This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
A Senate committee approved a bill Wednesday that aims to adjust costs under an online education law passed last year, but not before hearing a number of objections to both the changes and the original law itself.
Under the original law, public school students in grades 9-12 may take up to two classes online, offered by other school districts and charter schools, instead of at their regular high schools. For each full-year course a student takes from a provider outside his home district or charter school, the student's home district or charter must send about $727 to that provider.
SB178 would change the amount of money districts and charters would pay providers. Under SB178, districts and charters would instead owe between $400 and $700 for each full-year course, depending on the type of class. Also, providers would get bonuses of $50 to $100 for each student who scores well on end-of-course tests.
"A little bit of bonus can move the world," said bill sponsor Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper. He said he also had planned to amend the law to allow private schools and companies to act as providers, but realized there's no need, as some school districts are already contracting with private entities to offer online courses.
"This is just incredible to me to see what these professional educators have done in response to the freedom to compete in an online world," Stephenson said.
Many, however, questioned and criticized the proposal Wednesday.
Sen. Aaron Osmond, R-South Jordan, along with several other speakers, asked why the state should set prices as opposed to allowing districts and charters to negotiate costs with providers. He also questioned whether the online courses would end up costing more than traditional school classes, though he said he supports the direction of the bill.
Stephenson responded that the online courses would cost less. He also said that he hopes, in the future, to let prices be decided in the free market and allow students to have education savings accounts that they could spend on the classes of their choosing. But he said, "To keep from strangling this in its infancy we need to provide for some way of having this tiered structure."
Several charter school leaders also expressed concerns about a portion of the bill that prohibits counselors from advocating for one online course over another. They said they worry that lack of guidance could lead students to take online courses that don't meet their schools' standards of rigor.
Also, a number of people criticized the original law behind the bill.
Patrick Colclough, Granite online credit coordinator, said if online providers get bonuses for high-scoring students then traditional programs should get those bonuses as well "if we're going to level the playing field in education."
He also said "it is really important the public knows we are funneling public dollars to private entities."
Others, however, spoke in favor of the bill. "We believe it will lead to higher quality instruction and progress in academics," said the Sutherland Institute's Matt Piccolo.
And Robyn Bagley, a founding board member of the Open High School of Utah, which she said has served about 50 students through the program this year, said "This is about choice — choice for parents, schools, students and empowering them with options that will best meet their needs." Bagley, who is also Parents for Choice in Education board chair, said she was "fascinated" to hear charter officials testifying against the bill, as similar arguments have been used in the case against charters.
Stephenson said he's open to tweaking the bill when it hits the Senate floor to address some of the questions raised Wednesday.