To: Ronda Menlove, David Lifferth, Jack Draxler, Edward Redd, Curt Webb, Jacob Anderegg, Ryan Wilcox, Gage Froerer, Jeremy Peterson, Dixon Pitcher, Brad Dee, Richard Greenwood, Paul Ray, Curtis Oda, Brad Wilson, Steve Handy, Stewart Barlow, Roger Barrus, Jim Nielson, Becky Edwards, Doug Sagers, Susan Duckworth, Jennifer M. Seelig, Rebecca Houck, Joel Briscoe, Angela Romero, Mike Kennedy, Brian King, Lee Perry, Janice Fisher, Larry Wiley, LaVar Christensen, Craig Hall, Johnny Anderson, Mark A. Wheatley, Patrice Arent, Carol Moss, Eric Hutchings, Jim Dunnigan, Lynn Hemingway, Daniel McCay, Jim Bird, Earl Tanner, Tim Cosgrove, Steve Eliason, Marie Poulson, Ken Ivory, Keven John Stratton, Robert Spendlove, Richard Cunningham, Greg Hughes, John Knotwell, Melvin Brown, Kraig Powell, John G. Mathis, Kay Christofferson, Brian Greene, Jon Cox, Val Peterson, Dana Layton, Keith Grover, Jon Stanard, Dean Sanpei, Rebecca Lockhart, Francis Gibson, Michael Mckell, Marc Roberts, Merrill Nelson, Jerry Anderson, Kay Mciff, Brad Last, John Westwood, mnoel, Lowry Snow, Don Ipson,
Subject: Sutherland Institute Opposes HB 96 - Utah School Readiness Initiative
Date: Mon Feb 10 18:44:38 MST 2014
Sutherland understands the desire to help truly at-risk children improve their educational opportunities – children whose home situations make it difficult if not impossible for them to prepare for successful academic pursuits. We share that desire, in fact. And we believe such needs are best assessed and efforts to help are most appropriately undertaken at the local level, where proper determinations of the academic risk a child faces can best be made.
As a state-driven, top-down policy instrument, HB 96 must use state-level measures to determine “at risk” status, such as whether a student qualifies for free or reduced-price lunch. By this measure, in 2012 nearly 40% of all children in K-12 schools would be considered “economically disadvantaged” and therefore “at risk.” Clearly, the number of truly “at risk” children in need of in-class preschool services does not approach anywhere near 4 out of every 10 children in Utah. This underscores the point that such determinations are best made at the local level.
Instead of crafting a state-wide, in-class preschool program that could end up unnecessarily taking many children who are not truly “at risk” out of their homes, Utah should recognize the fact that local school districts are better situated to determine “at risk” status and craft targeted preschool programs for children in need. At the very least, if the state feels compelled to craft a state-wide preschool program, it should follow the principle and support the policy articulated inUtah Code 62A-4a-201 (1)(e):
“It is the public policy of this state that parents retain the fundamental right and duty to exercise primary control over the care, supervision, upbringing, and education of their children.”
– and do so by limiting any statewide preschool program only toin-home preschool options, such as the UPSTART program. Thank you.
Director of Policy
Director of Public Affairs