Pub. 5 2015-2016 Issue 2

27 Finally, THEME #3 Legislators heaped praise on the current State Board of Education. HB 142 (Cutler) moved the responsibility for the USOE auditor from the State Superintendent to the State Board. HB 147 (also, Cutler) eliminated all Utah Code refer- ences to the State Office of Education and changed them to “State Board of Education.” HB 277 (Knotwell) put a digital (personalized) teaching and learning program largely in the State Board of Education’s hands through required adminis- trative rules. The catch: the final bill received less than 20% of the funding outlined in the bill’s first fiscal note. The Legisla- ture granted the Board’s request to move the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation from the Board’s supervision to the Division of Workforce Services. Following a request from the USOE/ State Board, Sen. Stephenson sponsored SB 87 which relieved the State Board from administrative rule requirements that ap- ply to all other state agencies. The bill passed, but imposed different, additional specific requirements on the State Board in the administrative rulemaking process—until the Governor vetoed the bill on the final day for vetoes. Public hearing re- quirements, identical for those for all state agencies, still apply to the State Board of Education rulemaking practices. Finally, the Legislature generously increased State Board members’ pay (from $3,000 per year, plus expenses)—to compensation that more closely compares with Legislators’ pay. Interesting to note: The Lear&Lear tracking sheet identi- fies 81 successful public education-related bills and resolu- tions. Of those bills/resolutions, Sen. Stephenson sponsored 8 and Sen. Millner sponsored 10—between them, 25% of all successful education-related bills. By contrast, there were 12 higher education bills passed in both Houses. Also interesting, in past years, many bills included different requirements for traditional schools and charter schools. This year, most bills apply to “LEAs,” an acronym for both traditional school dis- tricts and charter schools, including: a technical change in HB 27 (Draxler) specific to a “school district” repeal date; HB 217 (McIff) which provides a small appropriation only for “neces- sarily small schools” that are school district schools; HB 289 (DiCaro) which applies specifically to charter school closures; HB 301 (Stanard) which provides a small appropriation for hazardous bus route grants—only to traditional school dis- tricts; HB 443 (Gibson) which differentiates slightly between charter school and traditional school responsibilities; in the much discussed SB 38 (Stephenson) takes steps toward equal- izing funding for charter schools and traditional schools (and so distinguishes the two types of schools); and SB 239 (Ste- phenson) which is specific to charter school authorizers who are engaged in the school improvement process. Most school leaders agree that requirements and amended legislation that apply to both charter schools and traditional schools, where appropriate, lessen animosity between charters and tradition- al schools and support equality for all public schools. And politicos predict there will be an unusually large num- ber of freshmen legislators for the 2017 session. So . . . the interest is building for next year. Managing the Business of Charter Schools with the same passion as those who create them. 801-394-4140 Reach your target audience a ordably. advertise get results DANI GORDEN Advertising Sales 801.676.9722 or 855.747.4003 dani@thenewslinkgroup.com