H.B. 426 Online Education Service Provider Amendments: transcript

Alright, thank you Madam Chair. Appreciate the opportunity to be here in front of the committee today. Um, I'm here to talk about House Bill 4 26. I'll be speaking to the first substitute. Um, I wanna provide a little bit of background. So, um, in statute for, for now, uh, seven years, we have pub public education's vision and mission. I just wanna share, I've talked a lot about this in a lot of different contexts, but the legislature recognizes that public education's mission is to assure Utah the best educated citizenry in the world, and each individual, the training to succeed in a global society by providing students with learning and occupational skills, character development, literacy and numeracy, high quality instruction curriculum based on high standards and relevance and effective assessment to inform high quality instruction and accountability. Uh, with that background, um, there have been a number of audits related, uh, specifically to, uh, the, uh, uh, LEA that are operating it with the, within the open ed framework. And there were a number of recommendations from those. Um, I'm taking a different tact with the bill than what we heard in interim when we discussed this particular issue. Um, house Bill 4 26, uh, is fairly straightforward in what it, what it, uh, contemplates. Um, it assigns, it requires each LEA in a learner validated program. So if you want to think about it this way, instead of thinking like, for example, a district school or a charter school, um, think about this as a in-person brick and mortar attendance validated. So where you're measured, um, your A DM and your, uh, as your attendance is measured by seat time. Uh, we're talking about all of our alternative models. So we have lots of them. We have online, we have correspondent, we have self-paced, we have, um, a number of, uh, a number of different, uh, models that fit in this case. Um, so for an LEA that's operating any of these range of models in a learner validated program, uh, the LEA is required to have, uh, a licensed teacher of record that would be responsible to ensure the following, um, academic proficiency or meeting state standards, progress and participation compliance with state assessment requirements. That does not mean that they have, that they can't opt out of, uh, standard, uh, certain standardized tests per the statute. Um, and then equivalent, equivalent academic rigor, um, they're, the LEAs are required to, under this bill to adopt a policy that says if the course requires a certain amount of participation in or time, think about a choir class or a PE class that they need to accomplish a certain amount over a specific amount of time. Um, they wouldn't be able to essentially, they wouldn't be able to essentially not participate. Um, and then test out at the very end. Um, the teacher of record would verify student identity and progress, so we'd make sure it's the student's own work. Um, there'd be a number, a minimum number of interactions that the policy would contemplate. The LEA would have control over the student to teacher ratios. So that would still be set by the LEA. Um, if a, if a if applicable, they would be able to, uh, incorporate in their policy sequential completion of coursework and monitor student growth, um, and document student progress. I'll just note that in a lot of our, a lot of these models, there is various ways that we're contracting with education providers and the ability to contract and coordinate and cooperate with them wouldn't be, uh, taken away. The parents' flexibility for their educational choice, their education choices and their child's education par participation wouldn't be taken away. But what we would ask is that a licensed teacher of record would be able to, um, with the LEA, be accountable for that student's success and, uh, academic progress. Uh, that's the bill 4 26. Um, I'll go to the committee for questions.

Thank you. Uh, Madam Vice chair. I'm just wondering if, do students in online learning programs right now have bad outcomes? Do they like not get into college or something like that? Because it seems like it's trying to solve a problem. And I'm not sure I could pinpoint where the students are failing in these programs and, and what the problem actually is. The answer is we don't know how the students are performing as a state. Uh, the state, the state school board, the LEAs don't know how the students are performing. Okay. It looks like that this could be a bill that could make online programs become very inconvenienced and could really make a lot of changes and frustrations for a lot of people. I'm, I'm a little concerned about that.

Thank you Madam Vice chair, um, representative. Now, are these online programs, um, being used by people that have Utah fits all? Scholarship is

No. So no, this does not apply to the Utah Fits all scholarship. This does not apply to homeschool families who are, um, not using state resources. This is only individuals who are participating in a alternative learning environment. We call it a learner validated program. Uh, that is o that is operated under the discre under the direction and the funding of a, uh, local education agency in LEA.

Okay. Thank, uh, that's a good, uh, way to distinguish it for me. So they are, um, so it, it is paid for just as if they're in regular public school the same way with, you know, um, but it, it is through a local LEA that's a quite a big distinction. And I'm very happy that they have to, uh, show that they're learning something, that they're making progress as public school students do. So it's essentially, they're public schools, but they're doing it via online, is that correct?

That is correct. These are public schools. Okay. They are, when, when I say public schools, that could mean a, a district or a charter, but yes, they are public schools. Um, they are funded through the State Board of Education. Um, they're funded through, um, our appropriations process. They're, they're public school schools and all those rights.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, can you help me understand, do, do we not have currently a requirement for licensed educators in these programs right now?

So the answer is, uh, yes, but they can, all, all of the licensed educator, uh, uh, interactions can be, can be contracted out. And if I go back to the, uh, part of the issue, frankly, that was, uh, identified in the open ed audit, one of the big issues was the LEA is, uh, contracting a large, uh, all of the almo, virtually not, not all, but much of the education, um, to a third party vendor, which is authorized. Um, and this bill doesn't change that. Um, but if you wanna think about it, I'm not actually making requirements for the, for the family or for the education, um, uh, education service provider, whoever who's contracted. But I'm asking the LEA to, to spend the resources and commit the resources to know, um, where the students are in terms of their achievement. They can do that in a, um, they can do that in an appropriate way. Um, but, but the focus here is to ask the local education agency, um, to have a teacher of record that's employed by them to coordinate with and, and work with any of the other education professionals that are, uh, licensed curriculum providers, et cetera, that are already, uh, engaged in the education process. So this wouldn't require any hiring of new individuals, just assigning existing staff to Supervise some, some of the LEAs may have to hire, the answer is yes, they may have to hire, um, uh, licensed educators to fill this role, but that would be up to them to set that policy and determine what the student to teacher ratios look like and what those required interactions look like. They have broad discretion in those, in setting those policies.

And Madam Chair, if I could just follow up. Um, so I don't see any of that reflected in the fiscal note though, as far as local impact that there would be any hiring costs. Is that

It's because it's already funded from us. We we're already funding all of those, uh, in my, we're already funding those services, So, so if they add additional teachers head counts, that's coming from an existing bucket.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, could you kind of outline anything in the bill that you feel is not reflected in the audit that, um, we recently had on these types of education models?

Yeah. Yes. Actually, to be, to be very direct, the audit originally contemplated that, um, these programs, some of them would be, would be entirely moved from outside of the LEA structure to Utah fits all. It contemplated it, contemplated that as one option. Another option that it contemplated was, uh, essentially more oversight and more resources from the LEA to, um, uh, engage with the students who are participating in a learner validated, uh, in, in certain types of learner validated programs. So when we met in the fall in interim, and we discussed, uh, uh, options, the original bill contemplated moving all of these students out from the LEA and moving them to fits all. And for a number of reasons, um, that policy doesn't seem like that's the right time or the right fit. And so we've, the, the policy proposal has moved to, um, one of those alternative recommendations, which is to work with the LEAs to try and, uh, determine, um, a, uh, uh, a mechanism that we could work with the LEAs. We could work with the educational service providers and come to, uh, and come to a, um, a good arrangement that allowed us to move forward with, um, with their support. And so I've talked to, uh, a number of the LEAs that are participating in these models. Not all of them, but many of them. We've talked to a number of the educational service providers. We've had very good conversations and collaborated to try and get this, uh, legislation to a point where they're comfortable. Um, and I'll let them speak for themselves today. But, um, but anyway, we've worked really hard to be sensitive to the concerns of both the LEAs the service providers, and preserve the flexibility and the choice options for the families that are participating.

Okay. That, that's helpful. Thank you. It's, so can you address the, um, the reporting requirement? So is that, do you envision that being a lot more or about the same as what is already required within a lot of these programs that are functioning currently?

So some of the programs, not all of them, but some of the programs, for example, require learning logs. And the LEA has the ability in their policy to determine what that reporting requirement looks like. You'll notice that we didn't specify that. So there's already an existing relationship between the LEA and the education service provider about how to work that in a, uh, work through that in a way that is, uh, good for both, um, the students, the families, the, um, service provider and the LEA. And we've left that in that court. So if the LEA says we're, we're comfortable with what we're doing from a reporting standpoint, they have, they have discretion over that policy, we're not telling them what it needs to be.

Okay. And did you receive feedback that caused you to go in a different direction from putting this under, um, Utah fits all, uh, to just keeping it with the LEAs?

Uh, yes. The number of students that would be potentially moved would be a massive, uh, shift in the, um, administrative responsibility and oversight to fits all. And we just felt like that originally we were contemplating a phased move. We just felt like that right now wasn't the time to do that. And, and this solution is a, um, it's a good, uh, I think it's a, I think in some ways it's a, it's a very good solution that allows us to address the concerns that were raised by, um, some of the concerns that were raised by the audit without, um, uh, creating, uh, confusion or a large administrative burden on the fits all program in the short run.

Okay. And then, um, so if the program were moved to Utah fits all, and I'm sorry, I have a lot of questions, but we've talked a lot about this, so, and I appreciate your answers. Is this okay, Madam Chair? Um, if presumably if the, if the students in a lot of these existing programs were moved under Utah fits all, then the language requiring alignment to standards would no longer apply because alignment to standards is something that happens under the umbrella of an LEA, but not necessarily under the umbrella of Utah fits all. Is that how you see that?

Yes. And to be clear, technically because, um, these services are being provided currently under an LEA, there are required, there are state standards that are required. But to your point, um, I was on a call with a number of, uh, with a number of, uh, families that are participating in, um, the, some of these programs. Um, they're having a great experience. They really love the programs, and it seemed very clear to me listening to them that they prefer the flexibility that they have inside the LEA to, uh, choose curriculum and have access to certain options that, um, are today better built out, and there's more functionality and more customization for them where they are than in the fits all program. And so one of the clear takeaways for me was that, um, uh, many of them did not want to have the program move. They felt like that the program would be, uh, better serve, better support their, uh, children's educational needs, um, in collaboration with the LEAs that they were currently working with.

And then just two more quick questions. Um, so is the testing requirement in the bill subject to an opt-out provision as well?

Or did the Okay. So Yes, yes. They can opt out just as they can. There are no, there are no requirements that it has to take a specific form, but, uh, uh, we're, we're gonna have a debate, uh, in this committee, um, about, for example, um, third grade re we, we call it third grade retention is like the, what we're talking about. But, but the idea, the idea behind it is that we just wanna know where our third graders at. We want to, we have a goal of, as a state, to move from 70 to 80% of our third graders being prepared to be being prepared to read at a specific level. And so, one way to think about this is the LEA could work with their, um, uh, their education service providers and the students and the families to figure out what that looks like for them. It doesn't have to be a, this is not prescriptive and it doesn't require a specific format, allows the LEAs to say, um, what's the appropriate way for us to determine the, um, uh, student progress on this particular metric. Um, as a student is, uh, moving through their, um, educational, their customized educational experience, they don't have to take a standardized test. They don't have to do it a particular way. The LEA and the, um, education, uh, providers still have that flexibility, um, to do that in a way that works for the families and they have the ability to set their own policy.

Thank you. And then just the final question is, how much does this bill, um, obviate the current contract? Like, is it requiring a renegotiation of a contract between a provider and an LEA, or is that, does that contract still stand, um, so that the LEA wouldn't be able to come in, in a really prescriptive way and dictate what happens within that contract? Mm-hmm.

Or will it, none of the, none of the conversations that I've had have indicated that that would be the case. So I can't speak definitively to that, but nobody's expressed, nobody that I've spoken with in the number, in the large number of conversations that I've had, um, with LEAs, education service providers, various different, um, uh, models, uh, that hasn't been raised. Um, I, I can't say for certain that under no circumstance, but I, but I haven't had anybody raise that concern.

Thank you so much. Alright. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Oh, sorry. There you go. Good afternoon, friends. Uh, Royce Van Tassel, Utah Association of Public Charter Schools. Um, I've spent, uh, a lot of time with, um, with Representative Walter working through, uh, a lot of nuances. Uh, here we have a number of charter schools that use learner validated programs. Uh, there's one charter school that works, uh, with open ed, and we have a number of other charter schools that have different flavors of learner validated programs. And they've been, to say the least, very insistent that, uh, they want to make sure they're more than happy to make sure that their students are making progress. They are, after all, running a public school. Um, but the families that they work with are looking for something different than what they find in their neighborhood charter school, their neighborhood, um, district school. And they, that that Independence is important to them. And so they want the opportunity to construct policies that reflect the expectations that you as stewards of taxpayer dollars, um, have, as well as the expectations of the families that they're serving. And, uh, 4 26 does, I think, a remarkable job of threading that admittedly delicate needle. So we, uh, hope you'll support the bill. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Corinne Latham. I am here to speak on behalf of U hope. We are an organization, well, a coalition of organizations, uh, in the homeschool community all across Utah. Um, we have been working with Representative Walter and thank him for the Herculean task he has taken on. We really appreciate all of the time he has given to us to listen to our needs and to really try to understand what this community looks like and how the homeschool community is served with these programs. Representative Walter invited parent feedback, and we have tried to make the most of that. Um, that said, uh, we have tried to share some more concerns by email, but we have not been able to schedule that meeting as of yet. And so, um, I want to express our concerns here at this time. Our biggest concern is clarity. This bill includes broad terms such as alignment to standards, monitoring and verification and proctored assessment requirements. These are not clearly defined without clear limits in the statute. Districts could interpret and apply them differently across the state. Families need clear and consistent expectations. Accountability matters, but it must be precise. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask that you not advance this bill today, and instead require clearer definitions before moving it forward. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. So I understand wanting what you're asking for, but I'm not sure that it actually gets you to where you want to be. And we've had some conversations about this policy. I I think that the way that it's drafted respects the contract that exists between an LEA and one of these types of schools. And if it were to be more prescriptive, I think that that could really get into maybe obviating parts of the contract. And the sponsor could probably speak to this better than I could, but, um, I'm, I'm just not certain what you're asking for is what you really want, is what I'm saying. So, and maybe the sponsor can speak to it when he sums, but anyway, thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I, I think what we were just really speaking for is for clarity, and

My name is Nina Wolf, and I live in Davis County, and I am also here with you Hope. Um, we really want to express our appreciation for the efforts that have gone into this bill. Uh, the improvements have been substantial and much appreciated. Uh, there are a few minor issues that I think with perhaps a little effort we probably could Iron out. Um, some of the definitions we do, we, we always get concerned if it looks like a definition is malleable. So if there's any way that we can be very specific, perhaps with some of these definitions, um, and there are some individuals who are concerned about, you know, things like it must be completed within the traditional school year. There are some learners who are perhaps based on a different schedule. I don't think those are huge leaps to, to worry about. I don't think that will be a problem. Um, but we do appreciate the, the effort that has been made. It's, it's really been difficult finding the right line when it is such a complicated issue. So I do wanna express our appreciation of that.

Thank you. Um, my name is Amy Oswald. I'm a homeschool mom. Um, I, as I was reading the bill, some concerns I had, it was, was more in regard to the curriculum and, um, LEAs I can see the need for them to want to have certain curriculum that would be used by the students. And so because of that surety, I know that a lot of homeschool families have certain curriculum that they would want to use. And I wasn't sure if that would be allowed or if that was something that had to be approved by the LEAs or if there was more of a strict guideline in regard to that. And so that's something that I would like as a homeschool mom to know a little bit more clarity on. And I really do appreciate, um, representative Walters that he is been really good to talk to homeschool families. So thank you so much.

Hello? Good afternoon committee. My name is Tiana McCall. I am here representing myself. I am a parent in one of these district partnered programs, and I'm also deeply supportive of public education in Utah. Um, I appreciate the effort that, um, Representative Walter has put into this, this bill. Uh, it's come a long way from its original, um, place when it was moving into UFA. And so I'm grateful for this. Um, I also agree that if districts are receiving public funds, they need to be able to demonstrate oversight and account and have accountability. Um, what I'm hearing from parents as I've been reaching out to many parents in the pro these programs is that they're not asking for less accountability, but clear guardrails, um, with terms like alignment to standards and monitoring and verification, because these can be di uh, interpreted very differently at the LEA level. Um, the statute may not intend rigidity, but without clear definitions, districts might adopt more prescriptive policies in order to protect themselves. And that's where flexibility could quietly shrink. In practice. For example, my first grader is well into second grade math, but moves more slowly in writing. And so the model that we're in now works because pacing is individualized. While standards are still addressed over time, um, we wanna stay in the, in connected to our public education, um, systems. And we just want more clarity around accountability that preserves flexibility rather than narrowing it unintentionally.

Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, I just have a, can I ask a couple more questions? Yeah. Is that okay? Um, to the sponsor or Madam Chair? Uh, could, I'm thinking about the last public comment in the room and the question, and to me it really devolves to the contract, the existing contract, what the curriculum looks like. And I can imagine that a provider would not want to maintain a contract where they then had to change their entire model. And so I'm wondering if I, I, I mean, I would like to reserve the right to make a motion to favorably recommend, but I would also, I'm just wondering if there's a way to, to maybe work with me to create a, some language where we require a renegotiation of contract if either party, um, is, is not happy with what happens after this bill goes into effect or something, something to that effect. So

Okay. Thank you. So, um, I'm happy to, I'm happy to, uh, visit with that visit with you and try and work on that. Uh, at, at length. Let me just provide a little bit of context. We did have quite a bit more specificity in the bill. Um, one of the big concerns from the education service providers would was how would the state board interpret that specificity? And would that invite rulemaking That was not intended in this case. And so we intentionally, uh, tried to be very careful about how we, um, uh, essentially crafted these, uh, requirements. And we were very, very careful to make sure that the policy was a LEA policy. You'll notice this policy isn't submitted to the state board. It's not, it's not a policy that, um, the state board has been granted rulemaking authority for, with the one exception of, uh, Utah Online, which they solely regulate. And so we've tried to be really careful about the relationship between the LEA and the, uh, families and the education service provider that already exists and we're in, in many ways. Really what we're asking for is, um, for them to work together to find something that works for them. Um, I've, I've spoken to the LEAs that are sponsoring these programs. Uh, I think all, most of them, I've spoken to many of the education service providers, and that's one thing they want, is the ability to continue to collaborate and work together without, um, uh, without, uh, essentially having somebody that's not already telling them how to do this, how to do this. And so I've tried to, I've tried to do that very carefully. I'm, I'm sure there's ways that we can improve, but that's been the intent so far. Okay. Well, I, I do have a first sub by the way.

Okay. Then I move the first sub. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to the motion? I think I've spoken enough. Thank you. Alright. To the sponsor, The first sub is, uh, significant improvement with the assistance of both the education service providers and the LEAs in this space. So I strongly recommend the first sub.

Okay. I appreciate, um, I would like to move that we favorably recommend the first sub, um, to the floor. And I would just like to speak to that, That motion is in order. Go ahead. Thank you. Um, I think this is a good bill, responsive to the audit. You've been responsive also to the concerns that have been expressed from many of the families who are currently in these programs. And I'm, I appreciate your willingness to work with me as this goes to the floor to make sure that we are protecting that contract as much as possible and protecting the provider to be able to, to deliver the educational product, um, without as much interference as possible, while still complying with the audit findings, which I think are really important. And so with that, that's my motion.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I would like to thank all of the people who came today and who commented online. I really think it's valuable to hear from people that are using this program. I'm also a little bit concerned that they have not been able to get a meeting with the sponsor. So I, I know how much work has gone into this. I've been part of meetings where the sponsor has worked with these groups and has really tried, but maybe at the end, things have gotten busy here in the session. I don't know. I am going to vote for this because I think it is going in the direction that is, that is the best direction for the people, um, especially from where it started out. And it's contemplating the audit. And so I think that's a good thing. But I also feel like that it sounds like there's still some conversation that needs to be had. And if there's a few words that need to be adjusted or something on the floor, I would love to know that they've had an opportunity to have a conversation with the sponsor before it gets to that point. And so I'm hoping that he can give me a nod that that would happen.

Happy to continue to visit about the bill and try and work to get to a better place.

Uh, we've had a lot of good comments. I'll waive Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for, uh, your patience and recognize the hours late. Uh, household 4 26 online education service provider amendments, uh, seeks to do a couple of things. Um, uh, specifically, uh, it asks LEAs to, uh, create a policy where they will have a licensed teacher of record who can make sure that, uh, we have some basic, uh, insight as to the, um, uh, learning objectives and outcomes for some of our students that are participating in alternative learning models. So, let me tell you where this came from and then, uh, provide some little bit of additional context. Uh, this all started a long, uh, few years ago with the, uh, audit that was done on Twila School District, uh, with regard to open ed. And then subsequent to there was an audit, uh, that was done on open ed itself. Open ed is a online education service provider. It is a, it's an alternative learning platform that contracts with LEAs to, um, uh, to provide education services. Uh, one of the provisions in the audit was that we, uh, moved those students, um, out of the LEA structure and into Utah fits all. There was some discussion about that. Ultimately, what we ended up with is a policy that would, um, provide, uh, more structure and accountability between the online education service provider and the LEA under with whom they're contracting. And that's the bill that's before you. So, um, this bill, uh, applies to what we call a learner validated program. So we have attendance validated, that's pretty straightforward. That's where somebody is in a physical seat, in a physical facility. Your learner validated programs are, uh, all, all of the other programs. We establish a teacher of record, which is a licensed teacher who is employed by the, uh, LEA and it directs that learn of validated, uh, program, the LEA to craft a written policy, assign a teacher of record and ensure proficiency alignment with state standards, monitoring of academic progress and participation and, and equivalent rigor. The policy re, uh, allows the, um, LEAs to still retain broad discretion about how they want to administer the programs, but it does require a few basic things, pacing of learning objectives. Um, if that is a part of the course or the curriculum, uh, we want to confirm that we're, that the student confirm the student identity and progress are actually the student's own work. Um, there need to be a minimum interact number of interactions with the teacher of record, and that's up to the LEA to set in their policy. Um, it, uh, contemplates where appropriate sequential completion. And, uh, the intent is to have, uh, uh, some transparency into student growth, academic engagement, and student progress. Ultimately, the goal here is if we look at the State Board of Education, and they were to say, well, how many students are participating in a learner validated program? We'd be able to answer that question. And if we were to start to think about, uh, at a basic level, uh, uh, how are our students that are participating in various forms of learner validated programs progressing academically, we'd have some insight into that as well. So, that, uh, is my summary of the bill and appreciate the committee's time. I'm open to any questions.

I move that we pass with a favorable recommendation. First substitute house bill 4 26 to the full body of the Senate with the favorable recommendation.

So, um, I su I can support this bill, but I'm confused by how many bills we have that are dealing with online education service providers. Does this bill run in conflict with any of the six other bills we have with online providers? No, it does not. Um, I wanna be very clear what this bill does is it asks the LEAs that are contracting with online service providers, um, to take some of the resources that the state is allocating to them and make sure that we know how the students are progressing and, um, that we have some oversight at the LEA for those outcomes. But, but no, it does not overlap. So it does align. For example, I'll give you one example. I don't recall the bill number, but Senator Fillmore's bill that defines, uh, attendance validated program and learn validated program, it lists those out a board rule and puts them in statute. It aligns with those things, but it doesn't, uh, doesn't conflict in any way. Thank you. Um, sorry I had to step out for a minute. I, I support all these programs, but, uh, I, I just wanna reiterate that we have so many education bills coming out. Like I really don't even think all these bills are going to be able to be implemented if all of them pass. Uh, they all cover various degrees of things. They all bring in different people to look at different things. There's probably like 20 more bill assessments and reports we've asked for this session. And ironically, we start every session saying we're gonna run less bills, and it seems like we're running more. So, I, I think accountability is great, understanding whether these online tools are working or not. But when I think about all these bills, I I don't know which ones are gonna pass all the way through, and I don't think they're all gonna work together, quite honestly. So, uh, I'm just a little concerned about that, honestly. And, um, your bill doesn't, it doesn't address some of the things that other people are addressing, but it overlaps with a few of them, a few senator bills. So, um, just concerned how it's all gonna shake out by the end. So thanks for your work on this, and may the odds be in your favor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'll just make, I think one comment. Uh, th this is a policy that we worked really closely with the LEAs who are providing these programs, uh, to find a solution that we felt like, that they felt like would help them in their relationships with the online educators, that their, uh, service providers that they're contracting with. And it's also a policy that we spent time with the online education service providers to understand some of the, um, uh, needs and the, uh, the unique, uh, collaboration that's going on between them and the LEAs that sponsor them. Um, this was, uh, this was a very, uh, at least I would say it was a very collaborative process where we spent time with, uh, with them to try and come to a solution that, uh, resolution of some of the concerns that were addressed in the audit in a way that was responsive to and con and, uh, accommodating to the LEAs and the online education service providers that they're contracting with. So, I appreciate the committee's time today.

I'll waive.

Let's go to reading Clerk For substitute House Bill 4 26 online education service provider amendments by Representative Walter. This bill was heard in education with the vote of 11 0 4.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, grateful for the body's time with regard to HP 4 26 online education, service provider amendments. Um, this bill has a, uh, long history, I won't tell you the whole history, but there, it started with the legislative audit that, uh, made a recommendation. One of the possible recommendations was to move certain online educator pro education providers from, uh, LEA. So either charter school or district, uh, district school, uh, oversight, funding and supervision to Utah fits all. Uh, there's a long, there's a reason why, uh, that wasn't the right choice. One of the biggest reasons why we met with a large number of the families, uh, who were participating in some of these programs that were recovered under the audit. And they talked about, uh, some of the unique benefits and how that structure was helping, uh, their unique education system. And so in effort to try and support, uh, the thing that, uh, really did matter a lot to the, uh, more than, uh, more than 10,000 students that are participating in some of these models, we look for an alternative solution. Um, online education service provider amendments is, uh, at this point is, is something we've worked very closely with school districts, with charter schools, um, with the edu with the online education providers and with the families to try and come to a balanced outcome. So here is what it, uh, uh, colleagues, this is what it does. It requires the, uh, local education agency, so again, the charter school or the district to create a policy. Um, and, uh, and that policy governs a couple of specific things, um, pacing of learning objectives so that, uh, for example, if there was a, you can think about this in the context of a PE course, if there was a PE course in that, uh, uh, if, if today you might be able to just take a test and get a full semester or full terms worth of credit, uh, we, we wanna make sure that policy specifies, uh, how much time they might need to spend in, um, some kind of physical activity to get credit for a PE course. Um, we have, uh, the policy requires them to make sure that the students are doing their own work. Um, so we wanna make sure that, for example, uh, chat GPT isn't earning a student's grade, um, we wanna make sure, uh, that, um, there are minimum interactions with a teacher of records. So this would be a, um, licensed teacher employed by the local education agency who could, with coordination with the online education service provider, uh, interact with the student to make sure that, um, we are meeting some of these, uh, some of these requirements outlined in the policy. Finally, one more, one very important one. Uh, each of these online or alternative learning courses has a, um, they have a set of course objectives. And in some cases, those course objectives might align mi might be, uh, related to a particular course that has state standards. We wanna make sure that the course objectives are being, uh, taught and that the, um, if there are state standards for a particular, uh, curriculum, that those, uh, those, uh, state standards would be part of those course objectives. So, uh, as I, as I summarize here, um, I think this is a great, uh, uh, compromise to try and help address, uh, some of the concerns about, for example, a very simple question. How many students do we have that are participating in alternative learning? Um, uh, some of the alternative learning models are out there. We don't have great data on that. This is gonna help us. Um, we, uh, want to make sure that, uh, these students as they're participating with their, uh, contracted, uh, uh, education provider, their online education provider, that, that the LEA, who's ultimately responsible for not only just the funds, um, but also the academic progress and academic achievement, um, is coordinating with and, and at a minimum level engaged in the, uh, academic learning experience. And this bill's gonna help us do those things. And I think it's a positive, uh, step forward, particularly in a context where typically we think about, um, uh, participation and attendance in a traditional brick and mortar environment where somebody is sitting in a seat. We have a lot of our students who are participating in an alternative model, uh, education model. I support those models. Um, but, but this, uh, instructs the LEA, uh, to craft a policy and to work with the education providers to make some of those key education elements are being met. Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wa, Summation is my, my voting will now be open on first substitute.

as learning models evolve. More schools are offering competency based and self-paced programs where students demonstrate mastery rather than simply logging seat. Time done well. These pro programs are powerful, allowing advanced students to move faster, struggling students to get targeted support and families to access flexible environments. But flexibility must come with accountability. The bill clarifies that when a local education agency operates one of these programs, the district remains responsible for student progress. It establishes four common sense guardrails, a licensed teacher of record for every student documented pacing and proctored assessments, reasonable student to teacher ratios and preserve proficiency flexibility through state board waivers for early mastery. This bill does not pro, pro prohibit online learning or prevent schools from contracting with providers. It simply ensures that when these programs generate public funding, real academic oversight is in place. The this legislation supports innovation while ensuring students, parents and taxpayers know that real education is taking place. I would ask for your support. Thank you.

I move under suspensions of the rules. That first house bill 4 26 pass.

Senator Baldy Aye. Blue in aye. Brammer bus CU Moore Escamia Aye. Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Aye. Hankins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson. Aye. K Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Cher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton a Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye. President Adams Aye. First substitute house Bill 4 26.

Senator Owens. Thank you President. President Most states have a, a