Members of the Utah State Board of Education’s Standards and Assessment Committee heard a progress report on public feedback to the draft Utah Core Mathematics standards and debated several recurring concerns, including whether to keep an integrated secondary pathway statewide, how assessments would compare across possible pathways and the status of honors/extended topics.

The writing team reported that the 90-day public comment window closed Sept. 17 and that staff received 713 responses to the Qualtrics survey and 29 official comments at four public meetings. “We received a tremendous amount of feedback from the public for which we are so grateful,” said Molly Basham, the early learning mathematics specialist. Basham said the writing committee has begun reviewing the 323-page compiled feedback and has held two meetings to start drafting revisions.

Why it matters: Committee members and educators said the decisions will shape curriculum and assessment for all Utah students in coming years. Board members asked staff how public input is triaged, how the committee decides which content to slim or restore, and how districts will provide honors or acceleration options.

Key findings from public feedback and staff response

- Volume and themes: Basham said the Qualtrics responses and meeting comments were organized by survey question and by theme to help the writing committee make targeted changes. Common themes included debate over an integrated versus a traditional Algebra–Geometry–Algebra 2 (AGA) sequence, data science, fluency, language clarity, perceived departures from Common Core, and questions about honors and extended standards.

- Mobility and continuity: Janine Montgomery, a secondary math specialist for Ogden School District, told the committee she favors a single statewide pathway to reduce disruption for students who transfer between schools. “A single statewide pathway safeguards continuity for most mobile students,” Montgomery said, adding that different sequencing can create misalignment of transcripts and missed overlapping concepts.

- Assessment comparability: Montgomery and others argued that having two fundamentally different sequences would complicate statewide assessment and accountability. “Comparing outcomes across two fundamentally different core sequences is logistically impossible,” she said, arguing that one pathway would allow a single rigorous assessment rather than splitting comparability across two tests.

- Honors and extended topics: Mike Spencer, the secondary math specialist, told the committee the writing committee never intended to eliminate honors courses. He explained that the draft removes some extended topics previously embedded in Math 1 and Math 2 and that the intent is to offer deeper engagement rather than simply “more content.” “The honors was never an it was never an intention from the committee that honors would disappear,” Spencer said. He added that the newly defined calculus pathway was designed so students can still reach calculus without the former extended-topic sequence.

How the writing committee is handling feedback

Basham described a protocol: the rating committee classifies responses (supportive, critical but not actionable, actionable suggestion, unrelated) and records whether the writing committee reviewed each feedback item and whether they made changes. The writing committee has already made shifts to elevate mathematics content over ancillary skills, improve language clarity, and adjust how skills are presented in relation to standards.

Local control, curriculum availability and supports

Board members raised practical concerns: several said districts have recently purchased multi-year curriculum contracts and that extensive changes to standards may force costly curriculum purchases. Board members and superintendents also reported struggles finding curricular materials for the integrated model, prompting some districts to continue with college-preparatory courses (for example, the 1010/1050 sequence) plus supplemental math labs.

Several committee members urged the state to provide visual pathway maps and guidance for local education agencies (LEAs) to show how honors, AP, IB and concurrent enrollment might interact with the proposed pathways. Spencer said the team is developing graphics to clarify pathway options and supports.

Open educational resources and curriculum costs

Committee members discussed open educational resources (OER) as a way to reduce textbook costs and allow districts flexibility to adapt materials without large vendor contracts. One board member cited Salt Lake Community College’s reported savings from OER and urged expanded use where appropriate.

Procedure and next steps

Basham said the writing committee will continue reviewing the public feedback and revise draft standards accordingly; the committee has not completed that work and will bring updated draft language back to the board in subsequent meetings. Committee members requested additional materials: a clear pathway graphic, sample instructional guidance for honors/acceleration, and, at least for some items, examples of how reduced standards (or “access points”) would be taught or assessed.

Ending: Committee members thanked staff for the outreach and asked for follow-up materials before the next meeting so they could better evaluate trade-offs between statewide continuity, local control, curriculum availability and equitable access to advanced mathematics.