When Gov. Spencer Cox signed Senate Bill 127 into law in 2022, Utah set a goal: to have 70% of third graders statewide reach proficiency on the state-administered Acadience reading assessment by July 1, 2027.

Sixteen months before the deadline, a study by the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute showed the Park City School District was the only school district in the state to meet the goal in 2025, with 70.1% of students proficient. Meanwhile, the Wasatch County School District ranked 30 out of 41 public school districts, with less than 50% of third graders proficient. 

But those statistics are no longer accurate because a new law changes how the state defines reading proficiency. 

When the institute performed the study, the state defined reading on grade level as scoring above the benchmark on the Acadience reading assessment. Therefore, the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute’s data only included “blue” Acadience scores. 

“The way Acadience works is you get a certain score, and then you’re either a blue, which means you’re above grade level; you’re a green, which is on grade level; you’re a yellow, just below grade level; (or) a red, which are the kids we’re really concerned about,” explained Superintendent Garrick Peterson. 

Sixty-nine percent of Wasatch County School District third graders received a blue or green score on the Acadience assessment in 2025, according to Stacey Moore, the district’s chief of staff.

The state’s definition of reading proficiency changed to include both blue and green scores, those above and at grade level, after Cox signed S.B. 241 into law last week.

The law also supplants the old third-grade literacy goal for Utah: instead of 70% of third graders reading on grade level by July 1, 2027, the law shifts the goal to 80% by July 1, 2030. 

Republican Sen. Ann Millner, who represents Davis, Morgan and Weber counties, introduced the bill during the legislative session. 

The third grade is the only grade in which students take two reading assessments: the Acadience reading test, which is administered in kindergarten through grade three, then optionally grades four to six, and the RISE assessment, which stands for Readiness Improvement Success Empowerment, the state-administered test that students take grades three through eight each year.

Acadience focuses on fluency and accuracy, the speed at which students read the text and whether they make mistakes in reading it, while RISE focuses on comprehension, students’ understanding of the text. 

“That RISE test is supposed to mirror what a kid should be able to do if they were college-ready for their grade level,” Peterson explained. 

He said RISE is more rigorous than Acadience, so the district focuses on RISE scores when measuring reading proficiency.

“In our district, we choose, especially after first grade, to really focus on comprehension, … because that’s the end game with reading. Can I read the comprehended text and make sense of it, use it for different purposes?” he added.

The reason for the state’s change in definition for reading proficiency is that S.B. 241 creates a requirement to hold back third graders not reading on grade level, “except in cases of certain good cause exemptions.” In lower grades, retention must be considered but is not required.

Peterson provided examples of good-cause exemptions, including students with learning disabilities, English language learners and students who are making “great growth toward being on grade level.” 

“(The bill) is asking us to really take into account each kid and what’s best for them, and to consider that retention piece as a tool that can be used,” he said.

Peterson said holding a student back can be detrimental socially, but that reading proficiency is an equally important component of a child’s development. 

He added that the decision to hold back a student comes down to both the school and the students’ parents or guardians.

During a school board study session on Feb. 24, before S.B. 241 had passed, board member Brad Ehlert expressed reservations about retention.

“My son was held back in first grade. It was the worst decision we made as parents, and it affected him. He was not an IEP kid, and he became one because of that. That’s a problem,” he said. “The idea that we’re moving the majority of the group forward at the expense of some does not seem to be appropriate. If the goal is to collectively move as many people forward as we can, having a threat over somebody’s head is not how you do that.”

School Board President Kim Dickerson agreed. 

Peterson’s view is that retention will not occur as long as the school district can meet the challenges set by S.B. 241.

“We need to accept responsibility to get that individual reading plan in place and show progress, period. That’s on us. And so, if we do that, then no one should be held back,” he said. “Our principals know where this is. They know the challenges ahead. It is a hefty one. We’d always talk when we do work around this, that we’re messing with kids’ lives. If we can get them on grade level, then all the options of life are opened up to them. We build their confidence.” 

There’s now a flip side to that, Peterson said. 

“If you can’t do that, you could destroy that kid’s life forever.”

S.B. 241 takes effect July 1. Andrea Brandley, senior education analyst with the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, noted that the institute will likely release a follow-up publication in the next few months to incorporate the state’s new definition of reading proficiency.

The post Wasatch County School District hopes to prevent retention in wake of new legislative requirement appeared first on Park Record.

Preliminary municipalities have become the latest development tool to take the Wasatch Back by storm, but county leaders and residents alike have repeatedly voiced concerns about companies’ ability to bypass local governments and push controversial proposals forward through the state.

The process may soon change, however, depending on a new bill working its way through the state Legislature.

A preliminary municipality can transition to, and incorporate as, a town under a state law that went into effect in 2024. The law amended the Utah Municipal Code to provide for a pilot program for the incorporation of a preliminary municipality, giving “all the powers and duties” of a town, including zoning and land use decisions.

The law applies to land privately owned by three or fewer people who intend to develop it with at least 100 people while meeting certain affordable housing benchmarks in the first five years of the preliminary municipality’s existence.

Dakota Pacific Real Estate last year filed for a preliminary municipality in Summit County, dubbed Park City Tech, as a safeguard for its planned development in Kimball Junction. Ivory Homes similarly submitted a request in January to explore a preliminary municipality in Browns Canyon, but the Lieutenant Governor’s Office ultimately declined to move forward with the proposal.

State Rep. Tiara Auxier, a Republican who represents parts of Summit, Morgan and Rich counties, said she fundamentally disagreed with preliminary municipalities and how the original legislation was passed, which is why she filed an unsuccessful bill last year to repeal the statute completely.

“I don’t agree with voters and taxpayers in an area getting totally leapfrogged because (developers) can come to the state and make their own city without any input from the communities they’re impacting,” Auxier said. “I’ve been told that there is no appetite to repeal it altogether, so I’ve been trying to think of what I could do to put some guardrails around it.”

Auxier’s suggested guardrails are outlined in House Bill 510, which she filed two weeks ago for consideration in this year’s general session. The legislation would require the sponsors of a preliminary municipality to work directly with the county where the development is being proposed, especially in regards to the mandated feasibility study, which determines whether the municipality would be financially successful enough to proceed.

“Many people felt like it was basically picking numbers out of a hat when the counties had actual data that would speak to what they were talking about,” Auxier said. “They wanted the ability to share that with the third parties doing the feasibility studies or with the Lieutenant Governor’s Office. The bill is still in the works and we’re still negotiating, but right now my biggest focus is to give the counties a seat at the table.”

Developers would need to inform counties of their intent to file for a preliminary municipality at least 120 days before submitting their application to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office. The county would then be responsible for providing a written response within 90 days to offer “any information the county determines is useful.”

“I think the counties know their counties the best,” Auxier said. “So many of the assumptions that go into these preliminary municipalities is that they’re going to plug into the existing infrastructure there and go along, but are you expanding the size of the sewer? Is that talked about? If it’s not, then who’s going to cover that? If you’re not having these conversations with the county, how can they expect that community to incorporate itself?”

Auxier said H.B. 510 would protect counties and taxpayers from paying for the infrastructure costs of a preliminary municipality if the incorporation were to fail, which was the intent of the 2024 law. However, Auxier said there have been issues in other areas of the state with preliminary municipalities trying to push the costs of road maintenance and infrastructure onto the county.

“I’m pushing to say, no, that is actually part of your own development that you have to be in charge of,” Auxier said. “If it fails, who’s left holding the bag? Is it falling back on the county and the taxpayers who had no say in the first place about this development? … The bill would make sure that there was enough capital set aside for these developers to be in charge of covering anything that happened as far as the city failing or something like that.”

So far, Auxier said she’s received positive feedback on the bill from counties confronted with preliminary municipalities in their area, including Summit County. She said she’s also had constituents reach out to her, encouraging the publication of the bill and supporting its passage in the Legislature.

“It’s not a well-known process outside of the communities that are impacted by it, but people who are impacted are grateful for any movement to make these things less painful than they are,” Auxier said. “Everyone besides developers think they shouldn’t exist. Obviously, I have pushback from the ones who benefit from it, but besides that, I would say the general public at large thinks the public should have a say in what the community they live in looks like instead of having three developers be able to start their own city.”

The state House of Representatives’ Political Subdivisions Committee is expected to discuss and vote on the bill in the next few weeks before potentially sending it to the full House for further consideration. The general session ends on March 6.

The post Summit County representative files bill to put ‘guardrails’ on preliminary municipalities appeared first on Park Record.