Last week the Utah Legislature passed a compromise that creates a more flexible scholarship for Utah students with special needs.

The process of getting the scholarship established was dynamic. A fairly close vote in the Senate got it through the state Legislature during the general session only to have it vetoed by the governor on April 1. It was then introduced during a fourth special session, where a compromise bill rather than a veto override was pursued. And then the compromise passed (barely) – thanks to bipartisan support in the Senate.

The back-and-forth of this policy’s story presents the opportunity to analyze lessons learned in Utah’s education choice space.

1. When collaboration breaks down, the political machine revs up

Utah has gained a reputation nationally for collaboration and principled compromise. For some of the most hotly contested issues – immigration, gay rights, religious freedom – our state’s approach has been to bring stakeholders from all sides of an issue to the table in the early stages of policymaking and craft legislation that reflected a wealth of reasonable perspectives. 

Without early collaboration, policymakers must rely more heavily on levers of the political process: narrow vote passage, governor veto, potential veto override or a compromise, etc. Likewise, without upfront collaboration, advocates often turn to tactics such as trying to discredit reasonable opposition rather than addressing it. 

While natural and sometimes necessary in politics, those levers and tactics typically have zero-sum outcomes. If used too frequently because we believe we cannot work together, those tactics can erode the foundations of representative government: a willingness to seek principled compromise and trust in the good faith of differing viewpoints.

Collaboration, on the other hand, increases the likelihood that policymakers, advocates and the people they represent come away feeling empowered, that the process has served their interests and the common good.

With earlier consensus more collaboration among stakeholders on the special needs scholarship, there may have been less of a need for a political fight: flexing political muscle to pass the bill through the Legislature, while others rallied the troops to achieve a governor’s veto. Only after compromises were negotiated did a solution become politically viable.

In future education choice deliberations, Utah would be better served by pursuing collaboration in better ways.

2. The best policy balances several interests

A positive side effect of collaboration is creating legislation that balances reasonable interests. The special needs tax credit scholarship is a good policy in part because it is tailored to those students who need options most: the limited group of students whose special needs are not being met in their current environment. 

To further fulfill the scholarship’s purpose of benefiting the most vulnerable, during the compromise stages it was amended to prioritize those with lower income qualifying to get larger scholarships.

The compromises also balanced taxpayer accountability and administrative efficiency by minimizing duplicative features between the special needs tax credit scholarship and the existing Carson Smith Scholarship. This allows the program to make sense for the special needs children who will use it, as well as the organizations administering it.

The compromise highlights that even a good bill can be improved when collaboration leads to policy that reflects a diverse set of reasonable interests.

3. Utah dislikes the term “vouchers” but likes education choice

While many Utahns dislike vouchers, our state supports education choice. But talking about “education choice” often comes with some misunderstanding.

During debate about the recently passed special needs tax credit scholarship compromise, some argued that the program would be contrary to the will of the people because they voted down vouchers in 2007 and, significantly, that this program would also be a voucher. In truth, the program is what national education policy experts call an education savings account; there are important differences.

But aside from that, Utah has a track record for supporting education choice – even vouchers. Yes, Utah resoundingly rejected a universal voucher program via voter referendum in 2007, but the state’s Carson Smith Scholarship (a voucher) has been a testament to Utah’s willingness to offer private choice for students with special needs since its creation in 2005.

The Carson Smith Scholarship has been praised by legislators and advocates on both sides of the aisle and the universal voucher debate for offering families options and cost savings to the state. While Utahns voted down a universal voucher, they have supported some voucher programs, depending on the details.

More importantly, Utahns like education choice like open enrollment in public schools, public charter schools, digital learning in virtual and brick-and-mortar schools, competency-based education, and beyond – all of which Utah continues to expand over time.

We’d do well not to paint advocates on either side of this issue with too broad a brush. Many who oppose vouchers still like a range of options and flexibility for families. Many who support vouchers are likewise supportive of policies that help create choice and flexibility within public schools. Beliefs to the contrary are an artifact of the zero-sum approach, not the broader reality among Utah’s people.

Let’s move forward on the assumption of common ground. There is still plenty of work to be done in offering students fairness though educational options.