Not so many years ago, I prosecuted a licensing case against an educator accused of inappropriately touching a young boy.  The boy was still in elementary school, the teacher a favorite of parents and students.

  The boy did the right thing, and told his parents what the teacher had done.  The police were called and investigated.  In order to make the investigation possible, the police relied on the local Children's Justice Center (CJC) to conduct an interview of the boy.

  CJCs were formed for exactly this purpose--to avoid further traumatizing a potential child victim of sexual abuse.  The CJC interview was tape recorded, but the boy was able to talk to a caring professional in a comfortable room, rather than a uniformed authority figure in a sterile police interrogation room, or even in the classroom where the trauma occurred. 

  This was not my first experience with a CJC interview.  I have relied on such interviews in many cases of sexual contact between a teacher and student in order to avoid multiple interviews of the same young witness.  This case stands out, however, because the boy, despite his terror at testifying against his teacher, agreed to testify in our administrative hearing regarding the teacher's license (he was not able to testify at a criminal trial).  I firmly believe that the boy would not have made it through his testimony if it hadn't been for his positive experience at the CJC, and, perhaps, the fact that I am also not a big, burly attorney who scared him either!

  In the end, the teacher's license was revoked and the boy, I hope, experienced a sense of empowerment in his ablilty to testify before the teacher and influence the outcome.

  The CJCs are a valuable tool for law enforcement that need far more resources and support from the attorney general's office.  Many CJCs rely on the volunteer efforts of "friends boards" to raise funds.  No child's mental health should depend "on the kindness of strangers."

  To set the record straight, I want to make it clear that my opposition to vouchers rests on two main components:

First, there is the still unanswered question of whether voucher are permissible under the Utah Constitution. This question can only be answered by the Utah Supreme Court, which is one of the many reasons the State Board was not impressed with the current attorney general's insistence that it implement a voucher program regardless of the legal minefields awaiting it.

Second, I object to any program that steals from the poor to give to the rich.  The universal voucher program passed by the Utah Legislature and supported by the current AG took $12,000,000 from the general fund to give vouchers to people at ALL income levels.  That $12,000,000, however, could have been used to reinstate dental and vision benefits to Medicaid recipients (which would have cost $9,000,000, leaving an extra $3 million for other purposes).  Those who needed the benefits would not only have been forced to choose between medical care and private school tuition, they were denied medical care to give families living far above the poverty level at least $500 towards private school tuition.

  Until we provide basic medical needs to low income families, and sufficient funding for a high quality free public education, we as a state should not even consider funding any portion of private school tuition.  Should there come a time when these needs are fulfilled, the state should still not fund private school tuition for families who can easily afford it.

During Jan Graham's service as Attorney General, she developed a five point plan of action that was adopted into the Safe Passage Program.  But one piece of that plan was, unfortunately, removed--an educational neglect task force.

 Ms. Graham realized something that many legislators and the current AG have not---not all children who are claimed to be home schooled receive any schooling at all.  In my current position, I receive regular calls from concerned family member and neighbors who are quite certain that identified kids are not being schooled at home, or anywhere else.  These concerned citizens have ample evidence of the problem, but state law leaves both the resident school district and the Division of Child and Family Services without recourse. The problem is exacerbated in a closed society, such as some polygamous communities.

Educational neglect is a very real problem for the children who are suffering and the society that will be required to care for them.  That our state law provides no meaningful opportunities for the state to intervene is more than just an unfortunate oversight.  Utah needs an educational neglect statute with teeth.  Not to harass the many parents who provide a quality education to their children at home, but to ensure that those parents who use the state's home school laws as an escape hatch from responsibility are held accountable for their children's education.