H.B. 467 Utah Fits All Scholarship Program Modifications: transcript

Good morning colleagues. Uh, and if it's okay, Mr. Chair, my intern has a handout. It's three handouts put together for you. Yep, that'd be great. Alright, colleagues, uh, I know you've gotten a lot of emails about this bill, and as you'll see, I actually have had this bill in process and we've been working on it for several weeks. And over interim, uh, and you'll see there's a second substitute, which I would direct people to online, which is what I'll be presenting to today. But I wanna highlight a couple of the really awesome things that are happening with this program right now, uh, because this is really exciting, uh, as we are a state that values choice and education. Uh, and so in one of the handouts you'll see there's a flyer that actually came, uh, from the program manager to give you some of the specifics. Uh, because we had a shift from the previous program manager to this one. They, there wasn't a report to the committee. So I wanted to get you this information so you could see it that we have, uh, over 15,000 students who are actively participating in this program, which is really exciting. And, uh, you're able to see some of the things that they're spending that money on. Last session, we put in some serious guardrails around what could be purchased, ensuring there were educational expenses and we're seeing that's working. Uh, you can see some of the top vendors that are used and then some of the things that they're hearing from families about it. Uh, you also will see some really awesome stories that have been collected by the Utah educational fits all group. Um, uh, ranging from a family member, uh, that shared that their husband had terminal brain cancer and was disabled and unable to work and they weren't able to continue providing them the, the learning opportunities that they had. Uh, but because the scholarship, they were able to do that and it provided major relief for their family. Other families talk about how their kids were struggling, uh, in maybe a more traditional model of education. And then because of the fits all scholarship, they're now thriving and advancing educationally and developmentally. And I think that's really exciting. And so I wanna highlight a lot of the great work that is happening. And there are a lot of passionate people who are at the table on this, and I'm one of them. I still believe that empowering parents is the best thing we can do and customize their kids' learning experience. So I'm gonna walk through, uh, some of the changes again as we've had a shift in program managers, uh, and we've identified some things. I'm gonna highlight some of probably, uh, the more consensus changes and I think it's still very important changes that we need to clarify. So, um, you'll see as we move through the bill on line one 11, uh, we clarify you have to be under 19 years old. Uh, there was some confusion about that. We also made some changes to the enrollment lottery as it works. This is really critical for families and education continuity, unfortunately, uh, there, because of the way the law was drafted and then interpreted by the program manager, there were some families that only some of their students got the scholarship and uh, it made it very difficult for them to decide which of their kids would get it. So this does two things in making sure that we give that sibling preference, which is already in charters and other scholarships, what we do to make sure families are able to be kept whole. And then the other component is if it is, uh, because this is funding contingent, if say there's just one scholarship left and they call a family, I'd asked, and this bill will now allow for the family to have that discretion, which of their five kids, so to speak, would be able to use it. And then the rest of the children would be remain on the wait list or they could decide to take the whole family and all be on the wait list. But I had one specific example where a mom called and said, uh, that one of her two kids was approved for the scholarship. They're at the very end of that lottery. And the child that was approved, she would've switched, which of the two would've needed it more. And so this gives that flexibility to those families. Uh, it also inlines 5 76 to 5 77. Um, it's gonna have that coordination that we need to have with the Department of Operations. Again, there are times over interim where you'll call and say, Hey, what's going on with this? And largely we have the program manager who's doing their best, but we need to have someone who can call them and say, we're the contract holder and this is, uh, the direction we need to move. Uh, it also enhances customer service requirements. I feel like the new program manager has done a really good job from an organizational perspective on being, um, when it comes to applications processing, uh, requests and ensuring that the expenses are educational expenses, they have really, really tightened that up. But I do think there's room for improvement when it comes to customer service, uh, and answering phones specifically and making sure that we're being responsive to parents. So that was one of the things I heard from parents over interim was, uh, wanting to have more responsiveness and, um, a quicker turnaround. And so that's what we're highlighting, line 7 45 to 7 53 and having this continuous loop of customer service feedback, which I think is really important. Another really important piece for families, and that's why one of the reasons I opened this bill has to do with the pre-approval process for scholarship expenses. There was some disagreement, um, with, when I was discussing this with the program manager as to whether or not they could actually pre-approve expenses and for especially low income or middle class families to make an educational expense and not know if you're gonna get reimbursed, uh, makes it difficult. And having this pre-approval process provides them with this assurity that they will in fact have that. So that's line 7 56 to 7 65 that are important. And then you'll see the next piece, we talk about marketplace operation and standards. So, uh, because we have a program manager that has a very robust marketplace, right? Think of it as like your HSA, you log in and you can see what's an approved, uh, expense, um, that we wanna make sure that their prices reflect fair market value, that parents can actually purchase similar items elsewhere and seek reimbursement that we aren't creating a monopoly there and that they can't require exclusive marketplace purchases. And this will hopefully help us as we're looking at, um, enhancing the customer experience, which is the parents and students, uh, as they interact with this new program manager. Uh, and I will, I will highlight too, I appreciate the program manager working with us. We are very unique in Utah. We have a higher number of students who are home-based learners, uh, than in any other state in the nation. Um, and we have always valued choice in our state. So the next piece that I'll highlight, uh, you'll see in this sub is talking about, uh, private schools. And this is the piece that you've probably heard the most about. And if you look at the original draft of this bill, you'll see how far we've moved when we're trying to come to this conclusion. But last year, if you'll remember, one of the changes was that we changed the amounts to have a tiered structure so that you have 8,000 for private school students, or four or 6,000 for home-based learners, uh, depending on if they were in, you know, K through sixth grade or middle school high school. So, um, as we talked about this, and I will tell you, we have spent hundreds of hours, and I've been taking a lot of feedback, um, is looking at, well then how do you distinguish, say that $8,000 tier, that private school amount from say, a homebased learner? And so this definition, we've worked with several members of this committee, uh, and outside of this committee to try and get to it. But if you look online 1 68, it is where it starts. So, um, it, they can be a full-time tuition bearing educational institution where the student receive the majority of the student's academic instruction. Um, pro, uh, is the student's primary education setting maintains records for each enrolled students sufficient demonstrate participation, academic progress, um, functions as the primary force source of education. They cannot be a conduit for distributing education funds to parents or third party providers. And then this is the piece where we really are trying to find a way, how do you ensure, uh, that you're being true and honest to these tiers? And that is this idea of creating a work group. And so, because we have had a lot of discussion around the concept of accreditation, um, I felt like it would be good if we were to shift and, and the stakeholders to shift this to an accreditation work group that would be able to look at Utah's unique structure and our scholarship program to be able to determine how that works. I will tell you accreditation, um, original iterations of this bill, distinguished between online and in person, it no longer does that. So for people who are listening, it does not do that. Um, what it does is, so I'll give you an example of different accredited schools, uh, BYU private school, uh, AIM Academy Micro School, uh, those are two examples of accredited private schools that are not the traditional model of like a Juab Diego Catholic School or a Waterford. Okay? So wanting though to be sensitive to the concerns and also make sure we customize something for our state, it does put in place this work groups that it can come back and it has a year to be able to develop what those accreditation standards would look like. Again, the need for that comes from the change in amounts. Uh, prior to that it was not an issue. So, um, I'll just say this too. Uh, I am still, you know, having people email, text, call. I appreciate hearing all the stories from families that are working on this and hope they know that we're trying to hit the right balance here in being good stewards of taxpayer dollars, while also empowering families to make decisions that are best for their students. So, um, I'm sure there are several questions, so I'm happy to answer those, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, the good sponsor has truly put in so much effort into this, and I am fully aware of that. I do like that it improves the customer service and clarity and such, but it seems to mandate accreditation for private schools. And my question is, um, do you, oh, is that, is that still on?

So my question then is, since we are mand mandating accreditation for private schools, um, where do you see this overstep as then continuing more overstep into private school spaces? There are many people, uh, me included, who, like my oldest son, Uintah, a non-accredited liberal arts university, because we wanted that education, we didn't care about the accreditation and, and I feel like, um, we're maybe dipping into a space that's unnecessary. Can you speak to that?

Yeah, so, and let me just walk through how the bill, the substitute currently works. I know there's other subs out there, but this bill would give, first off, it's a pause, but it's putting, so that as to not surprise people, it's a pause in this idea of accreditation and saying, this is our best bet yet right now on how we address this, but what that looks like, we don't know what it looks like for Utah. So we're creating this accreditation work group. They have a year to work on it, which means you have a whole nother academic year of things continuing. Uh, and then you in the next, in subsection G of that same area, it gives those, um, schools the ability, um, for a two year ramp up to be accredited. So it really is a three-year runway we're talking about to try and make sure we pave that way. What I would hope is this group would be able to identify, uh, different ways that they, a group could be accredited and, and there are different accrediting providers around the country, and also there are different states to do different things. So, uh, I'll just say that that is the extent of, we're trying to distinguish between how do you, um, distinguish between the 8,000 to 6,000 or 4,000 amount. And if you have better ideas, I'm all ears. Uh, but we've, we've looked at a lot of those. But I'll tell you this, I have tried very hard in this bill. Um, there have been many people who have said, we need data on private schools. Um, you'll see there's a piece that removes audits on private schools. Uh, there are people who have said, why aren't we doing assessments? I have pushed back on all of that because the beauty of a private school is they are in fact private and a non-governmental entity. And so I think also what you're, if I can just speak candidly, what you're seeing with this program is the old and the new colliding a little bit in that, traditionally you think about a private school as a brick and mortar show up five days in a uniform, really academically rigor, rigorous, and that's how you view a private school. But as we're seeing in general with education, there's all this innovation that's taking place. And so my hope would be that this working group could account for that innovation and that magic that is happening in education, uh, to try and distinguish the difference between say, a private school student under this program and a home-based learner. I'll also point out that in this, um, you do not have to be an approved provider. So, uh, to, for kind of more of a faster processing, uh, these different groups, entities that provide educational services can apply to the program manager to be an approved provider. So a charter, excuse me, not a charter, a a private school, it's my other bill that's coming into my head. Uh, a private school could apply to be an approved vendor, right? But there is nothing in here that forces a private school to become an approved vendor. In fact, because there were private schools that said, we don't wanna take this money, but there are parents who are participating in the program, we built into this version of the bill a reimbursement to where they can provide a receipt that says, I'm enrolled at Challenger, or I'm enrolled at this school, and here's the amount, and they can get that reimbursement. So I understand the concern. I want you to know though, this program is funded by taxpayer dollars and so there's this balance we're walking of being stewards of the taxpayer dollars and also maximizing opportunity and choice.

Thank you. I I appreciate that. I just have a follow up then question to that. I I do.

could just be very fast then. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so if, and I appreciate that anyone can sign up to be an approved provider or not if they choose to, but then aren't we essentially picking winners and losers? Because wherever the money goes, and if accreditation or government oversight is attached to the money, then aren't we actually in essence picking which, which businesses, which schools could fail and succeed in our society?

I would say no, because you still have parents who are the customer. And so I'll give you an example. I've not talked to Challenger, but they pride themselves on having zero ties to government, right? And the, that is the brand of parents that they're going to attract, uh, to that private school from an organizational perspective. And just like a mechanic's perspective, having an approved provider is just something to fast track the money so that that parent can get it. But they absolutely have alternatives, which is why we have pre-approval and a reimbursement process. So, no, I don't think we are picking winners and losers. And I think that right now what you're seeing is a market that's been untouched largely that now is seeing some competition entering and it's creating some ripples.

Um, I switched from the other one. Okay. I have a few questions for you, and I'm just trying to see. A lot of this is like, provides the majority of a student's academic instruction or the primary educational setting. So I'm thinking of a charter school that I looked into by me where, um, parents would teach the core subjects and then they would go to school like two and a half days a week and they would get, you know, music and arts and science experiments and all of those things. And so, um, right now they're getting the full funding for the WPU through this charter school, even though I would say it's not their primary education setting because they're, you know, also being taught at home. And so I'm wondering, putting this on the private schools, I know there's a lot of families who e even with our own, um, district schools will send their kids for a couple classes with their UFA money and then, um, teach at home. And so I'm worried about the, the tight definition here of the private school especially, um, on 1 75 of, of, I think it's sub three if, if mm-hmm. People are looking at that. It talks about, um, the comprehensive curriculum across core academic subjects. So again, I will point out there are three tiers. You have 6,000, 4,000 for home-based learners, and then you have 8,000 for private schools. And so how do you distinguish the difference between a private school model and just a traditional home-based learner model?

Uh, I would say that if you are a home-based learner and you're academic instruction, the majority of it is taking place at home and you're Juab, you're going to your district school for choir class. And based off of all the people I've talked to, they'd be treated as a home-based learner who is then taking that money part of the market to their district. Um, so the idea of how do you describe a private school, you'll see none of this says in person. So it's not saying that you have to do that academic instruction in person, um, none of this puts an hour allotment or, um, you know, online or, uh, or anything like that. But we were trying to come up with a way of deciding, well, how would you distinguish a private school from say a supplemental learning vendor or experience? And if we need to keep misogynist language, that's what we've been doing for 5, 6, 7 weeks. Um, and that's why I think having this work group that can kind of build Utah's version of what accreditation looks like, um, but if we even, you know, looking at a tuition bearing educational institution, I'm open to that discussion.

Okay, thanks. I know you have been working on this so hard and, and trying to work with all the different groups. I would say that I am leery about the accreditation and what that opens the door to, to regulation long term. It, it seems like just in the time we've had charter schools, originally they were billed as something else. And I've seen kind of the ratcheting down in regulation of that as well. And so, you know, until we have real choice for all families, um, I'm not surprised that parents are trying to, um, you know, be creative with their funding and try to find ways to get the education that fits their kids. So, um, I appreciate your work on this, but, um, I, these were just some of the questions that I had. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, and, and thank you for all the work that you've done on this and, and trying to address some of the concerns. My questions on lines, um, 4 72 through 4 75, can you go over that? So if a school is not, um, an approved school, the parents can still get tuition reimbursement. Is that at 4,000 or the 8,000

Goes? No, so that's, I'm glad you asked that question. So to the example I gave previously, a challenger, or quite frankly, none of the private schools wanna be listed at as an approved provider that I'm aware of because they wanna maintain that purity as a true private school. But nevertheless, that's how we've ended up in this, um, world of trying to define it because they are in fact a private school and they would meet the definition for an $8,000. So that's why these two pieces connect in that if the program manager can identify, alright, they may not wanna be an approved provider, but clearly they meet the standards we've set of a private school, then that family can in fact receive a reimbursement for the tuition costs. Got that.

Make sense? Yeah, it does make sense. Yeah. Okay, Thank you. Yeah. And then I don't know if I'm on, I'm on sub two, that's what I'm on one version. You talked about extracurricular activities at district schools. Is that still in this version?

Yes. And I'm trying to find the line here. So here's,

And my question is, can they, the district school still charge the fees that they would charge other students?

Yes. Yes. So, um, what one of the challenges we're seeing is, well, one of the things that we're seeing, I'll try not to describe it, is you have some districts that wanna become approved providers, and we have districts that are approved providers, which I think is brilliant because they're entering the marketplace. It's a way to make more revenue. And then you have districts who are closing the doors saying, Nope, we don't want UFA students at all. So like, I had one family reach out, their daughter just wanted to keep taking her choir class and the district said, absolutely not. You cannot come take your choir class here anymore. And I said, she can pay out of her scholarship for that, that, and they said, absolutely not. So it's putting a major, it's right now homeschooling private school kids already can do that. Uh, and so it's making it worse for UFA kids. So we're just extending that same requirement out there and they absolutely can charge for it and it can come out of their scholarship amount.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, you bet.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, representative Pucci. We've had a lot of conversations over the last few days and, um, I appreciate the idea of a working group. However, when I look at the makeup of the working group, um, it's clear that the working group just amplifies the whole gatekeeping concern that we have with just providing this definition of private school in code Utah has never before, had a definition of a private school in code. And we are now inserting one because we've inserted money into the marketplace that's government money. And I have to say like I'm appalled at some of the astounding behavior I've seen from individuals who are working so hard to try to gate keep and create monopolies within $120 million scholarship program that when you presented represent Pucci on the floor, originally, you passionately talked about how this isn't government money, this is parents' money, and that parents get to direct the education of their children, and why shouldn't they be able to do it with the, the money that they, and, and so as we've, as the program has evolved and as we've had these conversations, you and I both recognize like there are behaviors that we've seen that are disappointing in the private school space, in the public school space, in the homeschool space, in the micro school space. So knowing that and knowing like, so I have a sub, um, on your bill that just names a list of accreditors and, and obviates the need for a working group that may in fact just end up gatekeeping in this space. And so, um, if, I guess my question is either we trust accrediting bodies or we don't, and I've been careful to curate a list based on what other states have done. Um, and I also frankly would be okay with saying if a private school like challenger, you keep there, there's been a lot of conversation about challenger, challenger refuses to get accredited. So if accreditation is such a great measure of a school's standards and um, ability to educate children, then why do parents pay lots of money to send their kids to challenger school? So I guess my question is, um, would you speak to really the importance of not gatekeeping in this space and actually just creating a marketplace that's pretty open and flexible to schools like Challenger, like Montessori, like, you know, schools that have historical records at really truly educating children in really beneficial and developmentally appropriate ways.

Thank you. And we've found, I think in the definition we had put something in there that also would've captured the challenger model of someone who doesn't wanna be accredited, but they have received awards. But to your, to your underlying question, I think parents want what's best.

Just really quick. 'cause I asked the drafter about that and he said it's not in the, it's not in your sub too, I'll pull.

Uh, but anyway, please proceed with, I can pull up the language. Um, and if we need to, if we miss that we were working a lot yesterday too, I can make sure we have that in there. Um, but parents, I think at their core want what's best for their children. I think you have highlighted though, when you introduce money, uh, into something, we want enough safeguards that we can ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent well, but also maximizing the learning experience. So I'm excited to see all the micro schools that are popping up the homeschool pods that are popping up. I think that's good. I think that's what we expected with this, and I don't want us to stifle that innovation. So, um, I, the idea of accreditation was landed on after, if you look at the first version, the original version of this, we had a just a definition of what a private school was and there were a lot of people who had issues with that definition and had valid concerns with it being too rigid. And so then we started evolving into, well then how do you define a private school? And we looked at other states and some states use accreditation as that model.

Uh, but what I think is significant about this sub, the second sub or, and even in the third sub, I think rather than you listing accreditors, you have characteristics, right? It's standard, it's not a list. Yeah. List of specific accreditors. Yeah.

It's standards that, um, that really gold standard accreditors Will need. Yeah, absolutely. And I think what you're trying to hit at is the quality of education, right? Like you're not trying to dictate to a parent what type you're making sure that if you're considered a private school and getting 8,000, that's what we're looking at. So the crediting group, the work group in this sub, the idea would be it would get together and look at all those different standards. But if we wanna fast track that with this sub, then I'm open to that discussion

And, and I appreciate that Mr. Chair. I think one of my concerns is as we, I, I'm not speaking to the quality of education per se, because I don't think accreditation necessarily, and I would say like the federal government's actions over the past couple of days speaking to accreditation at the, the, um, higher ed level and how that filters down into K 12 accreditation bodies. Um, I would just say I don't think accreditation is a, um, a metric that we should or can rely on. But that being said, I recognize that that's the direction the bill is going. And so instead of putting this to a working group where, um, we have very conflicted individuals who want to gate keep within this space, I would urge the committee to support language that just establishes standards for accreditors for the state, um, and see how that plays out over the coming years. Trusting the accreditors and trusting, you know, at the, the language and the bill that also I think solves 99.9% of the problem, which is that definition of private schools that contains everything but the accreditation language. So that's my comment. Thank you.

Chair and members of the education committee. Thank you for your time and for the work you've invested in this program. My name is Corinne Latham. I am here representing U Hope. We are a organization, we are a coalition of organizations in the homeschool community. We oppose sub two. The narrow definition of private school, including the accreditation requirement, creates a significant barrier for micro schools and innovative education models, models which Utah families rely on for a successful and positive educational experience. Accreditation is costly and structurally restrictive and it limits the flexibility. This program was designed to protect this materially, reduces parent choice and shifts the program toward a traditional voucher style structure, which was not the original intent. Requiring accreditation forces private schools into traditional institutional frameworks. Sub one narrows the program and restricts innovation. This bill moves the program away from flexibility and toward uniformity. That is a fundamental shift in direction the homeschool organizations of our coalition ask you to pause, reconsider and vote no today. Thank you.

Thank you to Mr. Chair and committee. My name is Melanie Mortenson. I'm here, uh, representing Utah Parents United. Uh, we worked with families and legislatures to pass the most flexible ESA program in the country. Built on the principle that parents not systems should direct education decisions. In the first year, about 80% of scholarship recipients were homeschooling families who relied on flexible education options. But over the last two sessions, families fill those options are being narrowed now. Second, substitute. HB 4 67 requires participating private schools to be accredited. Many micro schools, hybrid schools, online programs and alternative education models intentionally operate outside traditional accreditation programs so they can remain innovative and responsive to system to students. Excuse me. Requiring ED accreditation effectively excludes many of those options. On a personal note, I'm helping to expand a micro school that is in high demand. We have over a hundred students on our wait list and very concerned parents who rely on UFA for their education options. We're worried that lines, sorry, I'll be real quick. 180 1 to 180 9 and section six, lens 10 33 to 10 84 could be stricken and we would love to work with a sponsor on that. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Nina Wolf and I'm coming before you today as a homeschooling mom of almost 30 years. And yes, I know that's a little nuts. Um, I first would like to thank Representative Perche. I recognize that she has been working really hard to improve this bill and has addressed many of the concerns that we as homeschooling families had, and I so deeply appreciate that process. Um, I do still have a few concerns with substitution two. Um, my first concern relates to the accreditation and I realize that that has been addressed, but as I see it, the Utah fits all scholarship program was designed to support home educating families in their innovative educational choices. And as we move toward accreditation, that tends to homogenize the educational choices. Instead of supporting innovation, it forces private schools into single models instead of allowing them to come up with new models that might be more effective for their students.

Hello, my name is Adrie Ln. Can you hear me? Yes, but your camera's not on Adria. I'm sorry, I'm trying to Yeah, it does have to be on or we can't hear your public comment. Oh, I'm almost there.

You have one minute. Hi, I'm Marika Knoll and I am a homeschool mom and I'm also a micro school owner. Um, and I just wanted to, um, say I'm not in agreement with the sub two with the accreditation. First of all, it's, uh, very expensive and time intensive and I feel like that will, um, wind up having costs being passed on to the families or force some innovative programs to close. Um, second, the Utah State regulations for private and home schools don't even, um, require accreditation. So I don't know why that needs to be an accreditation for Utah fits all. Um, second, I feel like has has been mentioned that accreditation tends to standardize standardized education, which isn't really what we were hoping for with the Utah fits all. And it also kind of reduces the ability to innovate. It just makes everything have to be all, um, uniform. So I was just thinking that if the goal is accountability, then perhaps we suggest doing clear testing or portfolio requirements, financial transparency, that sort of thing, but not requiring accreditation, which would be way more harmful than helpful. Thank you.

Thank you. Can you still hear me?

My name is Adria Lund and I'm a resident of Grand County, Utah. First, I would like to thank the committee and especially represented Pucci for all you have done to make the UFA scholarship program possible. It has been life changing for our child. My family is strongly opposed to any amendments in HB 4 67, which would prevent the Utah fits all scholarships, full $8,000 private school scholarships from being awarded to youth attending high quality, uh, accredited online private schools. I urge committee members to reject any modifications that discriminate number one, discriminate, discriminate against rural families for families like ours, a high quality synchronous live interactive online private school is not just a preference, it is our only access accessible path to a private education that meets our students' needs. Please also avoid any modifications that arbitrarily redefine quality to disqualify an online private school simply because it lacks a physical building, ignores the modern reality of high performing online education. And also, please avoid any modifications. This is my last point that violate you the spirit of the original law. Thank you.

Thank you. So, um, I would like to move sub three Motion before is to adopt the third substitute to, um, Utah fits all scholarship program modifications, house bill 4 67.

I would, thank you. I appre again, I appreciate the sponsor's work. I recognize we're going in this direction, but if we have to go in this direction and, and in the name of addressing fraud, which I am all on board with addressing across the board when we're spending taxpayer money, and I think I've demonstrated that through my years in the legislature. I, I am concerned that in, in sub two we aren't necessarily addressing fraud as much as we're potentially providing a pathway for gatekeeping within this $120 million program. And I would like to instead prevent fraud, but also not throw up artificial barriers to, um, to potential micro schools and others who really do rely on the $8,000 amount. You cannot operate a micro school on, if you consider like the startup costs, the cost for providing, for a building, for providing high quality teachers all of those expenses, $8,000 times one student is very difficult to do. And so, um, I I'm concerned there are specific, uh, accrediting a accredit accreditation entities that provide accreditation for micro schools. And that's addressed in the sub. So what I, what I've, if you look at sub, um, at line F in the sub, and it's on line 1 79, so it says holds current accredit. So this is under the definition of a private school. A private school holds current accreditation from, is an associate member of, has applied for candidacy with, or is actively working toward accreditation with the national or international accrediting body recognized by the United States Department of Education. Any organization specialized in the accreditation of learner centered or innovative education models that maintains a peer review process focused on student mastery and operational sustainability or any independent accrediting association that has been an operation for at least five years and serves non-public schools in multiple states and if not currently accredited, is actively seeking accreditation. And then I, I kind of close that loophole that's in the language in sub two and sub three saying, um, actively, actively seeking means that you have formal candidacy within 24 months. Uh, and so that is just really tightening the language, but also not providing barriers for existing schools. There are multiple schools like Acton schools in Utah that are, that are accredited by some of the learner driven, um, international organizations that wouldn't be contemplated in sub two language. Um, and they are operating, they have multiple students. Those students attend school at a location four days a week full-time. And, um, and, and so, and also Montessori schools are often, uh, accredited by organizations like that. And so, um, I just, that's the only change in the bill is it says we're not doing a working group, but these are the standards for accreditation. I would urge the committee support, I agree with the sponsor that there are, um, there are issues with fraud. We throw money at things and it just becomes, um, the behavior is sometimes super shocking. But either we, we trust accrediting bodies or we don't. Um, and so this language will ensure that accreditors, that accredit micro schools and schools like Montessori schools and other learner driven models are recognized while also providing, um, protections against fraud. And, and I'm open to questions, but also I know let's hear from the sponsor on this as well.

I know that the representative has worked really hard on this and I'm open to that concept of it. And I think too, you know, for the discussion, we could even marry the idea of that's what the group is looking at. But I am, I think that if we wanna just jump to calling out what we're looking for, it also will hopefully alleviate some concerns around what can become accredited. I will just say like in this working group, it wasn't saying we're going to pick accreditors, it could even come up with their own model of how do you come before the Utah fits all and become, you know, considered a private school. So, um, but this is getting, it's a similar result I think with just two different ways to get there. So I appreciate the sponsor working with me and I had a chance to look at it before committee and it seemed like something we can definitely work with on this. And I just wanna highlight like the, the changing the amounts is why we're having to do this. There's still four and 6,000 for homeschool, the 8,000 is for the private school and I think now we're realizing that throwing that out there was not as clear as maybe what we would've thought it was.

Thank you Mr. Chair. My question is for the sponsor of the substitute then. Um, so I'm trying to understand, so if, so this would create a closed, um, canon so to speak, of accreditation bodies, is that right? And 'cause that's what I'm trying to out here is if the, um, the working group that the, uh, that the sponsor has outlined was supposed to identify perhaps these amongst others. But is this, is this creating a, a closed list essentially of bodies that can function as accreditors for, 'cause I'm curious how this would apply to like a, like a tiny micro school or a new school trying to come online, uh, versus the underlying bill.

So it's an excellent question. I appreciate, I have met with actually all the stakeholders in this area and I will tell you that when I look at the makeup of that working group in sub two, it looks to me, and this is no like it, my concern is that we will never receive from a working group at that makeup any alternative pathway to become a private school under Utah. It, the, the whole intent behind the language is to close the door, not open the door. And so, um, with that being my concern, and that is not on the sponsor because she has worked tirelessly to try to address all of the, the concerns across the board. Like I, she and I probably did not sleep last night. Um, I know I slept very little and we were talking early this morning and we were talking also yesterday, multiple times while we were trying to manage a holiday with our family. So it, um, I know she's worked so hard. The issue is that there are very, there are stakeholders that are very intent on slamming the door closed on what a private school means and gatekeeping that. And this in my opinion, because like a tiny micro school can easily get accredited under this definition, um, and operate as an accredited private school in Utah for less than $3,000 and within about 12 months. And so this language covers all of that, provides that pathway for a tiny micro school. If this is the direction we're going because there is, there is this conflict and because we've changed the amounts and we've seen behaviors that are, that are less than ideal, then I think this definition actually opens the door more.

Thank you. And I think that the, I we're both trying to get to this similar objective at the end and we can continue working on this if we need to, but I, I, uh, if we need in the makeup of the work group, obviously we could change, but I'm okay with this. I think that the, what we're trying to get at is this idea of, um, being able to identify what a private school is, which is proved to be very difficult.

I move that we favorably recommend HB 4 67 with third substitute.

Thank you to the sponsor for her tremendous work on this. Thank you to the committee for hearing the concerns. I am dedicated to continuing many sleepless nights if I have to, to work on this. And, um, I just, I feel so passionately about what we passed in the beginning and I know that the sponsor does too, so I appreciate the support. I hope that we can get there at the end of the day at, during this session and pass some good language. Um, this might not be a hundred percent it and I acknowledge that, but I'll continue to work. Thank you.

Thank you, Uh, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to say that I do think that the sub is an improvement going in the right direction. I am still gonna vote no on this bill, however, because I don't think we're there yet. And I hope that if it does pass out that the sponsor will keep engaging us to make sure that we get it to the best place possible.

Uh, don't wanna take up any more of the committee's time. I appreciate everyone who's come today and I hope the families know we really do want what's best for their families and I'm glad that the program is working for them.

Thank you. I make a motion that we delete title and body, uh, third substitute 4 67. Replace it with, uh, fourth substitute house bill 4 67.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee. I appreciate your time today and, uh, know that it is the last week of session. We're all tired, and so I just appreciate you serving on this committee. Uh, colleagues. This is a cleanup bill on the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program. Uh, if you'll remember, we passed this, uh, program two years ago, and, uh, you can see in your flyer, I know it feels like a little bit of a packet, but one of those things, uh, actually gives you the statistics on student participation. So, um, there's over 15,000 students who are on this program. It can tell, it tells you the majority of the funds were spent on tuition. Um, and it kind of walks through how Odyssey the new program manager has been operating the program. And it has some testimonials here from some of the different partners with the program and parents in the program, uh, as well as the fits all page. You can see different families and how this program has helped them customize their kids' learning experience and improved, um, that learning experience for them. So, as we continue to fine tune this program, there were some things that became clear, especially as we change, uh, program manager to program manager. Uh, Odyssey is the new program manager and has done a great job trying to make sure they are being great stewards of taxpayer dollars. Uh, since our last bill, if you'll remember last session, we put in a lot of guardrails around what the expenses could be in this program. And this is a follow-up on some of the things that we've learned in year two of this program. So, uh, a couple of the things that I wanna just address is, uh, pre-approval for expenses. This clarifies 'cause there was some confusion whether or not they actually would need to pre-approve expenses so a family could submit an item before they purchase it to show the program manager to make sure that it would qualify as an educational expense. Um, as part of that, uh, we are clarifying around private school tuition that parents can, uh, pay students tuition directly at a private school that aren't listed as a qualifying provider and then seek monthly tuition reimbursement. But to get that reimbursement to make sure we're safeguarding those dollars, they have to provide proof that the school is a registered business entity in Utah. They have to show that there's a published tuition schedule on the school's website, documentation that the school has a least 17 students or evidence of operation as a non-residential facility or proof. The school has been operating continuously for at least two years. They need four of the five things to meet that. Um, you'll see the big change between sub three and sub four is removal of the accreditation piece. And, and part of that is because that was so, so messy and actually was not the solution, uh, for the problem that we were trying to meet. And this is a much cleaner way to address that. And so you can see the private school definition and code. Also, we clarified that this does not include entities that serve as a pass through to make sure that there are not, um, providers that, uh, could receive scholarship funds, then pass on money to families. We wanna make sure that we're safeguarding those taxpayer dollars. Another important component is on the program manager, a customer service component. Um, giving them, uh, requiring that they have an adequate call center capacity, giving them 10 days to process reimbursements and directing them to create a pre-approval process. It also addresses their marketplace. So think of like your HSA, when you go in, there's a dropdown on expenses you can spend it on. This is making sure that their market is fair and not, um, gouging on different things. And that, uh, we also clarified that they can't sell used or return goods. And also we wanted to make sure it was clear that they need to coordinate with the state Board of Education's department of operations on policy interpretations, compliance issues, and customer service standards. Again, USBE is the contract holder, uh, for the fits all program. And, uh, so I wanna make sure they have that capability. This version also adds an audit by the office of the legislative auditor General to make sure that they're annually auditing it to make sure that we are being good steward the taxpayer dollars. But overall, this bill is a compilation of hours of work and a lot of feedback that's been collected from community members participants in the program, and wanted to make sure it was clear, uh, that we're doing this to try and make those other tweaks so that this, uh, improves the process for families. And that's my presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this is one of the programs I get the most questions about. And, uh, they're mostly people are frustrated and I've had to defend this program saying that we put guardrails around it last year. And, um, it's still frustrates me that we now have homeschool parents contacting us nonstop saying that they feel like they have been left in the dark. Um, can, can, can you explain why we are prioritizing private schools with a higher pay? And does this bill change that at all? As I'm looking at it, it seems like we are talking about the accreditation of a school. If you look at the fourth sub, it doesn't have accreditation in there. It doesn't have accreditation.

It does not, no. Okay. So, But I can't address your earlier question if that's okay, Mr. Chair. Uh, so last session, the amounts were changed. And this is, uh, to your point, Senator Rebe, this is a collaborative process. Uh, that may not have been my first preference from a policy perspective, but I am one of, uh, 104 people, right? And so we needed to, um, find a policy that fit everyone, find a way to get more kids in the program. So the distinction is for a private school family, they receive $8,000 in the program for homeschool families. Uh, in elementary it's 4,000, and for high school it's 6,000. So, um, to just, that is the policy from last year. Uh, and there are more students that were able to be admitted into the program as a result of that change, and then also an increase in funding. But I will tell you all amounts are less than the full amount that we spend per pupil. And the idea on not lowering the private school amount was if you look at tuition rates, we wanted this program to still be meaningful for low income and middle class families. And so had we dropped that amount, then it truly would've just become a voucher for families that actually already could pay for tuition and wanted to preserve that choice. So that's why there was this compromise reach for the three different tiers.

Thank you. Um, so then the other question is, allows UFA students to participate in next extracurricular activities that's new to this fourth sub?

Correct. So that was in the preexisting, uh, language, and thank you for reminding me on that. So right now, homeschool students and private school students have that same requirement in place. So what this is saying is, if a student wants to participate in football, they can use a portion of their scholarship and they need to pay the school for it. So it is not that they're double dipping, they have to use a portion of their scholarship to cover the cost of that extracurricular expense. But right now, UFA students are outliers because that same courtesy is extended to private school kids and home-based learners, homeschool students.

Thank you. And then you mentioned accreditation. You can have a school with 17 kids. What, what, can you repeat that again for me? Oh, yeah, sure. So we don't have accreditation in this, but if you look at, um, when we're looking at private schools and trying to strike a balance on reimbursement for private school, then you could pick four of the five. And that's on that handout right here. Uh, you can see it, but it's one of the items could be documentation. The school has at least 17 students, if you look in code, we actually have micro schools defined in a separate section of code as 15 and less. And so that's why we were bumping it above that so that micro schools that are home-based micro schools aren't getting pulled into this.

Hmm. Um, I thought micro schools were actually a hundred and less, so that's

Confusing. No, if you go, there are two types of micro schools. Uh, and I just had the code pulled up today. Yep. But you actually have two types. One is a home-based micro school. Okay. And it's smaller. And that home-based one would receive this funding Based off existing law and code.

Okay. Then they would be in the four 6,000. And then, uh, it says enrollment preference on this handout that you said.

Yeah, that is, I, I I enrollment pre preference new scholarship students with one family income at below 300% of the federal poverty level.

Is that ongoing year after year? They have to be 300%, or, I'm glad you asked that. Wait, can I just finish my question? Yeah, thanks. So if they start out as a, as a, um, student that is 300% below poverty level, but their economic status changes, do they still get to be one of the returning students at the highest preference?

I'm glad you brought that up. So under enrollment preference, the thing that we're changing is actually the siblings preference. So the income levels are in place, but what we found was we had families that were getting split up, so there wasn't enough funding. So they'd call and say, two of your five kids can get a scholarship. So this gives the preference similar to charter schools, um, and other scholarship programs, that being having a family member in the program gives you preference. It also makes the distinction that if say there's only one scholarship left in a family of five, the parent can pick which of the kids if they want to give it to. And to your point, for educational continuity. And so that you don't have yo-yoing with district schools, once the student is in the program, they get that preference for staying in the program. 'cause if not, if you were constantly bumping people in and out, it would wreak havoc on district schools and the educational continuity of the students. So it was really important. We kept the preference that way.

Thank you.

Ahead. Good afternoon. It must be the last, uh, committee that you guys have with so many bills. Uh, John England with the Libertas Institute. Um, I am here to speak in favor of the, uh, bill. And, uh, we do support the change changes made to the fourth substitute, especially the removal of the accreditation process. Utah is known as an innovative state for education. I think that accreditation would limit that. So thank you.

Corinne Johnson, president Utah Paradise in United. We also support the fourth Sub and are grateful for the efforts to continue to have flexibility in this program while also ensuring that we close loopholes. Um, we think this definition strikes that balance perfectly, and we're grateful to support this program moving forward.

Thank You. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Lexi Cunningham, us Oh, Start. That's okay. Lexi Cunningham, U-S-S-A-U-S-B-A. We wanna thank, um, representative Pucci for, for making her changes. As we hear from other states, um, things that are, are going wrong with programs similar to this, we are thankful that she is making the changes to make this program, um, stronger. We appreciate the opportunity that this program provides to parents and families. The only thing that we ask is that we consider that as we are expanding choice for some that we are not denying opportunities for, for some who are choosing to participate in our, our LEAs. And we'd like to see if maybe there could be some type of report on the number of students in home-based and private schools and UFA schools that are choosing to participate in athletics. Thank you. Thank you.

Go ahead. Good afternoon. Members of the committee, my Amaya Meer with Sutherland Institute, we support House Bill 4 67 is substituted and wanna commend Representative PTU for all the work she's put in on this bill. We believe that this bill will strengthen the foundation of the Utah Fits All program while addressing pass through and accountability concerns. We appreciate the changes made in the most recent substitute to advance these policy principles, like increase options for choice for Utah parents and allowing innovation in public education choice. These changes build upon the core of the Utah Fits All program, while providing important safeguards for these reasons may encourage you to support Hospital 4 67. Thank you.

Okay. Ahead. Um, ahead. Thank you so much. Uh, Kevin Green with Americans for Prosperity. I just wanted to speak in favor of the bill. Appreciate representative Pucci and all the work she puts into this program. I've been doing this a while and I still think, uh, U Utah fits all is one of the most important things that this legislature has done. And so we're, we're grateful for the changes, uh, in this bill to drive accountability, um, but to also improve the process and prove the, the scholarship for those using it, especially the customer service portion, um, to really make this, uh, process seamless for people. Um, but yeah, please, uh, support this legislation and thanks for the time.

My name is Marco Lopez for record, Western Legislative Director for Excel and ED in action. Uh, we're a national advocacy organization advancing bold education policies that strengthen schools, empower parents, and prepare students for lifelong success. Uh, I wanna say that we support this legislation, the interest of time. I'm just gonna say dittle to what a lot of the previous, um, testifiers have mentioned. Uh, and we really appreciate, uh, the sponsor's work to get it to where it's today. Uh, so we hope you can support this legislation. Thank you.

Yes, I move that we pass out with a favorable recommendation house Bill 4 87 for substitute to the full body of the Senate. Okay. So that motion is in order.

Thank you. Um, I forgot to ask this question too. On line eight 10 through line eight 18, it discusses how a student may not be denied, uh, access an opportunity to participate in athletics. Um, I know that in my schools that has been the most contentious thing is athletics and who has the ability to be a part of a team. Mm-hmm. So if I was a, uh, scholarship person and I wanted to play lacrosse at a division one sport, and um, it was already full or whatever, it's based on GPAs. Do you guys have a GPA in this homeschooling situation? So if you look at line eight 11 and eight 12 Yep. It says in the same manner as a homeschool student or private school student under section 50 3G 6, 7 0 2.

So we're not changing the process the same way that a homeschool student would have to try out for a team. Yep. Or a private school student would've to try out for the team. They would have to do the same thing for a UFA student. And so whether or not a homeschool student or private school student uses a GPA, it wouldn't be any different than the existing process,

But you have a, um, portfolio system instead of a GPA system. So would that, what would be the basis for them to keep on the team if there's a GPA status for students?

So I would say that those schools already have to provide an accommodation for homeschool students who wouldn't have a GPA. And so there's already an existing policy in place for LEAs to accommodate should someone actually make the team.

Okay. So, um, how would they dispute that if there was a problem with, uh, students? Uh, I, I just think this is giving them an opportunity that a student at the school doesn't get. How can you answer that que How would you answer that question? That's Not accurate. Because a student at an lea a I do Believe that's, it is Ac it is accurate. Okay. Well, I'll Disagree. Okay. Thank you. So,

but I do believe it's accurate. So if you let me answer. Yeah. So a student at an LEA has to try out for a team. Yep. A homeschool student right now in code or a private school student also has to try out for the team uhhuh. That same process applies to a UFA student that they would have to try out for the team. Okay. So there isn't any extra preference given to them for being a UFA student. It just says they cannot prohibit them from trying out for the team, and they have to use a portion of their scholarship to pay for that. So there's no academic ground for a homeschooler to be a part of a team. This change was made several years ago by Representative Teuscher for homeschool and private school students. So whatever processes are existing for homeschool and private school students, that's the same that is extended to UFA students.

Thank you. Thank you.

I do, I have discussion to that motion. What, um, I have discussion to that motion still. Okay, go ahead. So, um, when we look at transparency with this program, we have transparency about how the money is being spent, but I'm not really seeing whether our students are being successful in their academic endeavors. Um, and that's part of my frustration too. This summer I spent some time looking at the, um, alliance, The American Legislative Exec Exchange Council, who really promotes this. And when I look at their report card, it doesn't have anything about how our students are achieving. It only looks at how our students are giving options to move around from system to system. So even though we've done a lot to put guardrails about the money that we're spending, we still have from some curiosity about whether these students are actually succeeding. Um, we're not allowed to keep track of whether they've been successful or not. We're not allowed to ask for their reports. We're not allowed to see what kind of grades they're getting. So, uh, even though we've done a lot to see if we are spending the money correctly, we really don't have, uh, ROI on our investment that I can see a report on. So I still believe that this program, although it allows people to move wherever they'd like, I haven't seen that it's successful whether it comes to our standardized grading. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, uh, for those of you who are paying attention to your handouts coming your way, you'll be able to see an update that's come back from the program manager for the Utah Fits All scholarship program and to see a lot of the great work that's happening, uh, the items families are utilizing their scholarship for and um, also how, how the system's working. So, you know, we have over 15,000 students in this program. It's very exciting. Uh, we were, I think the only in first state to get a super majority vote on a universal school choice program. And it is a new program with new innovation and with any new program, we are still working out some of the tweaks that need to be made for a smooth operation and administration of the program. So there are a couple of things, uh, a couple of changes I'll just direct, uh, you to, um, that were important. We clarified the age that they have to be under 19 years old. It also takes care of families and clarifies in code that there is a sibling preference that we have in similar to a lottery for a charter school or other scholarships so that we don't have families divided. It also gives the opportunity for families if there's only funding available for one more scholarship, that would be up to the parent if they wanna choose which one of their children get that scholarship, uh, should it get to that point. If funding is short, it also updates, coordination, oversight, uh, requiring that the program manager coordinate with the department of operations on policy interpretations, compliance issues, and customer service standards. Uh, also two very important features of this is it will improve customer service requirements so that there is someone there, uh, for sure who's able to answer a phone call, should a family have a question, um, and that we'll have need for continuous customer support through the program manager. It also provides an important change for pre-approval process for scholarship expenses. This is important for families, especially those who may come from a low income, uh, economic background or middle class to where they'll be able to have the item approved beforehand, before they're out the money and have confidence that they're going to get reimbursed for it. Um, and then we have some information in here about marketplace operation standards to make sure that the program manager isn't creating a monopoly or price gouging families. Uh, and walk through some of the changes that we needed. One other change, um, that I'll highlight and we are, you know, we are still working through this, but I think, uh, we've got the co the committee got it to a good place is last year when we did changed the amounts. So there's now a distinction for a home-based learner, uh, making, uh, they would be able to receive a scholarship of four or $6,000 as opposed to a private school, uh, recipient, which is a higher amount. Uh, this would need. Because of that change, we now need to define and make a distinction in how you differentiate between the two. So the bill works towards a broad definition of accreditation, uh, to getting those schools there that would be approved for that higher scholarship amount and is something we'll continue working on. And that's the bill.

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm with the sponsor yield. The sponsor yield. Yes,

Does this allow, uh, fits all scholarship kids to participate in LEAs at no cost?

Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Yeah. Did you say repeat? Yeah. Okay. Uh, Mr. Speaker, does this bill allow LFA Stu or you, uh, Fitz all scholarship students to participate in LEAs at no cost?

No, that is not correct. Uh, Mr. Speaker Prom right now, if a fits all recipient, say a home-based learner would like to participate at their local school district and they want to say take a choir class, then they would need to pay a portion of their scholarship to be able to do that. Same would go for a math class or any other class.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm, if I could make a comment. I, uh, I appreciate the sponsor. Finally, additionally, I guess I should say now finally making additional guardrails for the fits all scholarship. I, I appreciate what she's done with the private schools and, uh, testing. Um, I, I just wish she'd went a little further and maybe put homeschool kids on their testing as well. I appreciate the audit by an independent accountant. Um, as you know, when this first started, I was one of the first, uh, who opposed it, but, uh, she's made corrections as time goes on. I appreciate what she's done there. Uh, I'm just glad she's not asking for more money. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, I appreciate the sponsor's work on this bill and her willingness to work with those in of us in education committee who had concerns. Um, she really came to the table and uh, we were able to to make some, some substantial changes. There's still some in the bill that, um, I don't like and clearly there's some in the bill that others don't like. And so I think it's a good balance, um, moving forward and really appreciate the sponsor's work.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. And I would just highlight for my good colleague from rural Utah that actually we have found this program as wildly popular in rural communities. Uh, because it offers an alternative choice in education in areas where maybe they don't see a lot of brick and mortar alternatives, uh, to say their district school. I'll also, uh, just add to this, uh, it's been incredible to hear the stories coming back from families. I've had multiple moms tell me this program is a game changer and how much it's meant for their children to be able to customize their learning experience. And um, I'm hopeful this will be one of our last years to need to fine tune this program. So that can be up and walking and uh, as we see more and more students, um, be interested in this, uh, obviously, uh, having a wait list that grows. But I think this is really important for important for us to have this approach in Utah and education to have a free market component of competition that helps all boats rise. And I would ask for my colleagues support on it.

The changes in the sub are, are minor. It's just trying to address private school compensation and making sure that, uh, scholarships that are intended for private schools go there while, while leaving the flexibility for innovation.

Okay. Thank you. This is, this is a cleanup for the Fitz All Scholarship program. It establishes new provisions for this program, um, with the enrolled K through 12 students with money for educational expenses. Um, the key changes it does here is it allows parents to seek tuition reimbursement, um, when they send a kid to private school that, um, may or may not be a UA provider. So that, that's part of the definitional change that we did. It updates requirements for private schools that are u of providers saying that they can't be, they can't use this money as a path pass through. It's gotta be for tuition purposes. Creates a new process for reviewing multiple applications from the same household. It creates additional requirements for the program manager to create an expense pre-approval process, a process reimbursements within 10 days, and maintain adequate call center capacity. And then it allows, uh, UFA students to participate in extracurricular activities at LEAs as well. Thank you for the presentation.

Questions to the sponsor. Senator Cullimore, will you yield? Yes. Senator Escamilla. Thank you Mr. President. Just wanna clarify on line 4 49, uh, on this new substitute, which is substitute five, are we now removing, um, that provision and if you, if the sponsor can explain why, I mean, what that provision is and, um, as it's being now removed

So this, this is part of the private school definition. There, there is a definition already in law and through that definition, private schools can become, uh, eligible providers under the program manager. But there are some schools that don't want to do that and, and want to. And so we're trying to find a path that would allow parents who get a scholarship for their kid that want to go there trying to, we're in the new substitute. We're trying to give the program manager some flexibility to make determinations that their legitimate private schools, even if they don't want to become quote unquote eligible providers.

Follow question president. Yeah, just, and, and, and to be clear, um, and I do recognize there are multiple schools that are by choice not wanting to participate and there's always this question, so I wanna make sure it's clear. So right now, this bill, even though it is right now, runs as is being removed, will allow the manager to have, um, the authority to make choices for the parents if they choose to apply. And the, and I guess the manager will check that the school is a credible private school. Is that, is that how it's gonna be and where, because if it's being removed, um, is is that still in the bill Senator Cullimore?

Yeah. That, that is the intent. Um, the definition is on 1 65 in the, in the sub. And it keeps the current definition of private school as it's already in the law. And all we really do is say that it doesn't include pass through schools. And so they can still, if it's not a pass through school, there's nothing in this new bill that would otherwise preclude a private school.

Okay. Thank you Mr. President.

Thank you Mr. President. Um, so on line 1 67 it says, private schools does not include an entity that distributes rebates or passes through to families any portion of enrollment funding. And then it almost seems like it does the reverse on lines 4 49 because now you're giving them money to the family to pay the school. That's not eligible. Senator Cullimore

Are, are you looking at the newest sub? 'cause I, that's, that's the loophole that I was trying to get rid of in the sub Sub four, Sub five. Now sub five Is what we adopted sub. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. Thank you.

Uh, I'll, I'll move that we pass fifth substitute house bill 4 67. Thank you.

Uh, yes please. Okay, go

Ahead. Motion to encircle third substitute house Bill 1 79.

Yes. So this bill has been heavily negotiated, but we landed in a good place where we are not allowing pass through to entities. Um, and we are still allowing parents the options and choices needed. And, um, this is the compromise we reached on this bill to help with the program.