• When it comes to education reform, different routes exist to accomplish change: the state Legislature, the state board of education, local school district policies, and even some offices within the state’s executive branch.
• District-level policy is an important avenue to education reform, especially in parent access to curriculum.

When it comes to education reform, different routes exist to accomplish change: the state Legislature, state board of education, local school districts, and even some offices within the state’s executive branch.

Reformers most often look to the state Legislature, and understandably so. This constitutionally established governing body is a direct and efficient way to implement mandatory statewide reforms. Still, change-makers also need to understand other policymaking options that offer productive pathways to reform.

Below we explore the role of other policy levers for change and how they could influence a policy like parent access to classroom curriculum.

Options for policy change

The Utah Legislature’s general session runs for 45 days from mid-January to early March, with plenty of opportunities for advocates to lobby, communicate with representatives, give public comments in committees, and more. During many of the remaining months of the year, legislators meet periodically during interim committees and prepare bills that may be passed during the next session, where some of the same advocacy work can be done. Importantly, these are opportunities to influence statewide education policy and funding reforms through a legislative process. The Utah Constitution says that the Legislature is responsible for the “establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools,” which in practice usually means it funds and passes public education policy on a state-wide scale.

But often, the Legislature does not or cannot pass every good policy, and in other cases, certain types of policymaking are left to different bodies.

For instance, every month, the Utah State Board of Education meets for two days to vote on policy within its purview. The elected 15-member board is also established in the state constitution, which gives it “general control and supervision” over the state’s public education system. To do so, this body creates administrative rules that have the force of law (often based on statutes passed by the Legislature). Rules go through committee and full board votes as well.

It makes academic standards, decides on statewide assessments, determines graduation requirements, develops teacher licensure requirements, and ensures compliance with federal laws. Advocates for specific education reform can also impact education policy through this entity, speaking with elected board members or giving public comments. Further, the board acts as a host for other resources to help local districts in their work. For instance, it creates model policies, which local boards can review and decide to adopt. While the state board does not decide on the required curriculum, it offers recommended options to help local boards choose district-approved curriculum that aligns with state standards.

Local school boards for each of Utah’s 41 school districts also meet once monthly to create policy at the local level. These bodies, which usually consist of five to nine members, make decisions about curriculum adoption, the budget (and approving school community council plans for School LAND Trust funds), school buildings, enrollment boundaries, hiring and firing certain school leaders, and more.

The boards must also maintain compliance with state and federal laws, which they confirm yearly through a Compliance and Assurance Checklist. Public members can also attend these local board meetings (unless specified for a particular legal reason) and have their voices heard. In recent years, we have seen increased media attention on parents getting involved in local school board meetings as members of the public recognize their importance.

Policy levers for parent access to curriculum

To illustrate the options available at each entity, let’s look at possibilities for increasing parent access to curriculum.

As noted in a recent Sutherland Institute report, the Utah Legislature has passed several laws in recent years to increase parents’ access to public school learning materials. These include a revamped process for selecting district-approved curriculum and platforms for parents to review library materials their children check out. Notably, much of the work required by recent legislation is placed at the local school board level.

The Legislature could continue this work by beefing up guidelines for what district websites must provide parents or directly creating requirements for teachers to increase access to curriculum. This year, the Legislature introduced but failed to pass a pilot program that would have financially or professionally incentivized teachers to share more about classroom curriculum with parents voluntarily.

In recent years, the Utah State Board of Education passed rule revisions, which instruct local education agencies (school districts or charter schools) that the process of selecting and reviewing complaints about learning materials must be “transparent and publicly available” for parents. The board has also signed a statewide partnership to offer Canvas, a learning management platform, to all districts so more teachers can use this platform to share course information with students and parents.

In the future, the board could prompt a policy similar to what the Legislature failed to do with the pilot program. Specifically, it could create model policies that local boards could adopt to incentivize teachers to share their classroom curriculum more, like using Canvas robustly and emailing parents weekly with specific learning materials applicable to that week. Excellent teachers already do this, but having a policy to reward teachers for doing so may prompt more to follow suit.

As mentioned, legislation and board rules regarding parent access to curriculum have primarily focused on requirements for local boards or LEAs. For instance, school boards are charged with ensuring that curriculum is “readily accessible and available” for parents to view. This includes providing information on how to access it and placing that information on the local website. Local school boards must pursue a specific process when adopting curriculum that requires parent participation.

In the future, without requirements or prompting from other entities, local school districts could pass stronger district-level policies that provide a better approach to curriculum access than mandated by statute, or they could pass district policies that require or incentivize their teachers to be more transparent. Aside from formal policy, they could improve their websites to be more user-friendly in sharing information on curriculum. Local school boards could refine their communication with parents about details and access already available.

Conclusion

Policymaking in Utah education is dispersed throughout different governing bodies. We hope advocates for prudent policy reform understand these options, understand the power of state and board policies, and engage those opportunities in meaningful ways.