School Funding: A School Board’s Dilemma
For better or worse, funding is at the center of everything we do in education. We need resources to build, operate, and maintain schools, hire teachers and staff, and provide students with the programs and opportunities that make learning possible. But in Utah, education funding is messy, complicated, and often misunderstood.
School boards are charged with making sure every dollar is spent transparently and equitably. Yet here’s the dilemma: they don’t control the biggest funding sources. Instead, they must balance budgets shaped by legislative decisions, constitutional limits, and state and federal mandates—all while answering directly to their communities.
How School Funding Is Structured
Public education in Utah is funded through a combination of state income tax, local property taxes, and federal dollars:
Income Tax (State Funds): The Utah Constitution earmarks income tax revenue for public education, higher education, and services for children and people with disabilities. The Legislature sets the Weighted Pupil Unit (WPU)—the per-student allocation that determines the baseline of what districts receive. Over the last 30 years, income tax rates have been cut from 7% to 4.55%, a shift that primarily benefits higher-income households. Because income tax is the most equitable way to fund schools, these cuts have lasting impacts.
Property Taxes (Local Funds): To offset lower income tax collections, the Legislature requires each district to levy a “basic rate” of property tax. Local boards may increase property tax rates to meet student needs, but doing so requires Truth in Taxation hearings, where school board members—not lawmakers—face frustrated taxpayers. This system pushes responsibility onto local boards without giving them real authority over the underlying tax policy.
Federal Funds: Federal dollars make up about 7% of Utah’s education budget ($598.7 million of $8.6 billion), but they are essential in certain areas:
~32% of support for at-risk students (Title programs)
~19% of special education costs (IDEA)—and when federal contributions fall short, the state does not fill the gap
~5% of Career & Technical Education (Perkins grant)
~86% of child nutrition programs (school breakfast, lunch, and milk)
When you break it down, losing or restricting federal funds would disproportionately harm vulnerable students and their teachers.
Problems for Local School Boards
This structure creates several challenges:
Minimal Control: Local boards directly control only about 30% of total funding, yet they are held accountable for 100% of outcomes. Meanwhile, fixed costs like teacher salaries, utilities, and building maintenance don’t shrink when revenue drops.
Equity Gaps: Relying more heavily on property tax disproportionately impacts lower- and middle-income families. Wealthier areas can raise more money with the same tax rate, widening inequities between districts.
Unfunded Mandates: The Legislature frequently passes new education requirements without providing funding. In 2014, 64 education-related bills were enacted; by 2024, that number had grown to 105. Some districts now hire staff solely to manage compliance.
Public Pressure: Boards face the public directly when tax increases are proposed, while lawmakers avoid the backlash. HB408, sponsored by Rep. Shipp, goes even further, giving voters the ability to overturn board-approved tax increases—further weakening boards’ ability to plan responsibly.
Issues to Watch
Several policy debates could reshape Utah’s school funding landscape:
SB 37 (Property Tax Shift): Critics argue SB 37 would move property tax funds raised by local school boards into the state’s general fund, where they could be used for anything—not just education.
Constitutional Amendment on Income Tax (Amendment A): Lawmakers have attempted to loosen restrictions on income tax earmarks, allowing those funds to be used for “other state needs.” If successful, this could divert education dollars to unrelated purposes.
School Vouchers: Programs like the Utah Fits All Scholarship redirect public education dollars to private and religious schools. While promoted as “choice,” these programs shrink the pool of funds available to public schools.
Rejecting Federal Funds: Some lawmakers, including Rep. Ken Ivory, have suggested refusing federal education dollars altogether. Given that federal funding supports at-risk students, special education, and nutrition programs, the consequences would be significant. The Utah State Board of Education also recently voted to send a letter to Congress requesting repeal of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
Unfunded Growth and Decline: Utah’s student population is shifting. Growth in some areas and decline in others will force districts to make tough calls about buildings, staffing, and boundaries—without stable funding to match.
Moving Forward
For local school boards, the challenge is not only to manage budgets but also to educate the public, advocate with lawmakers, and prepare for inevitable cutbacks. Boards must work with the Legislature on this shared responsibility while defending transparency and equity in how dollars are spent.
At the end of the day, students deserve schools that are funded fairly and sustainably. The structure we have now places enormous pressure on local school boards, but with community awareness and collective advocacy, we can push for reforms that keep students at the center of funding decisions.