S.B. 119 School and Classroom Amendments: transcript

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. Good to be with you guys again. Um, welcome back. Yeah, thank you. And, uh, it's, we're gonna be together for a little while tonight. Uh, uh, what do we have? But we sound like an hour. That's plenty of time for four Fillmore bills. Right? We Left you, we left you plenty of time. Thank You so much. Uh, anyway, I I really do appreciate, uh, working with you guys on these education issues. So, Senate Bill one 19, I have a substitute, I think that is online now, probably, I guess the fourth sub. So I want to speak to that briefly and just say they, the fourth substitute just inserts some language at the request of the State Board of Education. Um, the budgeting process has cut funding for a specific program, but did not cut language for that program. And so at this point, it remains an unfunded mandate for schools. So, uh, at the state board's request, I inserted language just to repeal the program. Who's funding we repealed? When we passed the budget bill today? I, I, we passed that outta the Senate. May maybe you guys in the house are doing that tomorrow, but that's the substitute. The substance of this bill is just to ask the State Board of Education to go through, um, you know, the, the purchasing process or to whatever, uh, they want, need they feel like they can do internally. But just a, as you'll see in the, in the long title, it directs the State Board of Education to develop open educational resources that are aligned with Utah's core standards. So, uh, at the board's discretion, they would likely issue an RFP for this. Um, there are safeguards in here. The same way we do for all curriculum in the state would go through a vetting process. Committees made up of parents. This would be curriculum in grades K through eight. Uh, the fiscal note for this is fairly substantial. It's been funded in the budget. Uh, but this is also a five year project. So it would be, uh, you know, uh, a fair amount of money, uh, 12 million a year or so over the period of that five years. Um, but, uh, to put that in perspective, school districts spend about $40 million a year on textbooks. Um, this would provide by, by creating something at the state level that is then available for free to all public school districts. Uh, something that they cannot buy on the open market. Now, you know, like right now when school districts want to get curriculum, they go through the same process that we're asking the state board to do. They, uh, issue an RFP. They, they look at prices, uh, uh, evaluate those for compliance with Utah standards and then pick one. But there are no textbooks in, in math, in language, in science, in reading, that are specifically crafted to Utah's core standards because I think as we all understand it, those, those textbooks produced by national publishers are, uh, are geared towards the standards of the largest purchasers. And, uh, that makes sense, uh, in a national market. And so what we're trying to do is fill a hole in the market so that we can create something that is specific to Utah's core standards, uh, that's available for free to Utah schools. And with an upfront investment, we think we can save schools, uh, millions of dollars over time by using these, uh, open educational resources. And that concludes my presentation,

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit more, um, you kind of covered it, but to the need. 'cause this is a really, really big fat fiscal note and my understanding is that this is kind of already happening. Um, and, and that's just what I've heard. Okay. Um, maybe not with the exact Utah standards, but it, it sounds like there's some sort of similar process in place. And if that is inaccurate, you can tell me. So, but I'm just wondering if you can speak more to, um, why we need to spend this much money on this Bill. Yeah.

Uh, Mr. Chair, thank you. I appreciate the question. 'cause a a, as I mentioned, this is a $60 million fiscal note over those five years, but I would ask the committee to keep in mind that over those same five years, school districts will be spending $200 million on textbooks. Um, so I understand that, you know, here we are adding, uh, $60 million to it over those five years. But the stabilization fund is really designed to be able to fund projects like this. Uh, you know, we, we've got the cash, we've got it set aside to help schools out. And this is a way where we can make an upfront investment that should save school districts literally millions of dollars every year going forward once this is in place. Because it will be open and free and available to any public school in the state of Utah. And honestly because it's open and be available to anybody else as well. But it will be tailored to Utah's, uh, core curriculum standards. To my knowledge, there is nothing like this available in the current market. The state board, I think is here. Um, I think they plan to come and testify at least to the substitute portion of that bill. So I, I just noticed the superintendent was in the back. I think she's planning to come up during public comment. She can correct me if I'm wrong on the fact that the state board is already doing this process. Districts do vet curriculum resources that are available and they spend millions of dollars on those com curriculum resources that are available. But none of them is tailored towards Utah's core that our board has adopted.

Additional No, I don't. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you sponsor.

Yeah. Thank you. I have so many questions. Um, I don't know if I'll ask them all, but what, so first of all, it looks like it's, it'll be all open through an online digital platform. So is the idea that everything will be delivered, delivered digitally in classrooms Yeah.

Well, that's how it would be made available for free. Yes.

Okay. Um, and then my other question is just the development of, of this material. Um, is the intent that the state board would develop this material, and, sorry, I haven't thoroughly gone through the, through the substitute, but does the state board develop this, um, with staff? Is this, does that fiscal note include additional FTEs, or is this something that we would, um, contract out with a vendor to, to have these materials created?

Uh, the, uh, the bill envisions, uh, that that could be done either way. Uh, I, I imagine that the state board, rather than hiring a textbook to, you know, a curriculum development department within its own staff would probably issue an RFP. Um, but either way, I, there, there will be a cost to developing that, whether that's done through an open RFP process or through their own staff. And, and I, I do wanna be clear, the substitute did not make any changes to, to the content of the bill. Right. It, it simply addressed a repeal of another section of code that is no longer funded. Okay.

Uh, one more follow up. Yes, go ahead. So, I'm just interested in, um, how the department approaches its role as a regulator and a publisher. Um, I'm not quite sure, I'm not clear on how that looks, but if you could explain how you envision that, I

Would like to know. So I envision that the, I don't wanna speak for the state board. I, I envision that they will probably issue an RFP to find one of the many company, you know, there are a lot of textbook publishers, a lot of curriculum developers in the country. I imagine that they will issue an RFP and just, and follow the state procurement process in doing that. And then select whoever represents the best value to our taxpayers.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, so, um, I, I remember when I first heard about this bill, I heard about it in context of Texas doing something similar. And so I guess my question is, I, I know that they're not very far down this road, so we can't necessarily look and say it works, it doesn't work, whatever, you know. But, um, but they are far enough down the road that maybe with our experience, um, what I'm wondering about is adoption. So once, once the, you know, we come up with the open-end resources, a lot of our schools, especially our charter schools, kind of pride themselves in their mission, in their charter and their thing. And, um, I, I'm not sure if they're gonna wanna use OER or if they're gonna be like, no, we, we need something that's specific to, you know, the thing we're trying to accomplish with our charter, our mission, or, or just even school districts that have, you know, specific schools. I, I do see that there might be value, especially in things like, um, I don't know, um, like maybe I'm gonna want just the health standards or the health curriculum for this grade, and maybe I'm just gonna want this for this grade, you know, but maybe not be wholesale adopters, but maybe pick and choose, you know, pieces of where it makes sense. I don't know, I guess if I, my question is like, you know, if we're gonna make the investment, do we understand yet any idea on what the adoption might look like?

Uh, I, I'd say my approach to that would be basically exactly what you just articulated. Um, I think that the fact that it's available free is a good enticement, right? Um, uh, so my guess would be that most school districts would give serious consideration to adopting a high quality free resource that is vetted and approved through our already established process. And that has the endorsement and the approval of the State Board of Education. If they choose not to, they'll be spending their own money to buy something loan and different. But I think free is a, is a pretty good incentive, particularly when we're talking about something like $40 million a year on average that, uh, that schools are spending. But of course, I don't know that for sure. Mm-hmm. You know, it, it's, it's possible that, just like you said, they pick and choose, treat it like a buffet and take some of one right, and none of another, or that some adopt it wholesale or that some say, uh, I appreciate the alignment with the Utah core, but we can pick and choose the Utah core from this other buffet. You know, I imagine there will probably be a variety, but I do think that the, the freeness, uh, of this, uh, being available to schools would be a pretty good incentive, and that we would likely see fairly wide adoption.

So, one more question, if I may. Um, just please go ahead. So, you know, as xal at Community College, for example, uses almost all OER, right? They, they have a, a lot of great curriculum and it's, it's lowered their costs significantly. So I think there's, there's definitely, um, advantage often to thinking about how we can do some of this a little bit better. I guess my second question is sometimes, um, districts and teachers, educators specifically, like certain curriculum because of the support or professional learning that they get tied to that curriculum. So does this bill just cover the creation of the curriculum, or does it also cover those pieces that help the curriculum actually be implemented successfully in a classroom? It

Just covers the creation of the curriculum.

Okay. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think some of these questions were somewhat answered, but I'm in the same vein. 'cause looking at the fiscal note, um, the 64 million and then down below, LEAs spend approximately 3.3 million statewide on textbooks for each grade. The actual savings will depend on the LEA and the amount they're able to use. Um, but it also seems to go to the question of, uh, since in line 94 of the, of the bill and the substitute, uh, sub four, it says that a state board name may not require an LEA to use it. And this is obviously just available to them if they so choose. So, I, I guess my question really is, is in the same vein, is it possible we go through the process of developing this whole program and there isn't any adoption and we've, we've essentially spent an additional 64 million out of the stabilization account for a program that's not needed or wanted. And just curious on your thoughts on that.

I'd say certainly that is possible. I think it's unlikely. I, I, I think you guys in this committee, you likely address many of these same questions on a bill that Representative Ox Air ran, uh, that this committee adopted, and that the house adopted early, or the whole house adopted earlier in the session where it was just focused on the civics curriculum. So this is just like that bill, but broader, right. Um, you know, I didn't hit on this as much during my presentation, but what we have here is a national textbook market that is written almost entirely for California, New York and Texas. And Utah's standards are different. Utah's values are different. I think that schools want to reflect the values of, of the families that attend, uh, and their communities. And that's why our standards and values are different than what you see in other states. And so, um, I think that this approach, uh, similarly to what you guys approved earlier from Representative ER is a good approach for Utah because it recognizes that we can't find these materials on the local market, uh, are, I mean, in the national market, and by pro, by, uh, by creating them locally. Uh, I think, we'll prob we will are likely to see some demand. So, you know, the, your scenario, the representative scenario, Mr. Chair, is theoretically possible, but I think very unlikely.

And if I could follow up then, is there Yes, please go ahead. Just from a policy perspective, I think I can understand why, but I'm just curious why you chose to not make this compelled then to the LEAs. Um, if this would be a, a, a tremendous savings to the state and we're gonna be reflecting the Utah values and, and have that, why, why wouldn't we just require that?

Uh, I, I think the main answer to that question is that we never have, uh, curriculum decisions have always been up to local LEAs. And, uh, I I think it would be inappropriate for us to force any specific curriculum, whether it was one developed in-house or elsewhere down, uh, down for adoption at the local level. But

Is it fair to say this is also a financial decision too, though?

I would think that it would be a financial decision for the school districts that are, and, and the charter schools that consider adoption of tech. I mean, anytime they come to the point where it's like, wow, we gotta spend $2 million on buying new math textbooks, like, let's see if there's a better way to go. Okay.

Thank you. Hello, committee. My name's Molly Hart. I'm the state superintendent for public instruction. Very excited about this bill. Um, this gives us, first of all a little bit of context. Um, years ago we offered science textbooks for $4 a copy if you wanted them printed. And, uh, they were a great resource for in, uh, some schools and they were directly, um, targeting the standards. And, um, I know that as a principal, I purchased them for a new teacher in particular who just needed a lot of scaffolding. Um, uh, it was just a use case that made sense for my school. Uh, we have been, uh, this, we have done kind of a small pilot, which I think was, uh, what somebody was referring to. We've created some social studies materials that we have shared out, um, and people are using them right now. So we are, we have, um, done some piloting in the space. Uh, some of the flexibility in this bill is because it might look different for different subjects. Um, for instance, elementary, uh, social studies or civics. Uh, there's been a lot of conversation about civics and, um, for elementary school where civics is hard, uh, social studies is hard to make, uh, lesson plans for, with the math and the reading and such that might look different than say, a middle school math curriculum. So for math, we might, uh, review, uh, published curriculum and, uh, provide our review and our, um, you know, our, uh, uh, notes and such, um, on a list that districts could choose from. And, uh, so we've pre-vetted materials, but for social studies, we might combine a teacher kit that includes readings and activities and, and, um, uh, class projects for, uh, science. We might have an item bank. Um, so we would do this incrementally. We would build, um, pieces as, as needed. We would not, um, do everything all at once. We would start small and as, uh, the materials proved valuable, we would, uh, perhaps add to them. Um, so it's an, it's really an on, uh, an organic process by which we're providing valuable materials to our LEAs. At which point they're not valuable, we are able to stop doing it. There's no, um, there's a, there's maze, a lot of maze in this, in this bill. So it gives us the flexibility to be responsible. It gives us, it doesn't force a timeline that, uh, that means that we would, um, have to do something before we were ready. It includes a review committee of parents, teachers, and education stakeholders, uh, so that there was, uh, plenty of, of input there. Um, so it's, it's a very utilitarian bill. It's a very, um, exciting opportunity. Other states are doing it, other states are doing different things. Texas, of course, went all in and, uh, provided a whole curriculum. Now they've had to recently go back and make a lot of corrections. And, um, I'd like to do it a little differently here in Utah where we're a little bit more, um, studied in and measured in our implementation. Um, then other states are providing lists of curriculum, uh, through vendors that they have vetted. So I'd like to, um, and this is for K eight, by the way. And so it needs to, it needs to be applicable to both materials that you would use in early learning as well as middle school. So, um, just really excited about the opportunity, uh, to, again, provide value, to provide quality materials, to lessen the dependence on outside vendors, and to really make sure that, uh, the state board and, uh, uh, and the state office are providing resources to our LEAs that help them meet the goals that they're trying to achieve.

Thank you. Superintendent Hart. As you know, I am working on some legislation to balance the use of technology in the classroom. Mm-hmm. Um, so how do you envision, if we were to adopt this, how does this work in, in practice, in having maybe more print materials or making sure that we have that balanced approach to, uh, technology in the classroom? Line 42,

Line 42 says that, uh, the materials would be available in digital and wear appropriate print forms. So, um, it's not providing an online curriculum. It's providing materials that are online so that teachers can access them. So it doesn't necessarily mean the student materials are digital. It means that, uh, teachers can download things, uh, for use. Um, there may be part of a resource pack that includes digital resources, but those would be vetted, like we would vet, um, uh, any digital resource. It would, it would follow very, it would just dovetail with what you're trying to do. In fact, it, it could fill a gap between what, um, for a school, uh, that may want to lessen their reliance on, um, a digital resource that they had used. We might be able to provide something, uh, that, um, is more affordable in a print form. That was, that's, that was kind of where our, where my mind was going.

I was wondering it, you are probably more familiar with the cost of textbooks. Yes. But it would, would it be cheaper to access this and print it off than it would be to

Purchase new Oh, absolutely. Textbooks. And then, and then a school would not have to print the entire resource. When you're buying textbooks, you have to buy the entire resource. They, uh, uh, district may choose to use two separate units, and that's all they use. Um, and they download it and send it to the print shop. And there they have a student workbook, or they have, uh, two chapters of a, of a science text. Um, it's, it's to provide, um, customization.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So If, um, and RP were done mm-hmm. And someone's hired to do this, how could Utah teachers be involved in that process? How would that work?

Oh, absolutely. I, I prefer as a default to do work in-house and only contract when it benefits what we're trying to do. My default is not to go out and find a vendor. Um, so I am interested in really taking stock on, uh, what kind of resources we have. Um, for instance, the social studies materials that, um, I think they were, they're nearing completion. That was done by Utah teachers. That was a, um, a request we made of the field. And, and some people, um, stepped up and were Utahans were interested in, in creating those materials. I envision this much the same. Thank you.

Thank you, chair. If I may, I'd like to make two comments. One as an,

For the record, yes. I would introduce myself. Yes. Dr. Amanda Bollinger, vice Chair of State Board of Education. I'd like to make a comment for the state board and then one for my, for myself. Um, as far as the state board, if you look at lines 1 0 2 through 1 0 5, as, uh, Senator Fillmore mentioned, these requests to repeal these requirements are both listed in our interim education requests that we did vote on as a state school board. So we appreciate the senator for adding those pieces in. And then speaking just for myself as far as the, the curriculum piece of it, I actually studied curriculum and instruction in my doctorate degree, and along with that teacher retention. And one of the things that burns out teachers the most is having to do new curriculum every five years. And as I've learned in a systemic problem we have in education is that we have RFP rules that say we have to have five year contracts, typically for curriculum. We get new curriculum, and then the teachers have to learn the new curriculum, then we have to make new, um, we have that, they get good at the curriculum, and then we get new standards, and then the standards change, the assessments, and then we get new curriculum. Not only that, but the curriculum that we have, typically when we're buying it, we only have 650,000 students here in the state of Utah, where a place like Texas has five and a half million students. So most curriculum companies are making curriculum for other states that don't a hundred percent match with our standards. So what often happens, and even in my day-to-day work, is we buy a curriculum and then we have to supplement with several other curriculums to make sure we're covering the Utah standards. And it's not a hundred percent aligned. If you take a step back and look at the most successful high achieving system and education, it's the DOD because they have a guaranteed viable curriculum. And in the state of Utah, in my personal opinion, if we want to be above the rest and we really wanna make a shift, having a curriculum that is a guaranteed viable curriculum that is a hundred percent aligned with our standards and doesn't have to be changed every five years, not only does it improve student learning, but it will also increase teacher retention and improve our ability to assess learning. So I, that's just my personal opinion on that. So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a question if I could we,

Thank you. Um, this is, I don't know if this is a fair question, but $64 million for this, um, is a lot. Um, and I understand there's some considerations of savings that might be in order here. Um, do you think that if you had, um, because I understand you guys, the state board had a list of priorities of spending items, um, many of them did not get, uh, funding. Um, so I'm just curious if $64 million in, um, income tax funding just became available, is this, uh, where that the state board would prioritize that money? Right now, I'm just, because I I, I'm not seeing necessarily the direct one-to-one savings. So I'm just curious if this is new spending, essentially coming from one time money. Is this where the state board would like that money to be spent priority wise?

If I may chair? Yep. I appreciate the question representative, and I can't speak for the state school board because we haven't had that discussion. Um, so that is a, I I appreciate the question and I can see where you're coming from that I can tell you personally and professionally. As far as an investment, I think it's a wise investment. When we talk about, uh, educational funding, I personally believe that there's a lot of funding that does go wasted in buying curriculums. And also with, I mean, when we are having new teachers every so many years and then having to retrain and retrain on different curriculums, and then they get good at it, and then we have to buy a new curriculum, it, it lends itself to a, a perpetual problem that's circular and it just continues this cycle. So it is something that I do think in the long run, like it seems like a, a big investment upfront, but in the long run, I think it was gonna save you not just money in buying curriculum, but money in helping retain teachers and also increasing outcomes. Thank you.

Hello. Um, my name is Rebecca Kirkman, and can you hear me okay?

Okay. Sorry. Just wanted to make sure. Yes, Go ahead. Um, I, I am a social studies educator. Um, I wanted just to weigh in on this, I have had experience with the, um, social studies curriculum that USBE has created, um, through a partnership with another district. And I have seen it used in the classroom, and it has been really well received. Um, I agree that we spend millions of dollars on curriculum that's kind of unnecessary and it doesn't align to the core standards. We don't have a math textbook that aligns to core standards. Um, luckily we have a Utah City book through, um, Gibb Smith, but it's still not complete. Right. Um, and I think that this would just be a wise estimate and so many teachers would appreciate being able to have a curriculum that actually meets the Utah core standards, especially mathematics and science. Um, I think it would really help along with Doc, what Dr. Bollinger said with the, um, retention in teachers, because we'll have something that actually aligns. And I am, I've seen too many teachers use programs online that don't align to standards, um, that aren't up to the quality that we as educators should use. And I think this would help stop that. Um, so I'm, again, I'm very just very much in support of this bill, and I think it is really is a good investment. Thank you.

Yes. I apologize.

You, Mr. Chair. Uh, I make a motion that we adopt, you said fourth sub? Fourth sub, fourth Sub.

Uh, I appreciate that motion. I think it, it's a good one. In light of what we did with the state budget.

Okay. I think I'm gonna make a motion to, to hold on this bill. Alright. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it? I would, I think this is a fantastic idea. Um, I've only been up here for four years and for four years I have been advocating for something similar to this with many, many individuals. But I have, um, a lot of concerns with this bill as, as it is. And the reason why is I say this, um, I think that we do have amazing talent in this state. I, I do like the idea that we would be tapping into a lot of our local talent. I am super concerned about the entities that, that could potentially be used. And, and maybe I misunderstood and I had several questions that I was possibly gonna be asking, and maybe they can, they can reference a couple of these. But if we already have curriculum providers throughout the country, um, and there's only so many qualified quote unquote qualified curriculum pro providers, are we just going back to the same curriculum providers? And granted, it does say, you know, kind of the things that we want in it, and that does hold a lot of weight. But there is a concern there from my perspective on that. Um, a couple of other things. We have committed a lot of money to this state to career tech education. I'm not suggesting that we impose that at younger, younger ages, but eighth grade, um, it doesn't mention anything in, in there about maybe doing something that could possibly be introduced in the eighth grade level that could help them be ready by the time ninth grade comes for that. 'cause that's, that's a big push that we have in the state. There's actually a definition that might be pretty minor, but I think needs to be fixed in, in this bill on, uh, one term specifically. Um, and then the other thing I wanna point out too is we talk about this curriculum's gonna be free. It's, it's not free. We're still paying $64 million for this. It might be free to the districts that the districts aren't paying for it, but still, taxpayers are still paying for the curriculum. And so I think we need to, to be aware of that. And not that that's a, a, a deal killer because somebody has to pay for the curriculum, but I do think that there's a lot of ideas. Um, I've, this is the first I've heard of this bill, was this, this session in terms of the ideas behind it. I don't remember this ever coming through committee to maybe ask some other ideas about it. But I think there's ways to actually accomplish this that I've been thinking about for a long time and have talked to a lot of teachers about, for a long, long time that would cost way less than $64 million over the next, um, five years. And so I, I just feel like this could use a little bit more input from maybe more people. Um, and so for that reason, I, I'm gonna make a motion that we hold.

Uh, I'd ask the committee to oppose that motion. I think this has been vetted through committee hearings in the, in the senate, uh, through the senate floor through negotiations. You, you heard a lot of support from, uh, the state board, its members and its superintendent, uh, and, and teachers, uh, uh, I think it, it's that the, the testimony in this committee has shown that this will save money, save time for teachers, uh, and be a benefit to Utah schools overall. And to the motion maker's point, uh, um, you know, there are a lot of curriculum providers in the state, some of which may or may not be engaged through this process. But the difference here is that we would be creating something that does not exist. And you heard testimony about that, uh, that what we're creating here is a Utah aligned core curriculum, cur resource that simply doesn't exist. So I, uh, hope that we could reject that motion and move this forward so that we can create what our teachers are asking for and what the state board is asking for.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I struggle a little bit with this one only because, um, this, this bill is, is written and presented as a, um, an opportunity to provide a, a service that our districts need, um, at a cheaper rate than we're doing to solve some problems. But it's got a, this catch 22 in my mind that if we're not mandating and if we're not requiring it to be adopted, then I'm concerned we're just adding on top of our current curriculum an online resource that they can use, um, if they so choose to. Um, and yet at the same time understand why we don't mandate it. Because we don't wanna do that. And we want them to have those, uh, that freedom to choose that, that curriculum that works best in their, uh, LEA by LEA. And so I struggle a little bit with the whole concept of how this is a, um, um, this is the right decision financially, uh, to make this is in good investment because I think it lacks the, the, the component that makes it, um, truly effective, which is the adoption piece. If there was a way to incentivize or require this or to, to, to phase out, um, the existing and non interfere with, uh, some of the concerns that were brought up with the, the digital media access stuff, um, I, I think I'd be much more supportive. I, I think right now I'd be supportive of a motion to hold just simply because I'm not certain if I'm there yet, essentially.

Make a substitute motion to pass it out favorably.

It? Yes. Um, I, I particularly appreciated the fourth sub where you talked about how we could use Utah educators to create this curriculum. I think that's, it's an untapped resource, really, in our state. And I like the flexibility, um, because as you know, kind of my questions implied, like we do have schools that have specialty spaces. And so while, while we know not everyone's gonna use this resource, we also know even if, even if our adoption rate is low, it still will probably be a cost savings because of the cost of curriculum. And so, um, and then I probably, my last thing that makes me feel maybe a little bit more comfortable with it is because, um, the budget I saw doesn't have the entire fiscal note fund. It has a piece of it, which gives us an opportunity this year to say, okay, can we get this up and running? Can we make this work? Um, can, can we start to see what the interest might be in doing this without funding the whole thing upfront? And because it's kind of a, just taking a bite at it this year with the budget, um, and giving us then the opportunity to say, is it working, is it not working? Um, I, I feel comfortable moving the bill forward. Um, and I guess maybe my last point is, you know, I, I think we have a fantastic state superintendent and if she's like, this is something I'm hearing as a need and this is something I see, then I also want to trust her expertise in that regard. So, um, so my motion would be a substitute motion to pass it out favorably.

Um, good arguments. I still feel strongly that we should, should hold on this, um, for the reasons I mentioned before. Um, and another question that I did, I did have that didn't get answered, and, and perhaps in, in the, the ponsor sum might mention too, is, is ongoing costs too, as changes are made to curriculum as adoptions? I mean, is there, is there a funding mechanism for that? And who's gonna pay for that? Is that gonna be up to the districts? Is that gonna be up to the state to come back and ask for more money from the state? Because again, there's nothing free, man, this is still taxpayer money, whether we pay for it through the districts or we pay for it through the state, we're still paying for it. And so I just wanna make sure that we're making best use of that money. So I would oppose that motion.

to recommend favorably, obviously I support that motion.

Ahead. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. I'm glad to have this one. I would say I have like six, seven bills on today's agenda. And, uh, the reason it's not more is because this bill is three bills. Look at me like we are reducing the number of drafted bills in the legislature, which is great, but I wanna say, I also recognize that by having three bills in this one bill, it gives three opportunities for people to hate it. So, uh, I'm hoping that these are three policies that people like. Let me explain what, what the three policies in this bill are. Uh, and I'll start with what I think is the easy one. Um, I think it was a year ago, um, Representative Welton and I sponsored a bill that required, uh, kindergartners who enter public school to be potty trained. And that's how the bill was written. But, uh, some students, you know, are withheld. They, they don't start kindergarten, they start at first grade. And because the law says you have to be potty trained to enter kindergarten, it is silent on what happens if you just enter first grade. So this just makes a, uh, what I think is a technical change to say that you need to be potty trained before entering public school as a student. Uh, and all the same exceptions that are there. You know, some people who have disabilities, uh, um, they're grandfathered exceptions of the same bill that passed last year. So we're just changing so that it's, uh, applicable to other grades as well as kindergarten. Um, the second policy, uh, would task the State Board of Education to craft, um, a Utah based curriculum. Um, you know, right now school districts, uh, go out to the marketplace and they evaluate different textbooks and different curriculum options, and they buy some, um, and try to seek to modify 'em. You know, things aren't really written for Utah standards. They're kind of written for the big customers, California or Texas, uh, and for the standards that are there. So, Texas actually recognizing this, that, um, you know, they, a lot of, a lot of options that were, are available to schools are just written for, uh, along other state's guidelines. And so we're somewhat following Texas here in crafting a local curriculum that is, uh, tied to local standards that are set by our state board of Education and our legislature. Um, so this would task them with the responsibility to, uh, craft a curriculum for the core subjects in grades K through eight, and then make that curriculum available for free to every public school in the state. And then the third piece of this makes, um, uh, a minor change, but with a major impact, uh, to the school stabilization fund. Uh, right now, you know, we created this economic stabilization fund, uh, in order to make sure that we had the ability to continue to fund, uh, inflation and population increases in public education in the event that state revenue went, uh, uh, is down from year to year. So that we have this fund, it's, it's, uh, it really, it's a rainy day fund, uh, and that we, we can use it in, in one circumstance with if there's not enough money to fund, uh, um, a an increase to the WPU that's based on inflation and enrollment growth. Um, but this year we, our, our state, uh, revenue collections are gonna be down about $300 million, but not due to an economic downturn, but due to an act of Congress. Uh, so what, uh, this policy change would simply, uh, add that as another criterion by which we could use the stabilization fund, uh, to be able to fund that increase in public education. So, uh, this would allow fi um, right now we have about $500 million in ongoing money, but that's sitting in a one time pot, and it would just take, uh, up to $190 million of that money and move it into the ongoing pot to fund this year's, uh, WPU increase of 4.2%. So those are the three things the bill does.

It does, Yep.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm, uh, I'm Mr. Chair. I'm looking at the fiscal note, and someone described this to me as a shell game. Um, and that's what, when we talked about, I'm like, oh, okay. So the economic stabilization restricted account is already an account that is for education, and we're going to move some of that money out of that account, I guess, because it says that we are going to see that, um, may reduce the uniform school fund expenditures. So are we moving it from one account to the other and then not getting the money that was from the stabilization account, because this is now covering something that we were supposed to be covering in law with giving a, for, uh, an increase to the WPU. So,

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I appreciate that it is something of a shell game, but it's because we created a Shell game in statute that Shell game currently exists, uh, every year, uh, based on current law, we set aside 15% of the growth, uh, that public education experiencing, and we deposit that into this stabilization account. It sits there and it's always available to us. It can either be spent on an ongoing basis in the event of, uh, that state revenue is insufficient to fund it on its own. We just pull from that account to fund the WPU increase. Otherwise, we try to find ways to spend it one time. So this actually undoes part of that shell game by providing us with another option. So, um, the money is already there. It's already ongoing. It would just, it would just transfer $179 million less into the stabilization account and instead keep that 178 million as ongoing revenue that we could fund for this year's enrollment growth by, uh, just creating the standard that says, if Congress passes a law that reduces state revenue by more than, um, and I say Congress, but it's federal action, right? By more than the amount of the required statutory increase that we could fund that increase out of the stabilization fund instead of scrambling to find money Now that the federal government has, has reduced state tax collections by about $300 million.

Thanks. May I have a follow up? Go ahead. So you mentioned that it's this year, but is this bill have parameters for just this year? Or is this gonna go on forever? As a new, as a new statute,

Uh, Mr. Chair, it creates a new reason why somebody could dip into that fund. So it would be available to us anytime federal action reduced state revenue by an amount greater than the required WPU increase.

Thank You. And in that way, it really is consistent with the spirit of what we were doing anyway, right? When this was drafted, we thought, well, if there's an economic downturn, and we, you know, that means we're gonna collect less money. We need to have a way to be able to fund education. And that's why this was created here.

Revenue collection is down by as much as a, a, a major recession would cause it to be down. The fact that it, that it's, um, you know, a law passed outside of our control rather than economic circumstances that are outside of our control, I think is still consistent with what we originally pledged to do, which is protect public education funding in the event that state revenue collections are insufficient. And this year is an example of that because we're downed by $300 million.

Thank you. Can I have a follow

Um, student materials and resources, including and creating a Utah curriculum. We already have a Utah core curriculum. We don't follow the Common Core. We already have a Utah core. How would this be different than what we already have? I mean, I, I'm on the UEN website all the time. Um, I look at all the resources there. I'm kind of curious why school districts even buy textbooks anymore with all the materials available online. So how would this book this bill change the fact that we already have a Utah court,

Uh, Mr. Chair, it would not change the court at all. Of course, those standards are set by the state board. This would just, uh, allow the state to create curriculum resources to support that core. And the Senator Vickers correct that there already are such resources. Um, uh, but this would have it be centrally done, driven by the State Board of Education, and then made available for free to any school district in the state that wanted to use them.

Good afternoon. My name is Todd Haber. I'm the business administrator for Grant School District, and I'm and the legislative liaison for the Utah Association of School Business Officials. I just wanted to speak to one of the three bills in the one bill, and that has to do with the economic stabilization account. I appreciate the, the effort to identify other scenarios that might be available for the use of the economic stabilization funds. Uh, the concern that I have is that, um, the scenario that is currently in law is when there's insufficient income tax to fund the enrollment growth and the inflationary adjustment. Yes, there is a federal impact right now, uh, but that doesn't exhaust the available income tax dollars. So what this opportunity presents is a chance to free up some income tax dollars for the use in other areas. And that's a a, an interesting proposition. We're gonna destabilize public education funding by 178 million ish, uh, and then make it available for other purposes. And that, in my opinion, is actually contrary to the intent of the original legislation.

Um, I just wanted to say, while I support the, I think, I think the creation of an open curriculum for grades kindergarten through eighth is a really good idea. Uh, my issue is the fact that it says specifically the State Board of Education might contract with one or more qualified people. Um, I would love y'all to consider the fact that maybe the bill forces the State Board of Education to at least use two contractors, just because if we use one contractor or business to do all the different strands of public education, um, I, I think there could be bias. So I think it'd be cool if there was at least more than one mandate, more than one company involved. Hey,

Oh, who you represent? Oh, yeah. My name's Ella Franson. I just represent myself. Thank You.

Hello, I'm Jennifer Partridge. I'm on the school board in Provo, and I'm speaking, um, for my own experience, not on behalf of the entire board today. Um, but I wanna thank Senator Fillmore for addressing, um, things in education and, um, trying to help, help us meet our needs. I appreciate the independent standards to enter public school clean up. That's very helpful. Um, as far as the, um, curriculum development at the state level, I, I would just want us to consider, does the state board have the bandwidth? Does their office have the bandwidth for that? They've, they have a lot on their plate, and I worry about the time, the effort, the money that would be required, um, for that to happen. Um, and then I, I don't know that I'm clear. I've tried to pay attention and listen, but the stabilization account, I'm not clear if that is a one time. And then next year, that same ongoing funding would come out of the normal income tax fund. If that's the case, I appreciate that we are, um, addressing it for one year and trying to meet our needs as a full state. If it means that it's pulling outta the stabilization count from now on, that 178 million, that's decreasing how we can meet other needs. And we already have other things that are ongoing every year out of what's supposed to be a one-time fund. And I would not support that.

Hi, can you hear me? Go ahead. Can you, Hi, my name's Jennifer Stout. I'm with Voices for Utah Children. As a policy analyst, I would challenge this bill in number one with curriculum. I would say that one of my biggest focus is data and research, and when it comes to early childhood education. And one of the things with that data is we're constantly learning and figuring out what are the best things to teach children. And I do love that we already do have a curriculum in place. I agree that we shouldn't be put allocating our money to create a whole new curriculum, especially with the point that I'm making is there's always gonna be ongoing facts and data to teach our children to help them learn, to help them grow as we're learning. And that's gonna mean to continuously update the curriculum. And so I wouldn't want a law in place stating this is the curriculum that has to be used when realistically we should be updating it as we learn more and more every year. Thank you.

I'm Julie Jackson. I'm on the Granite School Board and the President-elect of USBA. I'm speaking on behalf of myself today as a person who, um, works on and is, you know, charged with setting the budget of a school district. Uh, I, we struggle so hard and we take some of the same, uh, you know, attacks that you guys take when you increase, uh, taxes because we need to make things work for our district. And we are trying so hard to move the needle on reading and math for our kids. And so, um, it's, it's a really, really hard thing to figure out how to get the, all the, all the needs met with the resources that we have. And, uh, so I, I cannot, uh, support anything that will remove funding because I see that for me, it means making really tough decisions for kids if, if that funding is removed. Um, on the other hand, I wanted to address unfunded mandates for a minute. I feel that the, um, I, I like the idea of the curriculum, um, with the state, but, uh, there's no funding attached to it. And recently I was talking with a senator who told me, Julie, imagine the position that I'm in when I hear a bill, and it looks like a great idea. And so I vote for it, and then I find out later that the funding that was in the note was now polled. And so now I've got constituents saying, how come you voted for this unfunded mandate? And it puts me in a bad position. And I would love for us to figure out a way to solve that, uh, for you guys, because I do think that that is a serious, serious problem. And, uh, this one is one that's a good idea, but without the funding, it, it can't really get us anywhere except for to take from another priority and make this the priority. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are we ready for a motion? If that's okay, Mr. Chair? Yep, that's fine. Uh, motion that we favorably recommend SB one 19 to the full body of the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, year after year, I come up here. I got involved as an educator, and, um, we have our education community come up to the microphone and ask us not to do things. And every year we vote against what the education community asks, the superintendents, the business associations, the school boards, all of these people are in their schools nonstop every day trying to make ends meet. And they ask us not to pass these bills or to pass the bills. Um, we look at education and we say that we're not succeeding at the rate we should be succeeding. And yet we have hundreds of bills micromanaging us and unfunded mandates. And so as we approach this new session, and we look out to our education peers who spend every day watching us in horror, as we cut our funding and amend the stabilization fee asking us not to do it, I think we should start being partners with them and listening to them. So, um, I just want to reiterate that this is something that happens year after year, and I find it curious that you can go back to your districts and say that you're education friendly, but they all just said they don't like it. So I'm voting no.

I just want to, uh, uh, ease everybody's concern here. There is nothing in this bill that reduces funding in any way to public education. In fact, it protects that funding by using a source that was set aside specifically to, uh, may ensure that public education funding remains whole, even at times when the state revenue collections are down. Uh, and whether that is down because of economic, uh, recession or because Congress has taken action. I don't think either of that makes a difference. The fact is that the state is, um, is down so far in its revenue projections that the Public Education Appropriations Committee is being asked to identify a $290 million of funding reductions that we could potentially take in order to balance the state budget, even though we actually have $500 million in ongoing money that's sitting in a pot that's ready. Um, this bill simply says, we can take some of that money in order to, to provide a $200 million increase to public education funding. I, I just find it bizarre that, uh, people would come up and testify that this is taking money away from public education when it is in fact increasing the WPU and increasing overall state education funding by $400 million. And it does nothing to take away any money that is currently appropriated for public ed. I just think that, um, the framing of that, uh, is, um, um, I just think it's, it's inaccurate. Um, and as far as the notion that this is an unfunded mandate, it would just direct the committee to the fiscal note. It's $64 million. Um, it, it's not unfunded. I don't know that I could get funding for it. Um, but I think as we all know, if we can't find $64 million to fund this, uh, then it won't pass. But again, uh, even if this bill passes and will still have $300 million in the economic stabilization account that is designed to be spent one time on projects specific to this. And, uh, far from being an unfunded mandate, this will save school districts millions of dollars a year in curriculum expenses, um, by, you know, as we create this centrally and one that is specifically designed for Utah and for Utah students, according to specific state standards that are already crafted for Utah, this has the potential to save, uh, public schools, public school districts, and charter schools, uh, collectively millions of dollars a year in, in savings because these curriculum resources will now be available for free. Uh, with that, I, I, I asked for the committees support.

I've got a fairly, uh, i a substantive change. Um, so this bill, uh, uh, uh, in its current form carries three policy changes. Uh, it extends potty training requirements beyond just kindergarten. I think that's a desirable policy that, uh, I, I'm not aware there's any controversy about. It requires the State Board of Education to work to develop a Utah specific curriculum for Gates K through eight. And it also, um, uh, has another provision that would allow expanded use of the education stabilization fund for ongoing purposes. The second substitute will take that stabilization provision out and it will replace it with, um, just kind of another technical change regarding the rural facilities, uh, program that we have and make that, uh, a, uh, eligible to also for rural charter schools. So, uh, I would move that we delete entitle embody Senate Bill one 19, replace it with second substitute Senate bill one 19. And then once that's done, I'll recircle the bill and everybody can lovingly read it over the weekend.

Uh, thank you. Um, uh, I have the honor, the distinct honor of presenting Senate Bill 54 for this year. It's, uh, al always a good time when that happens. This bill removes income req. It really is This Carson Smith is the, a scholarship for special needs students. Um, and so, you know, as, as we implement this along with other scholarship programs, there's a need for an alignment to make sure that definitions are consistent between programs. So, uh, this does that and because this is focused on special needs students, it makes two, uh, policy changes.

and Body second substitute Senate Bill one 19. Replace it with third substitute Senate bill one 19. That takes out a little provision about enrolling in first grade if you're not potty trained. And the provision related to charter school, rural school buildings and leaves in place. Open educational resources. So that's the bill I'd like to debate and, uh, and present today.

Thank you Mr. President. Utah school districts spend about $40 million a year on textbooks and curriculum resources. And most of those textbooks are designed for the very large states that have the most purchasing power when it comes to school curriculum. So those states are largely California, Texas, and New York, Texas. Though they're a very large state with a very large school age population, they have taken steps in recent years because they find it difficult to, uh, to find mass produced curriculum resources that are consistent with the Texas core. And in Utah we have the same problem. So Senate Bill one 19 tasks the State Board of Education with developing, with developing an open educational resource of curriculum from Gates K through eight that are aligned with Utah core standards. It provides for reporting on curriculum development, uh, over time to relevant legislative committees, um, and, uh, um, and keeps in place the same curriculum review process. But instead of reviewing curriculum materials that come from out of state that are written largely to meet the standards of other states, this would be written and developed specifically for Utah students engaged CK through eight and then made available for free to all public schools in Utah.

Thank you President. Uh, sponsor agreed to yield. Senator Fillmore, will you yelled?

Yes, go ahead. Senator Owens.

Thank you. I just seeing this substitute. I didn't pull it up earlier when you said all schools, um, was it K eight or was it K 12?

Uh, Mr. President, it's K through eight.

Okay. Thank, thank you President. That help?

Thank you Mr. President. I'm wondering if there's a fiscal note on this.

Yeah, the fiscal note will not change from the earlier substitute to this bill. So yes, the bill does have a substantial fiscal note. Uh, that $64 million one time will come from the stabilization fund and it comes over a period of five years. So it's about 12, between 12 and $13 million a year for five years from the stabilization fund.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. President. I move that third substitute Senate Bill one 19. Be read a third time.

Yeah. Thank you. I, Okay, let's go

Thank you President. This is the bill that moves Con Constable licensure from cities and counties to doppel. It establishes what the requirements will be to get that license.