. Doug Welton2:30:22

      We'll go to Representative Welton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions that came up from our earlier conversation, uh, outside the chambers. And then just in your presentation, um, one of them is you talked about test anxiety and kids aren't taking the rise because of text anxiety. Can you explain how they won't have anxiety with the test that you're asking them to take now? Like, why is one anxiety inducing in the other one?

  35. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:30:50

      Not anxiety inducing, because we can't tie rise to a grade. We can't ties it to, to test scores or anything like that. So I can only give you my anecdotal of having been under the hood of administering the NWA and the end of the year for seven years. And the military academy, we'd start out with plebe week. And one of the things that we would do in, you know, get 'em haircuts, get 'em in military uniforms, units, teach 'em, military Marching seems far more anxiety producing to me than anything. It's so much fun. They love it. Yeah. This is where I get, and actually I won't go off on a tangent, sorry. But, um, I was gonna start telling stories about PLE week, but we would administer the first, and these kids, they would just sit down and they would, they would take it, they'd be apprehensive and all that. We'd administer it in the, the middle of the year. And what our, what our testing directors, our principals, our teachers are like, you know, that was just really smooth, really comfortable. And even the kids that were really struggling would just sit down there and fully engage. And then at the end of the year, the same experience. But what we would notice is that we would, we would have a fair amount of kids that would still take the end of year NWA would opt out of the state test. And we, we would, you know, there's laws, you can't pay 'em to take the test, but you do everything you can to create the best environment, the calmest environment, incentivize 'em as best you can, motivate 'em. But we'd still have, just like every other school out there, we'd have a lot of opt outs. But these kids, for whatever reason, you know, they'd just sit down and, you know, we'd have nearly a hundred percent participation on our experience. And there's a lot of schools that have the same experience as they talk to other school leaders.

  36. Rep. Doug Welton2:32:23

      Okay, thank you. Uh, my other question dealt with the, the conversion. You were talking about the, of test scores, if you take Juab, it converts over to like a predictable a CT score. I guess my question on that is, is the assumption here, I was still a little confused on, so we're, I guess the confusion I have is we have no conversion rates for the RISE test. 'cause we've never done any studies on, on what the test you'd like to take is versus the RICE test. There's no comparable data to know if it really converts or not. Actually, oh, Go ahead. Go ahead and then I'll follow Up.

  37. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:33:00

      I get too excited about this. Actually. There is, when Utah first created, um, you know, the, the, this law, this test, they created the U pass Utah Performance Assessment systems for students. Remember that. And early on in it, there was, for whatever reason, like the political environment changed, um, there was more open to this kind of conversation. So there were a couple of different ones to include NWA mention them again. They actually did a statistically s significant valid conversion that they provided to the state board. And they were doing that in hopes of getting the state to, you know, engage NWA. And, and I know that around 2009, 10, that there were a couple of school districts that were doing it as a pilot program using NWA and then drum roll, you know, who shut it down? State legislature. Like, they didn't want to ha they wanted to have everybody taking the exact same test. And now it's more than a decade later and it's like, you know, we should get back to a little bit of variation and see how that works. Yeah, and I was just gonna say it's the, it's, it's in the RSP, that's what that's for.

  38. Rep. Doug Welton2:34:01

      Okay. Thank you.

  39. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:34:04

      Alright, thank you representative. Well, tonight I don't see any more lights. We're gonna go to the public for public comment. Uh, thank you, uh, for the, the members of the committee for the questions. Um, if you're here to speak to this, uh, bill, would you please raise your hand except two. Okay, that'll be great. As you come forward, please make sure you sign in. Please make sure you introduce yourself and state who you represent, if anyone.

  40. Brooke Anderson, K12 Data Scientist2:34:25

      Thank you. My name is Brooke Anderson. I'm a data scientist working for Utah School District. I've been working in the assessment and accountability rule world for 10 years now. Um, and I'm here to represent, um, all of the feedback and discussion that we have had in the assessment and accountability world with assessment directors, with the technical advisory committee at USBE with apac, the Assessment advisory Committee at USBE about this bill that I don't feel has been yet represented in the discussion. Um, one of the things I wanna point out is that as our assessment and accountability system is currently designed, we can't use an off-the-shelf assessment as is, as a one-to-one substitute. Uh, we remember we tried that with Utah Aspire Plus, we tried to, you know, plugging in a CT aspire, and then we found out, well, actually it doesn't meet our technical requirements, so we have to go in and customize it a bunch. And it was very expensive to do that. Um, likely that's exactly what would have to happen here as USPE staff digs into the technical, um, aspects of this test. And will it be comparable? One of the things they'll need to do, most likely, and this is based on USB's technical feedback, is they will need to establish compar comparable proficiency cut scores by customizing the alternate assessment to include anchor items from our own bank. And then having students take the, uh, customized assessment in order to be able to, uh, make that a**l, uh, do that analysis, see if it really is comparable in assessing Utah standards. Um, so that's another aspect of the administrative cost of introducing this. And, and I wanna emphasize, again, it's not gonna be a one-to-one off the shelf substitution. Um, so the other thing that we would need to consider if USPE does this analysis and concludes all right the way it is, we actually can't establish a true SGP that is comparable. And when I say SGP, I mean student growth percentile, which is a big part of our accountability system, we can't establish that this is going to give us comparable growth data or proficiency data to our existing assessment system. Then that means that schools in this pilot program would be excluded from the accountability system. So we're potentially looking at excluding 10 to 35% of students from our accountability system. Um, and this is, again, based on feedback from the technical advisory committee in APAC at USBE. Um, you can reference a reach out to them and they will provide this information. Um, I believe it was also discussed in a public meeting of assessment directors on January 15th. So if, again, if we can't establish a true comparison between these assessments, that means we are excluding a whole bunch of students from our accountability system. And our accountability system is, is normative. It's based on comparison. So if we exclude some schools, then it's throwing off everything for all the other schools as well. It's a, it's a boat that we're all supposed to be in together. So if there is a way, um, and I don't see this language in the bill currently, if there is a way that it is determined that these alternate assessments are not technically compatible with our current assessment and accountability system, is there a way for the pilot to end there, or would we be forced to continue and just say, all right, we just, we just can't fit these tests in. And I guess that they have their, their excluded from the accountability system. That's what I'm wondering about. What's the, what happens if that's the eventuality, if there is no technical, um, uh, comparison to be made there, or, you know, if it can't pass that kind of scrutiny. And a couple of other points, I want to make one, um, it was mentioned in testimony that, you know, we have to rate wait months for RISE assessment results, but we get, you know, NWA map growth assessment results and days or weeks, that simply isn't the case. Um, and if I, if we have schools out there, charter schools or public schools who feel like they have to wait months for their rise results, um, I think that is an opportunity for training because your rise results are available immediately as soon as students submit the test. And you see your summary as a school immediately as students are testing. So if we have schools out there that do not know that, then that is a, a fundamental lack of understanding about the assessment system. And I don't believe that's remedied by buying another assessment system. I believe that can be remedied by training. Um, the other thing I want to address is the participation rates between these formative assessments like map growth and rise. The reason why you would see a higher participation rate for a school assessment is because it is a school assessment. It's not a state mandated assessment. Remember, the only ones you can opt out of are the state mandated ones. So if we make this map growth test a state mandated test, it then becomes opt outable. So in that case, we wouldn't, you know, we would see opt-outs of that assessment. So it's not just that people like the test more, it's that once your teacher decides to give you a test, your school decides to give you a test. Opting out isn't necessarily an option the way it is for the state mandated test because of how we've written that law. Let's see. And I, well, I'll end there, but thank you so much. I really hope that there is a chance to include more technical input from our technical advisors that we use to inform our assessment and accountability system in Utah. Thank you so much.

  41. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:39:57

      Thank you, Ms. Anderson. We have one more, uh, public comment.

  42. Shannon Neeley, special education teacher2:40:01

      Yes. I'm Shannon Neely. I am a special education, uh, teacher. I've worked for a couple of school districts. The one that I have now does both, uh, I'm a ninth grade ED math teacher. Excuse

  43. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:40:13

      Ms. Nee, are you representing yourself or the school District? Myself. Okay, thank you.

  44. Shannon Neeley, special education teacher2:40:16

      I'm here, uh, with the Utah Teacher Fellows Group. Okay. I respect, uh, Ms. Anderson so much. Um, I just wanted to speak to, as a special education teacher who is in a district that provides both the, that in WEA map growth testing and end of year summative testing, the one word I appreciate in this bill so much is, or having the ability to have a school decide, okay, this is gonna be best for our, you know, our community and what we wanna do for our district. And so if we wanna move to this test, we don't have to do both. That's where I can see a huge impact, uh, for not just the 15% of the population that is, that are on IEPs, but for all of the students because there, there is some formative data that I use to input into my IEPs when I prepare 'em for families. And I can say, you know, even though we're achieving at the 11th percentile, when we look at norm reference data, they made 56th percentile of growth that can then be a celebration with families. Um, we're our ninth grade, we do rise and you know, the, the, there's also a graph com component to it that the dashboard is easy to navigate. So as a teacher, there are some things that I do like, um, but as a SPED teacher, there's some, there's some data and some we really need to be purposeful. But I just appreciate the intention of this bill and the ability, um, for school districts to be able to say, we don't have to do five tests a year. We can do these four instead. Or, uh, I do see a difference between the test anxiety of aspire test at the end of the year versus the three times that we do, uh, our MAP testing.

  45. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:42:13

      Thank you very much. We have, uh, I know there have been some, uh, questions from members of our committee, but, uh, I'm watching the time here and we have two additional bills that we need to hear after we complete our business on this one. So we're gonna go online to Marcos. Uh, Marcos, please make sure you turn on your camera, introduce yourself and state who you represent, if any. Can you guys hear me all right? We can. Marcos welcome back. Perfect.

  46. Marcos Lopez, ExcelinEd in Action2:42:43

      Pleasure to be back. Thank you, chair and members of the committee, Marcos Lopez for the record. Western Legislative Director for Excel and net in action. Uh, so we oppose HB 2 34 as written for many, many reasons that have already been brought up in questioning and by, uh, other people commenting on the bill. But essentially it does weaken Utah's accountability system. It does create a federal compliance risk, and it does reduce transparency for families and policy makers. Fundamentally, what our current test does is that it answers a very simple but important question. Has a student mastered Utah's grade level academic standards? By definition, the norm reference test under HB 2 34 answer a very different question. How does a student compare to other students nationally? Those are not the same thing. A student can rank high nationally and still fall short of Utah standards. While this bill does require conversion tables to relabel those results, the definition of what the meaning behind the test and what it measures does not change. This weakens Utah's ability to draw clear conclusions about student learning and school performance. This undermines comparability across schools as, as well as subgroups. And it's been mentioned, uh, about the, uh, federal compliance risk. We have also been in discussions with the department, uh, on the national level. And as far as we are concerned, we have seen this movie before. In 2019, Arizona was warned by the Department of Education that following the similar path would lead to a potential withdrawal of their Title one funds, precisely because they did not have a single uniform statewide summative, uh, exam. Um, and lastly, I will know, you know, there's been a lot of discussion about N-W-A-N-W-A was one of the, uh, individ uh, organizations actually flagged this legislation for us. And it's precisely because they understand that this tool is not used for accountability purposes. It is an instructional tool that will likely not pass any peer review process needed for a waiver from the feds. Uh, with that yield my time and thank you, uh, for your consideration, we hope you reject this bill.

  47. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:44:44

      Thank you Mr. Lopez. Um, we're gonna go to, uh, that concludes our public comment. Uh, appreciate the feedback. We're gonna move to action items, uh, to members of the committee. Representative Pucci. Thank you.

  48. Rep. Candice B. Pierucci2:45:02

      It's the first sub correct? And it's already adopted. The first sub is already adopted. Great. It was adopted, yes. Okay, thank you.

  49. Rep. Candice B. Pierucci2:45:10

      I make a motion that we recommend first sub 2 34 outta this committee.

  50. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:45:15

      Alright. The motion is that we recommend favorably house bill 2 34 first sub education testing amendments. Would you like to speak to that?

  51. Rep. Candice B. Pierucci2:45:21

      I think the sponsors in a good job speaking to it, and I know she's worked really hard over interim on this as well. Thank you to the sponsor.

  52. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:45:29

      Thank you. I just wanna make one comment that I don't think was clear in the presentation, and that is that the fiscal note is zero and it's zero for a reason. The burden for providing all of the funding for this is completely opt-in. If an LEA chooses to opt in, then they will bear the burden, but they don't, nobody has to opt in. And, um, to the concerns about the the norm referencing the cross-referencing, um, I just wanna be clear that 2019 letter that Excel and Ed was referencing is obsolete. The administration, and we have been talking with them, says, indicates that we will be in compliance as we work with them, and that is in the bill. So hopefully that, um, is helpful information for the committee.

  53. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:46:19

      Thank you. Um, let's see. Uh, I don't see any more questions from the committee.

  54. Rep. R. Neil Walter2:46:25

      Um, uh, I just wanna make one comment as the, uh, about this discussion. You know, this has been a tough one for me. Um, one of the things I've been really concerned out about is just we do have a large number of opt-outs and I respect those, uh, parents and their right to opt out of our standardized assessments. Um, I'm hoping that, uh, this is a policy that will help us, uh, with some of those families who, for various reasons have chosen to opt out, where we might be able to find, um, a better way to move forward in a standardized assessment where we can have a better indication of their learning out their learning outcomes, uh, the course objectives, whether we're meeting the, uh, proficiency that we seek in our education outcomes. And so I appreciate the, appreciate the sponsor, uh, bringing the bill. I'll be supporting it. Uh, uh, I'll be supporting the motion.

  55. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:47:15

      So with that, uh, um, we don't have any more lights, uh, any, anything before, uh, I'll waive. So I'll waive waive the sum, we'll go back to the maker of the motion. I'll waive, we'll waive. All right.

  56. Rep. R. Neil Walter (presiding)2:47:25

      The motion before us is to recommend favorably House Bill 2 34, first sub of education testing amendments. Um, I'm just gonna do a roll call, vote. Um, let me get your, uh, light on Tisha Representatives. Er, aye. Hayes, no, libe. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Millard, no. Moss, no. Peck. Aye. Corinne Peterson? No. Val. Peterson? No. Pucci, yes. Thompson? Yes. Welton? No. Vice chair Defay? Yes. Chair Walter? Yes. Six. All right. That motion passes. Eight to six with Thank you committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I'm gonna note here for just a moment. Uh, we've got Representative Hayes, Representative Miller rep, Representative Moss, representative Corinne Peterson, representative Val Peterson, and Representative Doug Welton, voting Noll.

• Feb 10, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (4 turns)

  1. Reading Clerk1:15:55

     for its consideration. Madame Reading Clerk First substitute House bill 2 34. Education testing amendments by Representative B. This bill was heard in education with the vote. 8 6 1

  2. Speaker (presiding)1:16:10

     Representative Voxer. Motion to circle Thank you representative Voxer.

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:16:13

     The motion before is the House circle First substitute HB 2 34. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes.

  4. Speaker (presiding)1:16:21speaker not certain

     The bills spent circled Madam Reading Clerk

• Feb 11, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (33 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker45:58speaker not certain

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to encircle HB 2 34. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it? Um, is that my presentation to Okay. Rookie question. Sorry. I'll wait.

  2. Speaker (presiding)46:14

     Okay. Uh, sorry. Uh, we'll go ahead and place the motion. The motion before us is the hou house encircle. First substitute HB 2 34. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes the bills encircled and before the body for further consideration back to Europe zaby.

  3. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee46:32

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. HB 2 34 is a bill that we've been discussing during interim. And, uh, it creates a pilot program for LEAs to use, uh, a national norm reference test in place of the statewide rise or aspire test at the end of the school year. We've talk, we've been talking with the US Department of Education on this and we're assured that this is a, within the allowances that any test taker under this pilot program will be counted in the 95% requirement for the federal funding that is tied to that 95% rate. Um, the bill directs that the Board of Education will work closely with the Department of US Department of Education to ensure compliance. And so it's completely opt-in and voluntary. It's limited in the number of LEAs who can participate. And the fiscal note is zero because the LEAs who do participate will bear the entire cost of the program. So I wanna really just talk about how this benefits schools and teachers school districts right now. Um, they, a lot of them use a national norm reference test to get really robust data, and they also use the Rises fire test. Um, under this program, they'll only be required to use the national norm reference test in place for the summative test. And the level of data that's provided will be statistically significant. There's a, a national group out there that's spreading disinformation about this bill and trying to assert that somehow this will create, um, a problem with our statistical significance when we're talking about the data surrounding our Rise Spire test. But if you look at the NAP test, the NAP test is taken nationally and in Utah by about 0.05% of total test takers. And that is deemed statistically significant for, um, referencing, uh, school accountability and achievement. So, um, the level, the level of data that's provided to teachers under this policy is absolutely incredible and they will be able to, it's actionable immediately in the classroom, whereas the, the data that they get from the rise this fire comes midsummer when nobody's in school anymore. It's not actionable immediately. So this is a pilot program, again, an opt-in. We want to look at schools, um, who are doing this. They're gonna be actually more transparent than any other schools who are not participating in the program. Um, and we will get better data to review what is happening in the classroom. Also, the data that we get from the national norm reference can easily and has been for decades, be crosswalked to fit right into our accountability system. So this will work for Accountability system in Utah as well. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I'm open to questions.

  4. Speaker (presiding)49:49

     Thank you Representative Lisonbee discussion to the bill. Representative Arthur.

  5. Rep. John Arthur49:54

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Lisonbee will yield to a series of questions, maybe?

  6. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee50:01

     Yes. Yes. Thank you, representative Arthur.

  7. Rep. John Arthur50:04

     Uh, Mr. Speaker, I'm curious, the end of year rise assessment is designed and tailored to meet the needs of our Utah State standards. Would this, uh, alternative assessment be designed and tailored in the same way?

  8. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee50:19

     So Mr. Speaker, the, the National Norm Reference test that the USBE applies to this program will be tailored to our standards through a crosswalk system so that yes, they will be plugged right into our existing system.

  9. Rep. John Arthur50:37

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. A follow up on that specific point. When I say that the, the RISE test is tailored to meet the standards, it means that the test questions and items themselves are designed to meet the specific Utah standards that our children are learning in our schools. Would the question items on this alternative assessment be focused on our state standards in the same way?

  10. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee51:00

      So 90 over 90% of the questions are based on common core standards that are nationally represented in all norm reference tests, which is why most LEAs already use national norm reference tests in the classroom in addition to the summative test, because those are already tailored to our standards. Thank you.

  11. Rep. John Arthur51:21

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Another question, if I could. Um, the, the norm reference test that the, the sponsor's referring to, we use for benchmark assessments not for end of year test. Um, could the, could the sponsor explain how a norm reference test is best suited for an end of year assessment?

  12. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee51:39

      There's little difference between a national norm reference test and the state test, other than we believe that it will actually increase participation in testing. A lot of parents opt out of testing because they don't trust the rise aspire test, but they do want to know where their children are at, so they appreciate having test results. So having this as an option for schools will allow them to, will actually we believe, increase participation in test taking in Utah.

  13. Rep. John Arthur52:10

      Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Uh, colleagues, um, I rise in opposition was Bill today, um, as a, as a classroom teacher who is, uh, every spring responsible for delivering the the RISE assessment to his students. I'll tell you, uh, this may be getting a little too inside baseball, but there are two types of tests that we use norm reference and criterion referenced. The RISE test is a criterion reference assessment, which means that the test items are tied directly to our state standards. As a teacher, I look at those state standards passed down from the state school board. And the test items that my students take are based entirely on those which I base my entire instruction upon, uh, a national norm reference test, like an IQ test, A-C-T-S-A-T, these have value, but not as an end of year assessment to see whether or not our students have mastered the standards that we are holding them to. They test different things and frankly, if we, if we were to pass this bill, we would be spending a lot of time, energy, and taxpayer money on the wrong tool for the job. What we need for an end of year assessment is a criterion reference test. That's, that's just any teacher will tell you that. And, and so I urge the body to, to take into consideration the fact that if we are going to look for new tools to add to our toolbox, we have to make sure that they do the right job. Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

  14. Speaker (presiding)53:40

      You Representative Arthur, further discussion to the bill rep and Corinne Peterson.

  15. Rep. Karen M. Peterson53:46

      Thank you. Um, I, um, appreciate the sponsor's work on thinking about assessment in Utah, and I do think that, um, there are ways that we could definitely improve our assessment system here in Utah, but I do have concerns about this specific piece of legislation for a couple of reasons. So, um, let me just talk through those really quick. So our assessment system is a system of assessments, right? And, and we have to get approval on that system from our, our federal partners. That's how we have our ESSA plan. Um, I appreciate that the current administration is, is willing to be a little bit more flexible with states. And we've seen previously, and I I'm really encouraged by that. Um, but when we think about what we want as a state, what we need out of our assessment system is two separate things. The first thing is we need to know how individual students are moving, right? We need to know if they're proficient. The second thing we need to know is how is our school system doing? How are our teachers doing in moving students in their classroom? So our RISE assessment is set up to, to help provide data in both of those instances, it has our proficiency score. So is your, is your fourth grader on fourth grade level, but also it has our growth score. So does, did Johnny in my class make a year's worth of progress while he was in my classroom? And that growth component is incredibly important for our education system and for how we evaluate teachers and how we think about how our school system is doing. As I read the bill, um, the, the assessment that probably would qualify for us to use is the NWEA. And it's a good assessment, um, but it's for a specific purpose. And one of the things it cannot do is measure growth. And, um, I reached out to NWEA, I asked if there was a way that there's their test could work for, um, this particular effort. And they said their growth component would not be able to be peer reviewed because that's not what their assessment is created for. I've also heard some conversation around would this help our optout rate? And we do have a number of parents who opt out of our assessments. It's actually usually pockets of schools that have higher optout rates than across the system. Um, because right now we require our schools to let parents know they can opt out of the RISE assessment. Um, parents, parents choose to do that. Sometimes if we switch to an alternative assessment, we'll still have that requirement now to tell those parents that they can opt out of this assessment. So I'm not sure if this is going to, uh, increase or decrease our opt-out raise. I don't think we know because we haven't given parents this option prior to divided them the paperwork and let them know, um, they can opt out. And maybe the last thing I'll say is we have decided as a state that we want to be in a choice space where we want parents to be able to decide which schools they, they want to take their kids to and what best fits their student. And they want to be able to compare schools. They wanna look at what's every school within five or 10 miles of my house, and I wanna know if that is the right school and how well that school is doing. And so ensuring that we have an assessment that parents can compare one school to another school mapping two different assessments is complicated work. And I wanna make sure our parents can have the best educated decision that they can when they determine which school they want their child to go to. And the RISE assessment is one of the tools we've provided to help us know how our schools are doing and help parents have the information on comparing assessments. So I appreciate, um, the conversation. I think we need to continue talking about assessment in Utah. I think we need to continue talking about what is the flexibility that we might have now that we have not had prior. Um, but as of right now, I'm not ready to vote for this. Thanks.

  16. Speaker (presiding)57:25

      Uh, thank you Representative Peterson. Further discussion to the bill Representative MacPherson.

  17. Rep. Matt MacPherson57:30

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I, I'll rise in support of this bill. I've had, uh, some discussions with the sponsor, worked a lot in the public edu with the, uh, public education, uh, stakeholders on some of our assessments. And I I would just like to point out, we've, we've been using Rise now for seven or eight years in Utah and it has made no measurable impact as far as, um, increasing actual competencies in education. There's some, there's some more. Um, this is more of a compliance and a data gathering tool than it is, uh, providing any, uh, benefit, uh, to, uh, the students order the schools because those adjustments, whatever data we have collected that have not resulted in any measurable, meaningful, meaningful, uh, changes. So I am in in great support of, uh, mixing things up and trying things, especially, um, as we've seen a decline in enrollment in our public education space. And, uh, there is a, an opportunity here to make some adjustments that may actually, um, improve, um, education for students, not just provide more data to the state that hasn't actually changed anything. Thank you.

  18. Speaker (presiding)58:42

      Thank you Representative MacPherson. Further discussion to the bill representative Mike Peterson.

  19. Rep. Michael J. Petersen58:47

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, it's, it's been a while since I did my sta uh, stats classes, but as I recall, I think, I think the good representative from Salt Lake County was correct. The criterion reference test is going to, uh, is going to align with, with what are we doing in, in, in, how is your child doing in a specific, uh, in a specific class or a specific skill or knowledge. The, the norm reference testing is going to tell us how does your, is really about how does your child with those ideas compare with, with a, with a peer group or with a national standard. And my experience has been that, you know, usually parents always wanted to know, not, not usually wanted to know. Parents wanted to know how does, how does my kid compare to the, to to other kids? Is my kid behind the same or, or, or, or, uh, advanced. And, and this, uh, what what this bill before does, gives you that exact information that I think most parents want to know when they, when they're looking to see how their, how their child was doing in school. So for that reason, I'm gonna support it. Thank you.

  20. Speaker (presiding)59:56

      Thank you Representative Peterson. Further discussion to the bill representative Joe Elon.

  21. Rep. Steve Eliason1:00:02

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would this sponsor yield to a question Representative?

  22. Speaker (presiding)1:00:06

      Uh, libe, will you yield to your question? Yes, representative.

  23. Rep. Steve Eliason1:00:10

      Please help me clarify Mr. Speaker. Uh, so this bill then would allow for different LEAs to have different assessment tests. Is that correct?

  24. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:00:22

      So Mr. Speaker, what this pilot program does is it allows 25% of LEAs in the first year to opt in to using an a national norm reference test that is chosen by the Utah State Board of Education as their summative test. So a lot of these LEAs are already using national norm reference tests for their formative tests. They're already using them to inform on, on how students are doing in their school. So this is just saying you can use national norm reference for your summative as well. And in our conversations with the US Department of Education, they're saying that this is completely within the allowances for all of the statistical significant, um, accountability, um, at a school level and at a student level measures that we're looking for.

  25. Rep. Steve Eliason1:01:19

      So, Mr. Speaker, could I ask one more question? Representative,

  26. Speaker (presiding)1:01:22

      Will you yield to another question?

  27. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:01:23

      I will, yes. Representative.

  28. Rep. Steve Eliason1:01:25

      Okay. So could it be possible then that you could have different testing, um, systems and, and, and not be able to compare apples to oranges? Would that be true from school to school? So if I'm a parent looking to put my child into a school, is there gonna be such a difference between LEAs that it's gonna be hard for me as a parent to be able to tell whether or not this school is meeting what I'm looking for because it's not really comparatively equal with other schools?

  29. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:01:54

      Absolutely. Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker and absolutely not. That's what makes this pilot so exciting is the crosswalking that has happened between other types of tests and plugging into the state system of accountability has been happening for decades. So this does not create an apples to oranges situation. When you get done with the crosswalk, we will have apples to apples comparison. Student by student will know where Johnny is and where all of Johnny's siblings are across the state, um, and in their own school.

  30. Rep. Steve Eliason1:02:30

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. Just, just one point that I just wanna make when it comes to testing, if, if in fact we're not seeing improvement in, in student performance, it's not the fault of the test, right? I mean that's, we gotta look and find out why aren't they performing. That's the kind of the point of a test. Just, just to clarify something just from my perspective is, is we do these assessments, perhaps the test is not showing improvements, it's not the fault of the test. I think we need to kind of keep that in mind.

  31. Speaker (presiding)1:03:03

      Thank you, Representative Eliason. Uh, back to your representative Libi for summation.

  32. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:03:08

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to mention that this bill has the support of all of the charter school associations and state of Utah. It's an important policy that provides flexibility for administrators, for teachers, for parents, and for students to be able to have real time data that they can use within the school year to improve and, um, to learn. And with that, Mr. Speaker, appreciate the body's time.

  33. Speaker (presiding)1:03:36

      Thank you. Representative Liz and voting will now be open on first substitute HB 2 34, Representative Kohler Representative Kohler, would you like to vote? Seeing all present Representative Wilcox seeing all present having voted voting is now closed. First substitute HB 2 34 fails to pass this body with 32 yes votes 42 no votes will be sent to staff for filing. Okay, representatives that will conclude our floor time for, uh, this afternoon or this morning. Uh, but before we do, let's see. Let's go to Madam Reading Clerk