Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Arts program exempt but language immersion isn’t? Utah bill sparks oversight debate

An elementary-age schoolgirl sits at a desk writing on a sheet of paper.
Jerry Wang
/
Unsplash
The bill has received attention because of how it would affect programs like the Dual Language Immersion program.

The Utah Senate is reviewing a new bill that could change the way public education programs are funded and evaluated.

Senate Bill 102, introduced by Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, aims to provide additional legislative oversight for public education programs by establishing sunset dates for these programs — meaning they’ll have set expiration dates unless reviewed and renewed.

The bill has received attention because of how it would affect programs like the Dual Language Immersion (or DLI) program. This program allows students to learn in both English and a target language, starting in elementary school, and aims to build bilingual skills, cultural understanding, and cognitive development.

In a Senate Education Committee hearing, Fillmore explained the bill would ensure regular assessments to keep initiatives, like the DLI program, effective and relevant.

“So in Senate Bill 102, there is no effort to repeal any of these programs," he said. "The effort is only to provide legislative oversight to the programs on a regular basis, to ensure the taxpayer money is being spent efficiently, and that these programs are achieving their goals.”

Fillmore then proposed a substitute, changing the bill to remove the sunset date from the Beverley Taylor Sorenson Foundation — a nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing arts education in Utah's public schools. He explained that because the foundation relies on outside fundraising, having a sunset date for the program would hurt their fundraising efforts.

Sen. Kathleen Riebe responded, saying that, while she appreciated the Beverly Taylor Sorenson foundation’s advocacy to have their sunset date removed, she believed all programs should receive the same courtesy. She also noted that she had not received any emails or phone calls asking her to support the bill — only requests to oppose it.

“So for that exact reason, I'm not going to support this substitute, but I'm also not going to support this bill. … All of these programs have worked really hard to get the support they've gotten," Riebe said. "So I just don't see the benefit of having these programs specifically checked, if not every single program’s going to be checked.”

Committee Chair John D. Johnson chimed in, saying he believed any programs using taxpayer money should be reviewed on a regular basis.

“This bill does not get rid of these programs," he said. "It simply says we're going to review them. And so for that reason, I'm going to support this bill.”

The substitute and the bill itself both passed 4-1 with Sen. Riebe in opposition. The bill is now on the list to be reviewed by the full Senate.