The following is a statement prepared and delivered by Christine Cooke, education policy fellow at Sutherland Institute, to the Utah House of Representatives on Feb. 10, 2020.
Members of the Utah House of Representatives,
A core purpose of education is to create an informed citizenry that can preserve the republic of the United States of America. Unfortunately, declines in Utah civic understanding and engagement show that our state is not achieving this objective adequately.
Legitimate concerns with regard to Utah’s current approach to civics education – including a civics test requirement for high school graduation – suggest that the best policy is for policymakers to conduct an in-depth, comprehensive study of history and civics education in the state before making significant changes.
Sutherland Institute recommends that HB 152 (Civic Education Testing Requirement) – which would repeal the civics test graduation requirement – instead create an interim study topic delving into history and civics education, which is what 1st Substitute HB 152 would accomplish. The study should continue to identify the problems Utah is facing, outline our state’s goals, and offer space for innovative ideas in civics education.
We encourage you to support replacing HB 152 with 1st Substitute HB 152.
Read More
Working paper on history of parent-driven education points toward reforms
Parents and policymakers alike may find the paper useful in understanding education policy, where we are likely headed, and what we should do next.
Will AI kill us in 10 years? | Chris Koopman & Ford Copple
Is AI really on track to destroy humanity, or are we confusing small risks with science fiction? On this episode of Defending Ideas, Nic Dunn sits down with Chris Koopman, CEO of Abundance Institute, and Ford Copple, tech policy analyst at Sutherland Institute, to discuss the growing debate over AI safety, regulation, data centers, and technological innovation.
Massachusetts case raises concerns about government cutting parents out of children’s decisions
When parents pose a threat to children’s safety, the state should act. But ideological disagreements are not a reason to cut parents out of a child’s life.