Utah 2022 Regular Session

Utah House Bill HB0356

Introduced
2/10/22  
Refer
2/15/22  
Report Pass
2/22/22  
Failed
2/23/22  
Engrossed
2/24/22  
Refer
2/25/22  
Report Pass
3/2/22  

Caption

Athletic Coaching Standards Amendments

Impact

If enacted, HB 356 will require principals to conduct annual evaluations of head coaches based on the newly established standards, providing coaches with copies of the evaluations and allowing them to respond to any evaluations received. This will institutionalize a process where coaching performance can be assessed more rigorously, and importantly, ensures that evaluations of athletic coaching do not affect the educator status of those coaches who also serve in teaching positions. This separation of roles is aimed at protecting educators' professional standings regardless of their coaching performance.

Summary

House Bill 356, titled 'Athletic Coaching Standards Amendments', aims to establish a standardized set of evaluation criteria for high school athletic coaches in Utah. The bill mandates local education agencies (LEAs) to develop coaching standards that include guidelines for the evaluation of coaches at the high school level. This brings a level of consistency and accountability to the coaching profession, ensuring that coaches are held to certain standards across the education system. It encompasses criteria related to their relationship with students, and parents, along with professional training and resource management.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 356 appears to be cautiously optimistic among supporters who view it as a positive step towards ensuring that athletic coaches are well prepared and held accountable in their roles. However, there are concerns regarding the feasibility of implementing uniform standards across diverse educational settings, which could lead to disparities depending on the resources and capabilities of individual LEAs. Thus, while the motive to enhance coaching standards is welcomed, the practical application may generate skepticism.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the concern that the bill could impose a one-size-fits-all approach to athletic coaching evaluations, which may not adequately address the unique needs of different schools and communities. Some opponents argue that local agencies should have the autonomy to set their own standards and evaluations based on specific circumstances and resources. Furthermore, the opt-out provisions for coaches raises discussions about the balance between accountability and personal choice.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

UT HB0265

Interscholastic Athletic Activities Associations Reporting Requirements

UT HB3002

Transgender Student Athlete Participation Amendments

UT HB0209

Participation in Extracurricular Activities Amendments

UT HB0040

School Safety Amendments

UT HB3001

Sex-designated Interscholastic Athletics Indemnification

UT HB0087

Youth Sport Safety Amendments

UT HB0424

School Activity Eligibility Commission Amendments

UT HB0333

Medications in Schools Amendments

UT HB0473

School Digital Materials Amendments

UT HB0281

Health Curriculum and Procedures Amendments

Similar Bills

CA AB684

Building standards: electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

CA AB1239

Building standards: electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

CA AB306

Building regulations: state building standards.

CA AB2075

Energy: electric vehicle charging standards.

CA AB965

Gambling: licenses: gambling establishments.

CA AB336

Contractors: workers’ compensation insurance.

CA AB69

Help Homeowners Add New Housing Program: accessory dwelling unit financing.

CA AB835

State Fire Marshal: building standards: single-exit, single stairway apartment houses: report.