S.B. 85 Excellence in Education and Leadership Supplement Modifications: transcript

Thank you. Uh, a couple of years ago, we created the Excellence in Education Leadership Program, uh, as a pilot, uh, districts could opt in, uh, to be able to, uh, design their own program by which the, their top performing teachers who work at their most needed schools could get annual bonuses of up to $20,000 a year. Uh, this bill presents the following policy question, should we exclude teachers simply because their districts chose not to participate? And so what Senate Bill 85 proposes is that we have, we open that door for teachers who would like to participate in the program, uh, who teach in tested subjects, but whose districts did not opt in. Uh, I think it would be best to allow those teachers at their option to apply for these bonuses if they want to, and then based on, uh, based on on the criteria set out in the bill to be able to be rewarded for the excellence that they provide to students in Utah. Thank you. Are there, uh, clarifying questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question, um, because I, I'm not super versed on how this really works or not. I, I get the idea of how it works, but just one of the questions was, how does this apply? Like, for example, arts teachers, vocational training, um, uh, those types of teachers, are they also allowed to participate in this?

The answer is in the original program, yes. That's how it was designed. Ensure that we caught every teacher in the state. Um, but districts would've had to opt in to be able to apply for that because the districts had to create their own metrics for how to measure those since we don't test those on a statewide basis. So unfortunately those teachers would not be able to participate here. Uh, and that is sad for me. And it sounds like it's sad for Representative Monson. Uh, but even so, I would still think that we would want to be able to reward as many teachers as possible through the program.

Yeah, go ahead. So, yeah, just, and I appreciate that answer and, and I, I, I agree. I think we do need to reward teachers and, and that would be kind of cool if somehow we could somehow incorporate them. I know that's a challenge, but 'cause they are valuable and needed as well. And, but, uh, anyway, I, I think this is awesome. Yeah,

Thank you. And just if I could, Mr. Chair, I totally agree. We designed the program specifically for that purpose. Yeah.

Yeah. Um, do you have any idea of how many districts are participating in the program? Uh,

We've got about, uh, 25 LEAs. I, I think that's a good number for a pilot. Um, uh, so that's a mix. I think there are about six school, six, uh, six districts and 18 charter schools. I, I think that that's a fine number for a pilot.

Um, but again, uh, just presenting this under the idea that we have excellent teachers spread throughout the state. And I, I don't, and those teachers shouldn't be penalized just because their, their district chose not to participate.

Thank you. And it looks like we're not, we're not allocating any new money. You're using the fund that already exists. Do we know how much money is currently in that fund?

Uh, like a hundred million dollars or so. Okay.

But again, that's a, that's a three year program, right? So it's designed to pay those bonuses out over three years for the length.

But that's for the length of the pilot. It was pre-funded for three years.

Sorry, if I may, so the, it was originally a hundred million for the entire program.

Yes. And we, so some of that has already been used. Uh, the bonuses will not be paid until next fiscal year.

Okay. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Lexi Cunningham, U-S-S-A-U-S-B-A. Um, we currently have, um, 2324 LEAs that are participating in the program. They've been signed up for the last, um, year. Each is a little different. We would request that we let this first group go through, study what the, the pros and cons of the program are. Then make some revisions before we open it up. We do wanna recognize teachers, but in opening it up to single area, single teachers, we're only gonna get the teachers in tested areas. So we're gonna have a large number of teachers that, that will not, um, be able to qualify. If we wait until we see the first group through, make some, some possible changes to the program, then we can open it up to every LEA again, and hopefully we can get, um, more participation. So we would just like to pause on this invitation to individual teachers. Thank you.

Good day chair. Uh, Marco Lopez, Western Legislative Director for Xcel and Netted action. Uh, we are a national organization, advocates for Bold education. Policies that strengthen schools, empower parents, and prepare students for lifelong success. We support, uh, Senate Bill 85. We believe that the excellence in Education Leadership program is very thoughtful five-year pilot program. Uh, SB 85 strengths the program by allowing high performing teachers and non-participating LEAs to self-nominate if they meet a clear criteria, including teaching state assess subjects, demonstrating strong value add growth. And this ensures that excellent teachers are not excluded simply because their districts opted out. This structure mirrors successful elements of the Texas Teach and Incentive allotment and aligns with national best practices around strategic compensation, reward and effectiveness, uh, effectiveness, encouraging talent, uh, to serve high need schools and maintaining transparency through evaluation oversight. This expansion is very measured, accountable and innovative, and has the potential to position Utah as a national leader in strategic teacher compensation. Uh, so we support this bill. I thank the sponsor for bringing forward. And then, uh, just as a point of, uh, privilege, uh, we tried to raise our hand in support of SB 1 99, uh, but we were not recognized. Just wanna bring that to the attention. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Motion to hold

Uh, yes. I just, I I don't think this bill is quite ready. I think, uh, there's, I think there's a good reason why so many of our LEAs have not opted into this is, um, it, it doesn't work. Um, I, I'm not articulate right now. This is the probably my least favorite piece of legislation in my six years. And that's nothing against the good senator. He's a, he's a good man and a good friend of education. But this is, this is not good for education. This is not good for teachers. It, it, um, I'll just leave it at that.

Uh, thanks. I, uh, uh, I, uh, would appreciate, uh, moving the bill forward, but I understand the policy reasons. You know, uh, the chair of the Super Superintendent Superintendent's Association was up here before and she made a reasonable policy argument to me. This is just a question of policy. How many teachers do we wanna open this up to? Uh, I, I think it, it's a perfectly reasonable position to say, let the pilot go forward. I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to say we should provide these bonuses to as many teachers as possible. If I could say one more thing, just 'cause I read some lips on the committee. Uh, I mentioned that, uh, teachers under the original program could get up to $20,000, uh, for the top tier teachers where they're needed the most. Um, but since I know there are some members of the committee who weren't here when this bill was first passed, it's set up tiers so that if you're in the top 5% of teachers, your award was $10,000, the top 10% was $5,000, and the top 25% was $2,500. And then that amount doubled if you were teaching in a Title one school for this expansion. It would only open teachers up for that bottom tier of award, but again, it could double in a Title one school. So we're talking about potential bonuses of $5,000 with most teachers who are eligible receiving a $2,500 bonus. And again, I would just err on the side of making this available to as many teachers as possible. I wish we could go further, but given the constraints of the pilot program, uh, I wouldn't want to exclude math and science teachers just because districts opted out of including art and PE teachers.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just, again, I think it's bad policy. There's a reason why the LEAs aren't doing it. It's been a couple of years. Um, I tried to speak against this on the floor two years ago and I've got a little bit of pend up frustration from not being able to speak. And so, uh, you get the, the short in. But the good news is I've had like two years to cool off a little bit. So I'll just say I don't support this position.

Thank you. Um, I'm gonna be joined up here by, uh, David Forbush, uh, from Utah State University. He, uh, is part of the, uh, administration of this program through the Center for the School of the Future. So, Senate Bill 85 makes, uh, uh, a change to the, uh, excels program, which provides bonuses of up to $20,000 for the state's top performing teachers. And that change is to allow teachers in tested subjects in non-participating LEAs to self nominate for an award. So when this rolled out, we encouraged school districts to develop policies, identify ways, uh, that they would, uh, that they would, uh, gauge quality for people in non-tested subjects, particularly. And several school districts and charter schools have done that and are participating. But for those that aren't, we don't want to exclude those teachers to the degree that we can accommodate them. So again, in tested subjects, this would expand eligibility. There is a substitute online, uh, Mr. Chair that I'd like to move, and that substitute largely changes dates at the request of the State Board of Education. Okay. Uh, just to facilitate, um, how that we're, uh, you know, we move some dates like to, from October 1st to October 15th, and you'll see those dates in there. But it, it really is just a, uh, like a, an accommodation for the state board to make sure that they feel like they have the timeframes to get the work done. Right. Right. That's right. Okay. That's online, right? Substitute one. So the motion is to delete title and body of SB 85 and, and replace it with first substitute SB 85.

With that, there's just the one policy change in the bill. Again, uh, uh, I'd I'd ask David if he would like to say anything to the committee, uh, about it, besides just how awesome it is. I'll just simply note that in education, there's, there's two sides of a coin and one is teaching, and the other side is, is learning. And I think this bill does an amazing job at recognizing that teaching that's good produces high levels of learning. And it's really focused on, first of all, who's producing the greatest amount of learning amongst teachers in our state, and how do we recognize that, uh, excellent teaching that brings that learning. And so I think this bill does a fabulous job at that, and now it's a avail may be available to individual teachers that are not part of the pilot LEAs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I've had a few districts tell me that they have dropped out of this program. Um, it just, I mean, I I, when it came out, I heard that it might be difficult and I thought it might be difficult to participate. How many school districts do you have participating in this right now?

So there, there's 24 LEAs that are participating at this point, uhhuh. And in terms of a pilot, you never really want to have a pilot that, that consists of all of the LEAs to start with. Purpose of a pilot is to go ahead and conduct research on a smaller subset. And so the 24 is, is adequate for the work that's being done.

Did you start with, oh, may I have a follow up please? We Started off with 50 and then it dropped to 2025.

Okay. So, and again, that was, that was an expression of an interest to begin the, the program. And then before they actually had to submit a plan, they dropped out And that Mr. Chair, if I may, that really was part of the design of the original bill that we knew that, uh, schools might have an interest. So we asked them for, are you interested in participating? And then there was a separate deadline for actual participation. And so the, the, the lower number is the number that actually decided to Yeah. Participate to join and be part of the pilot.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the, the committee. Um, I am here, Lexi Cunningham, representing USSA and USBA, the superintendents and the school boards we currently have, of the 24 6 of those are districts. Those six have been committed from the very beginning. They're excited to be a part of the process and we're excited that they are finding great professional development and great professional growth in the program. Um, while those six are in the program, we do not support expanding the program to include, um, individual teachers. Um, we think there'll be good data from the 24 original participants. We'd like to look at that data study that form working groups, maybe make recommendations moving forward. Um, we would recommend instead of expanding the program to individual teachers to take that money and to move that somewhere else in education that will support more teachers, more students, more paraprofessionals. There's a lot of needs that education has. We think that that money could be better used in other ways in education, still focusing on, um, outcomes for students and still focusing on helping teachers, um, improve their practice. Thank You. Thank you.

Go ahead. Hi, Jenny Earl. Um, I'm speaking on behalf of myself. I am a member of the state Board of Education and I have just two questions and maybe those could be answered later or even offline. But one of the questions is around, um, I'm just wondering if the center is finding the, the 40% of those teachers. I'm just wondering why we are the ones extending the invitation. That's just a question I have. Instead of the center actually extending the invitation, they have the data, they have the information, they have the, you know, maybe there's a piece there that I'm missing and I'm just asking the questions. So there's that piece. And then the other piece has to do with, um, I I'm curious about inter individual educators being part of this and what that relationship is with their local boards. And the only reason why I'm saying that in their local, um, districts is because a lot of local districts have mechanisms that they build into place for, um, for professional learning and for, uh, teacher evaluations and improvements. And I, I'm just trying to sort out what the difference is there or is there a difference? So anyways, that's, those are just two thoughts that have been going through my mind as I've been considering this. If it creates some kind of conflict within an LEA itself, where there's two different standards that, um, the educators within that LEA are trying to adhere to. So those are just some thoughts and questions I had. Thank You. Thank you.

Sure. I move that, uh, we favorably that the committee favorably recommend first substitute Senate bill 85. So the motion is to favorably recommend, uh, first substitute Senate bill 85, uh, discussion of the motion.

By, by way of summation, Mr. Chair, if I can just go ahead. I like to address a couple of, of concerns that were raised or, or comments that, that were made. So the, the funding that's set aside for this is one time money. It, uh, so the suggestion that this could be better used in education by paying other or more teachers or addressing needs, I suppose that's true on a very limited basis. But one time money is a perfect way to start to run a pilot program, but it is not a good way to, uh, restructure and, and, and fund new positions inside the public education system. Although I do agree that that is important and I will look for ways to continue to do so. But this, this really isn't a source of money for that. I remind the committee, we're not asking for any money. This money was set aside on a one-time basis two years ago to fund this pilot program that will finish in 2028 or 2029. So, um, it's just the, the money is already there. It's already set aside. And I think that that funding ought to be available to as many teachers in the state as possible. Uh, and the impetus behind this is really just to recognize that there are fantastic teachers and for whatever reason, school board, some school boards chose not to participate. And I don't quibble with their reasons at all, but I don't think that we should tell their teachers, you're excellent, but your school board made a decision and therefore we will not be rewarding your excellence inside the classroom. And that really is the point out of this bill. And I cannot think of anything that would be a better use in education Manti in, in, in, of education funding than paying our best teachers what they're worth.

Thank you Mr. President Pro Tem. Uh, the Excels, uh, grant is, is something that provides extra funding up to $20,000 in salary enhancements for the state's best performing teachers when those teachers, uh, particularly work in, uh, in the schools where their skills, uh, are most needed. So this makes two minor changes, I should say. It makes some conforming changes to dates, uh, just to, for the sake of implementation that are requested by the State Board of Education. But what this does is it allows students in, or it allows teachers in districts that did not elect to participate in the pilot program to nominate themselves, uh, for an award and just lays out the eligibility for that.

Yes. Okay.

Thank you. I move that first substitute Senate Bill 85. Be read a third time. The motion before says, shall first substitute Senate bill 85. Be read a third time. Roll call vote.

Thank you Mr. President. I'd like to explain my vote. Um, this bill was not popular when it was, um, started last year and school districts tried to join it and they found it was two, um, onerous and cumbersome to join. So a few of those districts dropped out of it and now we're expanding it for other districts. Um, when we think about our education budget and how stretched thin it is and how we are, you know, proposing to cut 5%, these are the type of programs that we have that actually make our money go less farther. And so if the school districts don't want this bill and the, um, the teachers don't want this bill, it, it seems odd that we keep pushing it forward when we really are in a bind for money. And, uh, I think when we think of excellence in education and leadership, we have to think about which each school district wants and what leadership looks like to them. Leadership in, um, Salt Lake County might look very different than a leadership and Daggett. So I think that local control and, uh, money going to a program that's not locally supported is, um, not where we should be spending our education dollars. So I'm a no.

Thank you Mr. President Pro Tem, uh, with leave of the body, I'd like to cast a nay vote on SB 2 34.

Um, motion to Uncer second substitute SB one 90.

Thank you. I'm glad that I registered my aye vote on the un.

Thank you Mr. President. I really wish that there was a direct correlation between short title length and quality of the bill. Uh, even though there's not a direct correlation, this is still a good bill. Couple of years ago, we, uh, invested heavily in teachers under the premise that the state's best teachers should be able to earn a hundred thousand dollars a year. So we created the Excellence in Education and Leadership Supplement program, or Excels to identify, uh, according to each school district or charter school, who are the top performing teachers in the state. And for those, uh, that, that get, uh, amazing results for their kids. Again, as measured by, uh, by metrics established by each local district that include things like student achievement and leadership, collaboration with other teachers, uh, you know, the, uh, how involved they are in school. Really, districts were free to choose their own metrics. Um, and then, uh, when those teachers who are are the state's best frontline educators and work in areas where they need the most, they can get bonuses of up to $20,000. So that pilot program is currently running, um, but there is money left in that program to allow other teachers in districts that were not part of the pilot to teach, uh, tested subjects to be able to self nominate for a lower level award. And so that's what for, for substitute Senate Bill 85 does, allows top quality teachers who, whose districts did not choose to participate in the pilot, to still receive some monetary remuneration for the great work that they do in schools, uh, by earning awards, uh, through this, through this Excels program to reward our state's top educators. Thank you. Senator Fillmore saying, looking

Thank you Mr. President. The sponsor yield. Go ahead. Senator sponsor yield. Mr. President Fillmore, will you agree?

Yield? I will yield. Okay. Thank you,

President. I wonder if, uh, the sponsor could maybe tell us why this account has money in it, why districts didn't choose to be in the pilot.

Thank you Mr. President. I, I'm certain that every school district made decisions for their own valid and independent reasons. Uh, but here in this pilot program, we've got districts charter schools, uh, big districts, small districts, rural districts, urban districts, uh, there's a nice representative mix. Uh, this was funded, uh, of course not knowing how many schools would participate. Um, uh, so we, uh, overestimated and because, uh, that amount, which, uh, we always figured would be greater than participation is still there. We just wanted to make sure bases were covered. And so, uh, I can't think of a better use of that money than to be able to, uh, put more money in the pocket of our best performing teachers.

Thank you President. Uh, to the, to the answer, I maybe could share a little insight maybe, I don't know if the, uh, the sponsors thought of this, but one reason why, why business financing doesn't work great in school districts is that our teachers share information and help each other. Um, it's a super healthy atmosphere and ecosystem and, and when we do this, it, it really causes that sharing to decrease. And, and, and some people will withdraw because the, the neighbor teacher's getting 20 grand more or, uh, or not. And so we have to be careful with this. Um, and I, I'm certain this is why there's funds left there and, and it's not as simple as just applying business principles to the sch to the classroom. And we certainly don't want to, uh, injure that relationship between teachers and, uh, just my input on it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. Um, sponsors yield to questions. Oh, maybe Senator Fillmore? Sure. Go ahead. Senator Eby. Thank you. Um, can you tell me, um, which school districts, uh, you worked with to create this bill and, uh, have school districts supported this bill?

Uh, yeah, Mr. President. This, uh, bill is a result of collaboration with the Center for the School of the Future at Utah State University that's administering the program. They received some requests, this would be a good policy and suggested it to me, and I thought it was good policy, uh, to my knowledge that JLC is, uh, if that is her question, that the organization supporting school districts does not support this bill.

Thank you, Mr. President. Um, when we have talked about how money is tight this year and how we are trying to squeak every viable dollar into our budgets, uh, this expansion is kind of an indication that, uh, a pilot isn't successful. And some of the times I talk about pilots, we always say pilots are frustrating because we make them into policies. And so I I, I applaud pilot, pilot programs, but when they aren't working, we should actually start to defund them. And when our school districts aren't supporting this, we should actually consider defunding it. And so I I'm a no thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate that. Yeah. Even when money is tight, I cannot think of a better use of education dollars than putting additional money in the pocket of the state's best teachers. I move that first substitute Senate Bill 85 pass.

Thank you President. I'd like to make a motion to encircle house Bill 1 74.

Thank you very much. President. Motion to substitute.