We Are Moving!

We will no longer be posting to this blog, but hope you will follow our legislative interns and our programs at our new site:
http://mestizocollective.org/

More money for… Private schools? By Nick Ramos

Just when budgets cuts seem to be the norm for education in the state, legislators seemed to be aiming to decrease funding for public schools even more. Senator Howard Stephenson, R- Salt Lake , introduced SB 151, that would “let taxpayers claim an income tax credit for donations they make to… provide scholarships for qualifying students to attend a private school,” as explained in the Utah Education Association website. This bill may have intended to create a better learning environment for students, but in reality, it would have limited the resources of public schools and created a dilemma about government tax breaks and spending.

To qualify for such a scholarship, the student would’ve had to be between the ages of 5 and 19, come from a low income household (meaning that the child would qualify for a lunch discount at his/her public school), and score “below the proficient level on a statewide summative assessment of language arts, mathematics, science, or writing achievement,” among other requirements in the bill.

Such restrictions would have made it so that only poor-performing students can have the opportunity to attend a private school, creating a disparity among students and undermining the role of teachers in public schools. The disparity would be created by making parents think that their children would get a better education by attending a private school and promoting an "everybody-go-private" mindset for parents. It’s insulting to propose that private school teachers are better than public school teachers. The real issue is with the funding they receive to carry out their work, not with the quality of their teaching.

Taking money away from public schools in the form of tax credits, as SB 151 would have suggested, creates a disparity in the classrooms that “93 percent of all Utah students attend”, according to myUEA.org. Public taxes need to be used to support and teach public students. By keeping such resources within public schools, Utah teachers are given the means they need to effectively educate our youth.

Luckily, Sen. Stephenson made the right decision before the Senate Education committee on Feb 17^th. He realized that proposing such a bill was not appropriate and moved to substitute it with a new proposal which, “directs the Education Interim Committee in 2012 to study programs and initiatives in the state and other states to assist students who score below proficient on assessments of academic achievement or are economically disadvantaged.” There seemed to be a sigh of relief across the room when Sen. Stephenson took this step. Public schools dodged a big bullet.

Utah cannot risk allowing its legislature to take money away from public schools to put it into private schools. Privatization of school funding will lead to academic inequality and lower achievement.

HB 363 Abstinence Only Update: Rolling Backwards - by Logan Froerer

House Bill 363 blasted through the House of Representatives yesterday by a vote of 45-28. All those in favor were Republican. All the Democrats and 11 Republicans opposed it.

The bill mandates that sex education in Utah schools can only be taught within an abstinence only frame. Instruction or discussion of contraceptives and homosexuality cannot take place in schools.

"It has to be abstinence only," said Bill Wright, the bill's sponsor.

For a legislature that has long beaten its chest to advertise how much it hates excessive government intervention, this level of censorship is hypocritical. Combined with the disturbing disregard for students’ needs and rights to be openly given information and then allowed to choose how to use that knowledge and act, it’s downright dangerous.

The bill will now move on for consideration in the Senate.

If you’re opposed to Utah students having their heads forcibly pushed into the sand by our legislators, rally your senators to help kill this bill.

The bill will have a public hearing in a Senate Committee, where the public will have a last chance to comment publicly. Senators can always be emailed, called, or spoken with at the capitol. Head to http://le.utah.gov to find your senator’s contact information.

“We don't hear from people a whole lot,” House Minority Whip Jennifer Seelig told our Mestizo interns at the beginning of this session. “Most of who we hear from are people who don't live in our districts.”

This bill is a great opportunity to change that. If you’re opposed, make your voice heard. Call or email your senator today. Come speak in the committee meeting. And get your friends to do the same.

Driving and Cell phone Usage - by Sujey, Maricella, and Viri

SB128 ("Wireless telephone use restriction for minors in vehicles") is being sponsored by Sen. Ross Romero, D-Salt Lake, who said he began working on S.B128 "after listening to young drivers express concern with the driving habits of other people their age. These teenagers said they had witnessed many of their friends drive while using cell phones, and expressed a desire for legislation to help eliminate this problem."

As teenagers who have to deal with this daily, we know such legislation is necessary.

This bill targets drivers under 18 who, if seen texting or making a call while driving, could get pulled over and face a fine of $50.00, but would not get docked points on their drivers license.

The only exceptions to this law would be talking on the phone to report a hazard, reporting to parents, or during a medical emergency. Enactment of this bill will cost the Courts $4,000 from the General Fund beginning in 2013, but would also generate $5,200 in ongoing revenue to the General Fund beginning in 2013.

So far the bill has moved pretty quickly, having already passed the senate and gone through its first reading in the house.

We had a few questions for Senator Romero which were answered by his intern Nicholas Dunn. Nicholas mentioned that Sen. Romero, "felt that removing additional dangerous distractions for drivers who already must take great care to refine their driving ability just made sense."

When asked why the bill only applies to drivers under 18 and younger, he said “the bill only targets drivers under 18 because drivers of that age are less experienced and still developing their driving skills.”

We also asked how it will be enforced and how could the police officers prove that the kids were calling their parents or calling about an emergency. He said; “The bill would simply be enforced by police officers on the roads. Further details of this answer would be better answered by law enforcement personnel, but essentially they could decide whether to pull over a driver if the driver appeared under 18 and was talking on a cell phone. If a teen driver is cited for talking on a cell phone when they were simply talking with a parent the parent can come into the authorities and confirm that the driver was speaking with the parent. If a teen driver was calling for an emergency, the circumstances of the emergency would likely be clear.”

The last question was one of our main concerns, since it seems impossible to know how they would be able to prove whether minors were telling the truth about reporting with a parent or not.

We believe a law such as this should not only be enforced to 18 years and younger, but for all ages. Teenagers are not the only ones who text and call while driving. For example, there have been times where we've yelled at our parents for doing it, especially when the weather is bad, yet they still do it. Also, another flaw with this bill is that whether the teenager is talking with a parent or not, they should not be allowed to make a call because that even one call can cause an accident. We believe that if we want to report a hazard or report with a parent we should pull over somewhere in order to talk.

In our U.S Government class we were able to discuss this bill and, after an intense debate among the students, 85% of the class agreed that the bill should be applied to all ages and there should be no exceptions on any cell phone usage while driving.

Update: Substitute for SB 25 Real ID Act - By Pamela Portacarrero

I decided to get some answers and clarifications from Senator Kevin Van Tassell (R-Vernal) on February 14^th regarding SB 25, as the bill has been modified since my last post.

This bill would make Utah comply with the Federal Real ID Act of 2005, which requires all states to implement a uniform federal identification card. This law emerged as part of a larger piece of legislation dealing with national defense and anti-terrorism measures after the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Legislators in Washington, along former president George W. Bush, saw the need for stricter guidelines when it came to identification documents, especially when used in federal buildings and airports. Having a national identification card that meets the same requirements and format throughout every state would make screenings at airports, and other federal public sites, less burdensome on travelers and TSA officials, and increase safety with a more precise and effective method of identifying someone's identity.

Overall, it is in the best interest of our State to implement this law because 1) it will increase security throughout states, 2) hindrances in honoring and validating other states' identification documents will cease to exist, and 3) it is federal law.

As for the recent amendments in Van Tassell's bill, the words Real ID Act have been removed, and there is no mention as to whether Utah will be complying with the federal mandate. However, Senator Van Tassell said that just because the wording was modified does not mean Utah is refusing to comply. He confirmed that Utah’s intent to follow federal law is implied in the other provision to the bill: prohibiting residents from carrying both a Utah driver’s license and state identification card.

Prohibiting the possession of both a Utah driver’s license and State Identification card at the same time is part of the steps to get Utah “on track” to full implementation of the Real ID Act, according to Van Tassell. Mandating that citizens can only possess one form of ID meets one of the requirements imposed by the federal government.

So far it looks like Utah is moving in the right direction, not with much rush or urgency, but with a steady pace nonetheless, or so it seems. So what would this mean for Utah residents if SB25 were to pass? Starting July 1^st, 2012 all persons carrying a Utah identification card who wish to apply for a driver’s license would have to surrender or cancel their card. Also, persons who are currently carrying a driver’s license and wish to apply for an identification card would then have to either cancel or surrender their license. As for those who are currently carrying both, they can keep both until December 1^st, 2014, but after that date, they would have to surrender one or the other.

Update on S.B31 By Maricela Hernandez, Luisa Rodriguez, Viridiana Najera

Update on S.B 31

Class Size Amendments

• This bill would cap classroom size from kindergarten to third grade.
• S.B 31 has arrived to the house rules committee, after it goes through the House Committee it will be sent to a Sub Committee, where you would go to state your opinion.
• They have substituted this bill but it has not been adopted, it was however amended into the following class caps.

20 students for a kindergarten class

22 students for a first grade class;

22 students for a second grade class

24 students for a third grade class.

• If passed, this bill will take place on July 1, 2012 and apply to all future school years.
• The bill was last updated on February 12.

HB 363: Abstinence only proposal is dangerously disconnected - By Logan Froerer

House Bill 363 would strictly limit Utah’s sex health education by restraining discussion of contraception, sex health resources, or homosexuality in Utah schools. Only abstinence could be openly talked about. Districts could even opt out of offering sex health classes altogether if the bill passed.

That type of policy is troubling on its own. More troubling was the fact that teachers and students, those who will be directly affected by this legislation, are not being listened to.

"There's inappropriate curriculum we are teaching," said Bill Wright (R-Holden), the bill’s sponsor, during the committee hearing. “This [sex-ed] is not an important part of our curriculum.”

That belief is terrifyingly out of touch with the reality students face. Human sexuality and health are brutally pertinent and important, and ceasing to talk about them will not make them disappear. Sexuality is so often misrepresented and misunderstood, and preventing teachers from speaking openly about the issues creates a culture of misinformation and secrecy in schools.

The purpose of education should be to expose students to information and ideas, and let them act based on their own personal values. Not to limit information based on our ideologies.

"I think you're silencing and putting fear into teachers," said Representative Carol Spackman Moss (D-Salt Lake City). She was a professional teacher before running for office.

She argued and voted against the bill. So did the other teacher on the House Standing Committee on Education, Marie Poulson (D-Salt Lake City).

“Why is it ok for us to supersede the elected school board officials and dictate curriculum in their area?” she asked. “What about high school counselors? Would we limit discussion? That's the language in the bill.”

From the student perspective, one student from West High spoke alongside her mother against the bill and in favor of much more in depth sexual education even than we have right now.

She was the only person under the age of twenty whose voice was heard as part of the decision making process.

Lest you think that those students and teachers who lobbied in committee are simply partisan ideologues, other teachers felt exactly the same way.

“Kids need to know what their options are,” said Patti Hendricks, a teacher from Sunset Bridge Middle School in West Jordan, who was at the capitol last week with the Utah Education Association.

Allowing districts to opt out entirely of sex education classes would mean thousands of kids would have no idea what type of options and advice are available to them.

“It should be the school’s job to present facts,” added Kathryn Welch, a former teacher from Jordan School District, also at the capitol with the UEA. “The family can take their values and apply them,” she noted, “but it’s not the place of schools to indoctrinate kids on what’s right and what isn’t.”

Let’s summarize what we’ve learned.

This bill will affect teachers and students, and most teachers and students oppose it.

In a sane and rational world, the bill would die based on that alone.

But a Legislature where the voices of the Eagle Forum, the Sutherland Institute, and entrenched ideologies drown out the voices that will actually be affected is hardly sane and rational.

On a good day, it's hypocritical and disconnected. Right now it's threatening students’ well being.

Legislators who have so often preached about the need for less government control have no problem mandating what cannot be talked about. Our leaders clearly do not trust students or teachers enough decide what discussions should happen.

And that contradicts the painfully obvious need for complete open discussion.

49 percent of teenage mothers aged 15-17 in Utah thought that they could not get pregnant when they conceived, and a shocking 24 percent thought that they or their partner was sterile, according to a study conducted for the Center for Disease Control and reported by The Salt Lake Tribune.

22 percent of those mothers stated that they had a hard time getting birth control.

Yet Governor Gary Herbert was quoted in The Tribune before the first committee meeting on the bill as saying "I think how we have it right now works pretty well."

If that's our state's definition of education that "works pretty well," we're in serious trouble.

S.B. 107 Danny Chaires

Imagine walking down the street with a can of spray paint and getting arrested? S.B. 107: "Possession of Graffiti Paraphernalia" could have made that happen. The bill was defeated in a Senate Committee Meeting last week. According to the bill it would be a criminal violation to possess the tools used to make graffiti with the "intent to deface the property of another." If you are seen with any markers or spray paint, you could be charged with a class B misdemeanor if the police officer believes you have the intent to create graffiti. The challenge of this bill will be to determine "intent." How will a police officer know if you have intent or if you are just walking home from art class. Sen. Karen Maynes, sponsor of the bill, clarified that "intent" could be determined, for example, if a police officer saw someone with a can of spray paint in the same color as a recent tag and also observed paint on the person's hand.

Everyday you hold at least one marker or pen or any other art tool. You never have to be worried with being charged with having possession of a tool used to make graffiti. Walking around with markers in your bag is common in many typical people's lives. These materials iare not always used to make graffiti. They can be used to write, draw and for many other things. “My little sister wouldn’t be able to carry around a sharpie without getting arrested?” was the first thing Sol Diaz-Vera a student of West High School said when I asked for her opinion on S.B. 107. Sol Diaz-Vera said “What ever happened to America home of the free? Now I can get arrested for carrying a sharpie? This bill does not have me on their side.” Adrianna Manzanares of West High School said “There would be a lot of people with a Class B misdemeanor, because anyone could be carrying a can of spray paint. It could be used for a project or their job, you never know. It is not a fair law for Utahans.”

I asked Sol Diaz-Vera what she thought this would do to the state of Utah if the bill passed? “I think that no one would follow it, because it’s ridiculous. Most of the graffiti should be stopped, but this bill won’t do it.” Danny Luna, another student, said “I think people wouldn’t be doing graffiti as much, but they would be smarter about how they do it. This would get rid of some graffiti but not all.”

Karen Mayne was asked to make this bill by the police and mayors. They were tired of graffiti ruining neighborhoods. Recently someone did graffiti near Karen Mayne’s home. She felt that it made the community look bad and it did not make them feel safe. “Walking around with 12 cans of spray paint at 2:00 A.M. probably means you are about to commit a crime. I don’t feel safe being in my home thinking someone is nearby about to tag on my neighbor's fence or my fence. I want to stop graffiti, it makes us look bad,” said Karen Mayne. Karen Mayne wanted this bill to pass and make a difference, but she did not succeed this time, the bill failed 11-17 in the Senate on the second reading.

SB, Possession of Graffiti Parahernalia, by Sergio Brito

Art is part of our lives, whether you create it or collect it. Art is a thing we always see in our daily lives; art can portray emotion or disaster. There is also some art that is a big problem for the community; one that costs money to repair. I am talking about graffiti; graffiti should be stopped with proper actions to improve our community’s appearance. By proper actions I mean if anyone is caught vandalizing someone or somewhere they should be the ones who shall clean it up and pay a fine.  Karen Mayne, wrote a bill, SB107, as a solution to try and stop vandalism. SB107: “Possession of Graffiti Paraphernalia,”  says that anyone who possesses any “instrument, tool, or device that is commonly used to make graffiti with the intent to deface the property of another” can be charged with a class C misdemeanor. For example, a student carrying a can of spray paint or a marker, could potentially be charged under the provisions of this bill.  The trick, of course, will be determining “intent.”  How will a police officer know what a person’s intent is? 
Cecilia, a student at West High reacted,  “That’s stupid, what if you use it for art or an art project?” Likewise, Mr. Marston, a teacher at West argued, “It will create a lot of conflicts, there is no law that says you can own spray cans.” Another student Daniel Tabares, “Possession of spray cans or painting supplies should not be a reason to charge an individual for a crime they have not committed.”
Vandalism should be stopped, but we should not assume anyone who is caught with paint supplies will use it to write creative art on a wall. Vandalism should be stopped, but with the right type of actions and then, only then, our community will begin to look more descent. This law is judging by first appearance.  We should let the individual explain why they possess the items and only press charges if someone is actually committing a crime, not just under the suspicion of having the “intent” to commit a crime.

SB107- Possession of Graffiti Paraphernalia - by Jennica Trujillo

Senator Karen Mayne presented “Possession of Graffiti Paraphernalia” (S.B. 107), which was defeated. This bill tried to prevent almost anyone from owning anything that could be considered graffiti paraphernalia, these items include: spray-paint cans, paint markers, or various types of other markers. Anyone who owns any instruments capable of making graffiti of any kind is at risk of obtaining a class "B" misdemeanor.

Senator Mayne, the sponsor of this bill, said that “[the] burden of proof is on the police.”

What she meant by this is that it would be up to the police officers to determine and prove whether or not the suspect who owns the spray-paints cans or markers is actually engaging or will engage in graffiti making. This bill would have punished the intent to commit a crime, regardless of whether a crime had actually been committed.

If the burden of proof is on the police, does that mean officers could have assumed anyone who owns a spray-paint can or paint markers is guilty and should automatically receive a class "B" misdemeanor? One should not be able to punish a person until he/she actually commits a crime.

For example, although someone may really want a new pair of shoes he or she cannot afford, he or she cannot get charged with theft until he or she physically takes them from the store.

If this bill had been put into action it may have led to a rise to racial profiling in our state as well. For example, take the story of my fellow West High School student, Kaleb Winston.

During a gang sweep at West High School on December 16, 2011, Kaleb was questioned by police officer if he was participating in any gang activity. He denied the accusations, and the police officer questioned him about the graffiti-patterned backpack he wore and asked to search his bag. They found paint markers in the bag, and some teachers had given the police officer information that he had been tagging the moniker “Maze” around the school. They then photographed him holding a sign that said “My name is Kaleb Winston and I am a gang tagger.”

His parents were outraged, and claimed the police had broken a law by photographing the boy without his parent’s permission. They also contacted the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) because they believe the police targeted Kaleb simply because he is black. It was later proved that the paint markers found in his backpack had been used for an assignment in his art class and the "tags" on his backpack were actually the design printed by the backpack manufacturer. Kaleb was just one of the many kids that were questioned that day at the school, though no other names have been released.

These are some of the many reasons that S.B. 107 was just not a very good piece of legislation. We are very lucky it did not pass, or we may have faced with more situations like Kaleb Winston’s in the future.

S.B. 139 - Letting Youth Testify in Divorce Cases - By Van Le

Grant Durtschi told The Senate Judiciary, law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee of being a father with joint legal and physical custody of his children who faces the prospect of his children moving to Texas, in compliance with the court's decision, with his ex-wife.

For Durtschi, that move would mean drastically less time with the children. His weekly visits will perhaps be reduced to one or two yearly visits, even though his “children have stated that they do not want to go to Texas” when they have extensive relations of grandparents, cousins, and aunts and uncles in Utah.

“This is where everybody in our family has established," Durtschi said. "They [the children] do not have any family in Texas.”

S.B. 139 Child Custody Proceedings, sponsored by Senator Luz Robles (D), would give the opinions of children fourteen years old weight in deciding future custody. If passed, this bill could favorably change situations like Durtschi's.

In divorce cases, the court commissions a custody evaluator to examine the finance, health, and parental practices of both parents upon awarding child custody. Children, regardless of age, may tell the judges which parent they would like to live with, but under the Utah law, only the opinions of those sixteen or older are taken into consideration. For example, a judge cannot include the wish of an eleven year old who expresses a desire to live with his or her dad in the decision-making process.

Jackie Warren spoke about how relocating to Utah has helped distance her and the children from an abusive ex-husband and father. Neither Warren nor Durtschi have children who are sixteen or older. In compliance to the current statue, Jackie's children must travel to Maryland to see their abusive father, while Grant's children have no input in the decision to move to Texas with their mother.

Senator Lyle Hillyard and Senator Stephen Urquhart contended that letting young children express their parental preferences will put them under tremendous pressure in a divorce, especially when they are told to make the choice about their future. As long time family law attorneys, both senators have witnessed divorce cases where parents “lobby” their son or daughter with new things and privileges in order to become the child's preference. The situation could be reversed with the child demanding things in exchange for his coming to live with one parent over the other.

If a child decides to reveal his or her parental preference to the judge, he or she must do it on camera. According to Senator Hillyard, the judge sometime does not have the power to protect that child's opinion from being heard by the parents, and the parent-child relationship could be damaged.

Even though Sen. Hillyard and Sen. Urquhart's concerns are legitimate, passing S.B. 139 will bring more positive changes than negative ones. The primary motivation behind the proposal is, as Sen. Robles said, to “give voices to the children” during a a heartbreaking process that is largely beyond their control.

The language of S.B. 139 makes it clear that children only need to express their preferences if they wish to. Even if a child chooses to state a preference, the current statute dictates that a judge cannot award custody to one parent solely upon that child's preference. He or she must include other factors such as financial stability, parental practices, and physical and mental health and decide which parent will serve the child's best interest.

In a way, a child's preference can work as a checking device on the judge's thought process. For example, during a divorce case, if a judge believed that it is best if the child stay with the dad; but, the child expresses a desire to live with his or her mom, the judge can use the child's preference to double-check his or her decision, re-examining whether awarding custody to dad is truly the best choice.

Madelyn Meyer, a fifteen year old teen whose parents are divorced, testified during a committe that “Lowering the age... is probably a wise choice. A child understands that her parents or his parents are going to get a divorce. If that is what's happening then a child understands that. They may not like it, but they understand that.”

Both children and parents are equally important parts of a family. During divorce cases, it is wrong to only consider the opinions of the parents and the conflicts between them, leaving out the opinions of the children simply because of the belief that children cannot and should not be involved.

By being a part of a family, children are already more involved than a judge or a custody evaluator. Sometimes, it is the children who actually grasp the situation of their homes better than any outsider, and they should be given the chance to express their views.

Thinking about the environment in all the wrong ways

by Logan Froerer

Senate Bill 21, sponsored by Margaret Dayton (R-Orem) would rearrange the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). While its proposals would not be a huge change from the present set up, the bill is grounded on an attitude that is dangerously disconnected from what should be the department’s core purpose: creating a healthy environment for Utah citizens.

There are currently five boards overseeing air quality, water quality, drinking water, radioactive materials, and solid and hazardous waste. Almost all members of the board come from what an explanatory handout provided by Dayton’s intern Max Britton terms “stakeholder groups.” That Orwellian term should be read as “industry and business interests.”

SB 21 would “change the board membership from 11 to 9 members, and make membership more uniform” in the search for “certain expertise” said Donna Kemp Spangler, the public information officer for the DEQ. One of the nine seats on each board would be reserved for a representative from nongovernmental organizations, the avenue by which an environmentalist voice could join the group.

The rationale, for Senator Dayton, is to make the board more efficient. A companion bill, SB 11, would move adjudicative proceedings, those dealing with appeals on regulations, out of the hands of the board and under the control of the executive office at the DEQ.

According to Spangler, that move, in theory, is a beneficial move for the DEQ, as it would free the boards to center their focus back on environmental protections rather than appeals and judicial proceedings.

Still, she expressed an uncertainty about how those changes would be implemented.

“The bill right now does not properly set up the transfer of power,” she said. “It just creates a massive undertaking for [the DEQ] to try and separate all the inconsistencies that this would create.”

Those inconsistencies alone should be sending up rallying an opposition who still cares about the world we live in. But even if the language were clarified and those issues cleaned up, the underlying attitude would still blindly miss the real environmental issues.

The regulation and management of our environment is not something that should be thought of in terms of “efficiency” or “cost effectiveness.” Moreover, it should not be governed solely by those linked in with the industries that cause the majority of our environmental problems.

Efficiency and cost must be considered, but they should not be the foundation of how our legislature discusses environmental regulations. Unfortunately, that is the case.

Meaningful legislation on behalf of our environment will require a more accurate definition of who the “stakeholder groups” in our community are.

Any Utah resident can tell the difference between a red air day, when just breathing can mean a fiery scratching in your throat and our homes are blanketed by a heavy grey inversion.

Salt Lake citizens know how much more inspiring life can feel when Mt. Olympus and the Twin Peaks break out crisp and clear in the morning, rather than shrouded by pollution.

The real “stakeholder groups” that our legislation should be addressing are the kids in Magna drinking water affected by Rio Tinto’s operations, or families in the Cache and Salt Lake Valleys using inhalers to suffer through another polluted red air day.

If SB 21 continues to roll through the Legislature, it’s an incredibly sad reflection on what stakeholders our representatives and senators choose to value.

Are they going to pass SB 128? By Enrique Jimenez

Senate bill 128 "modifies the Motor Vehicles Code by amending provisions relating to a person younger than 18 years of age using a wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle," according to the bill text. This means that any person younger than 18 years of age would be banned from using a wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle. Whoever violates this section would be guilty of an infraction and fined a maximum of $50. "Those with the least experience driving operating a motor vehicle, should have their focus on learning how to operate a motor vehicle," Sen. Romero (D- Salt Lake) said, "if you are under 18 and you get into an automobile accident, you cause property damage or injure other people, and the parent is responsible for that." I feel this bill should be enforced to encourage kids to abide the law.

After its initial introduction, S.B. 128 has been amended to allow drivers to play music and use GPS features on a smartphone. There are also exceptions allowing calls to report an emergency or road hazard. But there would be no exception for using a hands free device. Romero said it doesn’t make a measurable difference in safety. On February 7th, the bill passed the Senate 19-9 and moved to the House.

Statistics showing cellphone use while driving gives backing to the bill, particularly those relevant to newer drivers. “In 2011, state statistics show 50 percent of high school students admit talking on their cellphone while driving. In 2010, 15- to 19-year-old drivers had the highest rate of crashes, injuries, and property damage of all driving age groups, and out of nearly 21,000 crashes that year, 17 percent of drivers were using cellphones at the time” (Utah transportation commission).

Nine senate members opposed this bill. Among them was Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, who spoke out arguing that Utah law already bans sending text messages while driving and distracted driving. He also said many people use cellphones for more than just communicating. "This bill is vague and unenforceable," argued Valentine.

Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden, said he was conflicted about the bill. "Government has its limitations," he said. "We’re not going to stop a whole lot with this, but I know in other states all of us are restricted from driving with that telephone stuck in our ear, and if this prevents even one or two teenagers from being killed on our highways, I’m sorry, but I have to support the bill."

When asked about her opinion on SB 128, Delaney Harrison, a 16 year old West High student, said “I think it does not pose a problem but is hard not to ignore your phone when driving”.

Making it illegal for teens to use their cell phones while driving is not a bad idea because it teaches teens to be more responsible. Personally, I would follow this bill by not using my cell phone while driving. I may be have the desire to look at my phone while I’m driving, but I’d keep in mind that, if this bill passes, it is illegal.

Update on S.B31 By Maricela Hernandez, Luisa Rodriguez, Viridiana Najera

Update on SB 31

This bill is going through the process very quickly, It has already been passed by the Senate and it is currently being introduced into the House of Representatives. Once this bill is passed the classes from K-3rd grade will be changed to 18-23 instead of having it be 22-25. This bill will be heard in a committee.

Senate Bill 31 Classroom Size Amendments - By Viridiana Najera, Maricela Hernandez, Luisa Rodriguez

Karen W. Morgan (D-Cottonwood Heights) is sponsoring S.B 31, a bill that would cap classroom sizefrom kindergarten to third grade. With this bill, the number of students will be limited to somewhere from 18 to 24 students, depending on the grade.Students work better with a smaller class, and studies have been shown that students have improved their test scores, grades, and attendance, by having smaller class room sizes. Senator Morgan suggested that we shouldn’t be one of the last states to have this law enforced.

On the other hand Peter Cannon (member of Davis School Board) disagrees with this argument and said, “We don’t need to be told to help our students the way every other school district does.” Instead he suggested that we could spend money on improving teachers’ quality through a performance- pay system instead of spending it on hiring new teachers.

This bill has been debated back and forth about how much it will cost. But Utah is financially stable enough right now to sponsor this bill.

Florida passed this law, and a good benefit was that teachers and the school board saw a big improvement in the students test scores and reading skills. But they did realize that it required a lot of spending and became unaffordable. That law wasn’t successful because they have such a big population that it was very hard for them to manage the money. We are in a better position.

8-year-old Mayra Limon said “I think I would work better if there was fewer kids in my class.” We asked why she thought that, and she said “ It's better if we have a smaller class, that way the teacher can pay more attention to me.”

Senator Morgan has great intentions for the school districts in Utah. She is trying to expand student’s education and their knowledge. S.B31 should be enforced because it gives students a great ability to learn a lot more by having one on one time with their teacher. It is important that we focus on our young students because at their age their mind is just beginning to expand and is more open to learn. It is also important that they learn because these students are our future.

We need to teach them well because our education system and school requirements get harder and harder every year. We need to prepare for their future, we need to prepare them for what they are going against. For example the University of Utah requirements are getting higher every year and if we aren’t giving them the resources they need we need to start doing that.

We support this bill 100% and hope it gets enforced by the beginning of the school year next year. We know it will make a difference in these students’ lives and education.