This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Should school administrators be free to spend funding as they see fit, or should money be directed to the initiatives deemed critical by state leaders?

The state school board wrangled with that question Thursday as it finalized the budget priorities it will request of lawmakers later this month.

After several rounds of edits and voting, the board's recommendations included $57 million for costs related to enrollment growth and a 3.5 percent increase, or $90 million statewide, in per-pupil funding.

Those increases are largely unrestricted and would allow school districts to address local needs. They were prioritized above a $50 million grant program for classroom technology, and they came at the expense of a failed proposal to give a $1,500 raise to every classroom teacher in the state.

"We have 41 districts, and their needs are all unique," said board member Mark Huntsman. "Let's trust them."

State per-pupil funding is the primary source of revenue for educator compensation, with increases in that area traditionally translating into staffing and salary decisions at the district level.

But pay bumps tend to be proportional, according to state school board Vice Chairman David Thomas, who argued that salary increases coming from additional per-pupil funding benefit veteran educators primarily.

He proposed that the board request $40 million specifically for pay raises, or $1,500 per teacher, as a way to boost recruitment and retention of younger teachers and offset a growing staff shortage in Utah schools.

"I think this shows our teachers that we do believe they should be paid for and puts a specific line item to that effect," he said.

His proposal was defeated, with several board members arguing that an emphasis on per-pupil funding allows districts to make tailored salary incentives, like a signing bonus for new teachers or a stipend for faculty in rural or low-income areas.

"I believe that those folks know a little bit more about their needs than I do," said board member Terryl Warner.

After the debate on restricted funding, board members discussed whether teacher pay or school technology should be first in a list of funding priorities.

Many lawmakers have pushed for investments in classroom learning devices, and the Utah Office of Education developed a grant program to push the state toward a so-called one-to-one program, in which every student has access to technology.

The grant program originally called for $100 million in ongoing and one-time funding, but the total was trimmed in half to more realistically reflect budget estimates.

Thomas, a former member of the Utah Senate, said unrestricted funds create a "trust issue" for lawmakers who are frustrated when school districts ignore the Legislature's priorities.

Other members of the board argued that parents and educators are divided on the issue of technology, particularly the price tag of equipping classrooms with learning devices.

Board member Linda Hansen said it should be up to school districts to determine how tax revenue is spent, whether hiring teachers, offering raises or purchasing tablet computers.

"Technology doesn't help if they can't get teachers in the classroom," Hansen said. "Some of us are talking about increasing salaries like that's a bad thing. We need to compensate our teachers."

bwood@sltrib.com Twitter: @bjaminwood