University of Wyoming Lab School bill squeaks through committee
CHEYENNE — A bill to keep open the University of Wyoming Laboratory School, which exists on the UW campus and has operated since at least 2008 in partnership with Albany County School District 1, has narrowly passed 3-2 in the Senate Education Committee.
Senate File 126, 'Establishment of a K-8 public lab school,' comes after a set of 'unfortunate circumstances' between UW and ACSD1. A rupture over how to operate the school, which had been guided by a memorandum of understanding between the two bodies, led to a 'unilateral decision' by the UW Trustees, and a subsequent later announcement by the ACSD1 school board, to close the lab school at the end of this academic year, bill co-sponsor Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, explained to the committee.
But for over a century prior, the UW Lab school operated as a K-8 public school, offering practicum and observational experiences for pre-service teachers and other UW students.
'This had been a good working relationship governed by an MOU (between UW and ACSD1),' Rothfuss said.
However, as priorities changed, the school began operating less as a lab school and more like a public school on campus, he continued. Ultimately, that led the university to announce closure of the school.
Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, on Senate floor
Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, speaks during the morning session of the 68th Wyoming Legislature on Tuesday in the Senate chamber.
'The local delegation tried to reconcile, but that was unsuccessful,' Rothfuss said.
Nearly everyone who testified in committee Wednesday agreed that it was a sad decision to close the UW Lab School, but school district officials questioned who would foot the bill to keep the school open, and whether the school could be reorganized and kept open in time for next fall.
No one from the university or ACSD1 spoke in favor of SF 126 Wednesday. Tristan Green, chief financial officer for ACSD1 said that as written, the bill would require $2.5 million in district funding to keep the school open.
'You want this lab school to serve a state mission. If it's to serve a state mission, then why is one district being required to pay for it?' Green asked. 'Why not put it under the state, and allow the state to make this what it wants, not at the cost of one district?'
David Hardesty, ACSD1 assistant superintendent, asked for additional clarification on resource allocation, because as it stands, the district has already made the 'very difficult decision' to close the lab school, bringing its students into existing ACSD1 schools.
Decisions about the MOU governing the UW Lab School, he said, had at times forced the school district to 'funnel resources at a higher rate' into it than other schools, he continued. When faced with such challenges, the district ultimately decided to incorporate lab school students into its existing facilities.
'We do have the capacity to provide for those students in our current schools,' Hardesty said.
Mike Smith, vice president for Governmental Affairs and Community Engagement at UW, told the committee that he wanted to address the idea that UW made a 'rash decision' to close the lab school. Rather than being a rash decision, he said the university determined that the lab school was not contributing to the university's mission.
'We felt it was time to move on,' Smith said, adding that the UW College of Education has over 200 locations across the state where it can provide other practicum experience.
Nate Martin, an ACSD1 trustee, told the committee that many people in the community were upset when the university decided to close the lab school, and a 'Save the Lab School' movement did try to do just that.
'We tried to approach the university, and they have their reasons for not wanting to move forward. But in the intervening months, as the process continued, it became clear that whatever we did, whatever resulted, was not going to be the lab school anymore,' Martin said.
Martin called SF 126 a 'Save the Lab School' bill, but said that simply can't be done.
'You can't save the lab school because you can't turn back the clock,' he said.
ACSD1 Trustee Emily Siegel-Stanton said that she had concerns over how SF 126 would affect the district, and primarily, its funding.
'It's with grief in my heart that I provide this testimony, and ask this committee to vote no on this bill today,' Siegel-Stanton said. 'We're living in a new era regarding ... education funding.'
However, former UW Lab School student Adian O'Connor told the committee that the school profoundly impacted her education, upbringing and commitment to Wyoming.
'The lab school provided an environment of compassionate educators, UW student teachers and peers, offering opportunities I wouldn't have had elsewhere,' she said.
O'Connor continued that she has represented the lab school and state, federal and international capacities, from advocating for funding for the local Head Start to traveling Croatia to present at a National Youth Leadership Summit.
'My passion for service was fostered by both my Wyoming upbringing, and by the philosophy of the UW Lab School,' O'Connor said.
Several former teachers also gave impassioned pleas to keep the school open.
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper (2025)
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper, said tough decisions were made regarding the lab school, but that he would vote in favor of SF 126.
'It seems to me that the school has been very successful,' Scott said. 'Schools like that are precious, we need more of them. … It seems to me that what has happened is that both the university and the Albany County School District have found it bureaucratically inconvenient to work together.
'That's what has led to the problem, and the fact that they are destroying a good school doesn't seem to bother them,' Scott said.
It will be difficult to reconstruct and restart the lab school, but Scott said he would vote for the bill.
Rothfuss said that the concept of 'taking $2.5 million from the district is misleading,' because that funding is already being used by the lab school, and will continue if SF 126 is to pass.
'It's not taking, it's not diminishing the capacity of the district,' Rothfuss said. 'The reality is that this shift wouldn't change anything.'
Further, the clearest way to create a loss to the district would be to separate and isolate the two, instead of operating in partnership, Rothfuss said.
Sen. Wendy Schuler, R-Evanston (2025)
Sen. Wendy Schuler, R-Evanston
Sen. Wendy Schuler, R-Evanston, said that she was a student at UW and had good experiences in the lab school. However, because of concerns over decreased enrollment, she said she could not support SF 126.
'I have considered a lot about declining enrollment,' Schuler said. 'I do think that the local school boards need to make decisions on that.'
Sen. Jared Olsen, R-Cheyenne, said that he would not vote for the bill either, because the construct behind the lab school is problematic.
'There are two entities that do not want the school, and this bill tells those two entities, 'You will have the school',' Olsen said. 'Until all the platters are ready to play the game, I don't think it will work.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Skiing
On Wednesday, June 11, 2025, the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee published a provision to the current reconciliation bill that was introduced by the House earlier this year. The bill is referred to as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by President Donald bill and its provision introduce a number of polarizing policies on things like funding for environmental and land management agencies, as well as the sale of huge parcels of public lands, which has a potentially massive impact on outdoor recreation in the US. One of the key points in the bill's most recent provision mandates the sale of between 0.5% and 0.75% of the 193 million acres of land managed by the US Forest Service, and 245 million acres managed by the BLM for housing development. In total, the bill references between roughly 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of land split between BLM (1.23-1.84 million acres), and the Forest Service (between 956,000 and 1.45 million acres) that would be sold across 11 western states including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada and what does this mean for skiers? Keep reading for to keep up with the best stories and photos in skiing? Subscribe to the new Powder To The People newsletter for weekly updates. According to a fact sheet issued by the Committee, which is led by Utah Senator Mike Lee, the sale excludes the sale of National Parks, National Monuments, National Recreation Areas, components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Fish Hatchery Systems, Wilderness Preservation Areas, and 'nearly every other protected designations.''This is not about our most sacred and beautiful places. This is often about barren land next to highways with existing billboards that have no recreational value', said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. The fact sheet also notes that the US Department of the Interior estimates that the BLM has 1.2 million acres of land within a mile of a population center and another 800,000 acres between one and five miles of a population center. The Forest Service has another million acres within one mile of population centers, all which may qualify for 'disposal.' While lands like those in our National Parks and Monuments are protected under their current federal designations, a recent Justice Department opinion means that the President is allowed to both designate and repeal National Monuments, and their land protections, without a vote from Congress, per the Antiquities Act. President Trump is no stranger to the Act, as he significantly reduced the size of Bear's Ears National Monument in Utah in 2017, in what was the largest reversal of federal land protections in U.S. history. A map released by the Wilderness Society shows the large splotches of Forest Service and BLM land that could be included in these disposals across the 11 western states. A quick scroll through the map (included at the top of this article) shows the footprints of many ski areas covered by the green overlay of Forest Service land. While the protections of National Parks and National Monuments feel precarious under the bill and the current administration, the fact sheet does note that land with valid existing use permits cannot be sold as part of the it pertains to skiing, many ski areas in the US operate on Forest Service land with a Ski Area Term Special Use permit, created under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986. Section IV of this permit notes that these permits qualify as valid existing rights, making it highly unlikely, at least in the bill's current state, that any of the Forest Service lands that ski areas are on such as Mt. Bachelor, Arapahoe Basin, Mt. Hood, Steamboat, Keystone, Copper, and more could be sold and developed. So, while the current provision to the bill might not threaten ski area footprints themselves, there are other pieces of the bill that would certainly have an effect on skiing, and more broadly, the use of our public lands for recreation. For one, land near ski resorts doesn't necessarily fall under the rights of a Ski Area Special Use permit, and could hypothetically be sold. The fact sheet says that 'the proposal prioritizes lands that are nominated by States or units of local governments; are adjacent to existing developed areas; have access to existing infrastructure; are suitable for residential housing; reduce checkerboard land patterns; or are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage.' However, with a number like 2.2 million acres as the minimum number of land acreage mandated to be sold in the bill, there is a distinct possibility that the footprint of lands sold would bleed beyond those dubbed 'prioritized' by the proposal. Given the bill's $29 billion in expected revenue, and an emphasis on building housing, a resource that can be sparse in mountain towns that are often bordered by expanses of Forest Service and BLM land, the idea that precious wilderness would be sold is not remotely impossible. Along with the potential sale of lands managed by The Forest Service, proposed funding would also be rescinded for a number of Forest Service programs, including the protection of old growth forests. These budget cuts to the US Forest Service could be up to $392 million in management alone, and another $391 million to Forest Service operations budgets in an effort to 'restore federalism by empowering states to assume a greater role in managing forest lands within their borders.' Additionally, Interior Secretary Burgum is pushing for a bill that would cut $900M in funding for the National Park Service, which would potentially lead to the closure of up to 350 sites managed by the National Park Service, and the cutting of 5,000 full-time Park Service rescinding of funds for the National Park System and Bureau of Land Management would also impact funding for the carrying out of projects concerning the conservation, protection, and resiliency of lands and resources managed by the two agencies, as well as for certain conservation and habitat restoration projects on NPS and BLM Lands. In total, the administration's 2026 budget recommendations would cut around a billion dollars from the NPS. 'Isn't it a betrayal of the relationship (between Congress and the Forest Service) to be cutting programs in half in preparation for shutting them down completely when the vision has not been laid out by Congress to do so?' said Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, who also expressed concern over a reorganization of the country's firefighting teams, an issue close to the hearts of many Oregonians. Beyond the bill's provision on public lands, there are other facets of the bill that have potentially catastrophic long term effects on our climate. As skiers, we know that climate change is already a threat to our winters, livelihoods, and passed, the bill would rescind funding for a number of government agencies and programs that monitor and collect data on climate change-related metrics, as well as for federally funded conservation programs. Specifically, the bill rescinds funding to implement the EPA's addressing of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a commonly used component in traditional ski waxes that have been found to have significant negative environmental impacts. The bill would also rescind funding for the Council on Environmental Quality as it pertains to collecting data related to environmental and climate issues, amongst other things. Funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and USGS, whose work is essential in weather forecasting and studying climate change, would be rescinded. This could be detrimental to certain communities when preparing for extreme weather summarize, the bill and provision in question have the potential for a massive reduction in size to public lands used for recreation, like skiing, and funding cuts to government led research and management of climate change, that could have significant impacts on the planet's rapidly warming climate. Conservation groups such as the Outdoor Alliance and Protect Our Winters, as well as a slew of brands, athletes, and outdoor climate activists in skiing have taken to social media to share information and encourage the public to contact their Senate representatives with their opinions on the bill passed in The House on May 22, 2025, and is now up for debate in the Senate. President Trump is reportedly hoping for a Senate vote to take place by July 4, 2025, but any number of things could delay that vote. If passed, the bill would be sent back to the House for approval before being sent to the oval office to be Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Skiing first appeared on Powder on Jun 18, 2025
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Skiers Consider Boycotting Utah
As always, skiers on Reddit have all kinds of opinions, however wild they may or may not be. This week, r/skiing's keyboard warriors have decided to address the current reconciliation bill up for debate in the US Senate and the provision to it, which amongst other things, would mean the potential sale of a few million acres of US public lands. One particularly fired-up skier has taken to r/skiing to say that in light of the bill, Utah skiers should start boycotting the state. For context, the bill's provision that concerns the sale of public lands was published by the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is led by Republican Utah Senator Mike Lee."It's time to boycott Utah. Utah Sen. Mike Lee wants to sell millions of acres of public land. He needs to feel it where it hurts the most: his economy," the post by Reddit user Hobbitsliketoparty, is titled. Want to keep up with the best stories and photos in skiing? Subscribe to the new Powder To The People newsletter for weekly updates. The post details that, indeed, up to 3.3 million acres of US public lands would be sold across 11 western states, including Utah. In Utah specifically, this could include land near Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, Millcreek, Parley's, and more BLM land close to some of Utah's National Parks like Zion and Arches. Under the provision, National Parks, National Monuments, National Recreation Areas, components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Fish Hatchery Systems, Wilderness Preservation Areas, and 'nearly every other protected designations,' would be excluded from the sale. Land sold under the bill would be for the purpose of building housing in order to ease housing shortages in the US. u/Hobbitsliketoparty has done their research, because they also state that 'but there's no requirement that the land be used for affordable housing. Developers and private buyers could snap up access points, trailheads, and wild spaces. That access could be gone for good.'The bill's provision has some vague language about proposals to purchase the land would need to include a description of how intended development would address local housing needs, including supply and affordability. However, there's no stipulation on holding the proposer to that once the sale is carried out. Considering Utah Senator Mike Lee's creation and support of the bill, u/Hobbitsliketoparty is proposing a boycott of funding to Utah's outdoor economy in protest. "If we let this happen, it sets a dangerous precedent. Politicians should not be allowed to auction off public land with almost no public input. And Utah has a history of this. From shrinking Bears Ears to resisting wilderness protections, they've been chipping away for years. If Utah's leadership insists on selling out our public lands, we should stop funding their outdoor economy. That means skipping the ski trips. Skipping the canyoneering. Skipping the visits to the Mighty 5. In 2017, Outdoor Retailer pulled its convention out of Salt Lake City after similar attacks on public land. It worked. Maybe it's time we acted again," reads the post. Several commenters point out and thank u/Hobbitsliketoparty for doing their research and reiterate the fact that while many of Utah and other state's ski areas are on public lands, often managed by USFS, the permits they operate on also exempt them from the sale. But that doesn't mean that trailheads and access points for other, non-inbounds skiing recreation wouldn't be threatened by the sale. It's hard to say whether boycotting skiing in Utah and the rest of its outdoor tourism economy would send the right message to Sen. Lee. For one, the Senate vote is slated to take place sometime in the next few weeks, which means, by the time ski season rolls around, there will already be a decision. Also, food for thought—boycotting Utah's outdoor tourism economy as a revenue source for the state would potentially fuel supporter's of the bill's fire by giving them more ammunition to sell off public lands. But I get it, u/Hobbitsliketoparty is angry like a lot of Americans right now about this potential attack on our public lands, but rather than boycotting a local tourism industry, the best course of action would be to call your local senators and let them know you oppose the bill, or use a handy form from an organization like the Outdoor Alliance or Protect Our Winters to do Consider Boycotting Utah first appeared on Powder on Jun 20, 2025
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees. ___
