• Utah’s open enrollment law is considered strong in part because open enrollment – accepting transfer students within districts or from outside districts – is mandatory so long as there is capacity according to the threshold set by statute.
• After reviewing websites of the 41 local school districts to see how well they’ve implemented Utah’s open enrollment policies, we found that districts are largely not posting what is required by current law.

​Utah just earned an “A” for its open enrollment policies, according to metrics in a new report.  

However, the state almost certainly would not earn an A based on implementation of those policies.

Utah’s approach to school open enrollment has been considered strong by scholars, but after Sutherland Institute reviewed the information posted on the websites of all 41 school districts, it’s clear there is room for improved implementation of what already exists in law.

Here are some key must-know highlights about open enrollment law, policy, and implementation in the state of Utah.

Utah law on open enrollment

Utah’s open enrollment law is considered strong in part because open enrollment – accepting transfer students within districts or from outside districts – is mandatory, so long as there is capacity according to the threshold set by statute. The language says, “If a school’s enrollment falls below the open enrollment threshold, the local school board shall allow a nonresident student to enroll in the school.”

A lot of the requirements rest on local school boards. For instance, local school boards must create a policy on open enrollment, including how to apply for the opportunities. They must also come up with a policy regarding acceptance and rejection of student application for transfer based in the requirements set by statute. Acceptance or rejection can be based on enrollment threshold, program capacity (e.g., special education programs), compliance with constitutional rights of students or federal law, or even misbehavior in some cases. What the acceptance/rejections decision cannot be based on is academic or athletic ability, the need for special education services, English proficiency, or previous disciplinary proceedings.

Notably, for each school, school boards must post on their website: the school’s (1) maximum capacity, (2) the school’s adjusted capacity, (3) the school’s projected enrollment used in the calculation of the open enrollment threshold, (4) actual enrollment on October 1, January 2, and April 1, (5) the number of nonresident student enrollment requests, (6) the number of nonresident student enrollment requests accepted, and (7) the number of resident students transferring to another school. School boards must also notify parents of their decision to accept or reject the application, but they do not have to supply the reason.

The Utah State Board of Education has created additional rules regarding this law, including considerations for students who have special education needs.

Local implementation

While there are many things local boards need to do to facilitate open enrollment – and may do quite well – we decided to specifically seek out the information that local boards are required to post on their website for each school, according to the statute described above. After reviewing websites of the 41 local school districts to determine to what degree they’ve complied with the statutory requirements to post information for each school, we found that districts are largely not posting what is required by current law.

Specifically, only two districts (Nebo and Provo) post on their website all categories of information that is required by law for each school in their boundaries. An additional 10 districts post some, but not all, of the school-specific information required in the statute. This means, of course, that most districts are not posting what they are required to make available on their websites.

Outside of those school-specific requirements, the other 29 districts have some type of information online about open enrollment (details not required by the statute to be posted online for each school) like policy language, applications links, or FAQs.

Having some of this information is important for compliance, but providing details and transparency is also important to parents. When districts do not faithfully implement Utah’s open enrollment law, they may be effectively diminishing parents’ practical access to better public schools for their child. The most prudent method of enforcement in a case as described above might simply be awareness. Districts are already tasked with doing so much that they may simply need opportunities to update information as much as they can. If greater awareness of noncompliance with state law does not lead to better implementation by districts, state lawmakers may need to contemplate a more forceful enforcement mechanism.

Conclusion

Utah should be proud of the work they’ve done in crafting open enrollment laws that make public school choice a reality for many families across the state. At the same time, we should be concerned that some school districts may be making it more difficult for families to find information about accessing better public schools due to a lack of implementation of Utah’s open enrollment policies. There is work to be done in reforming the current law to make information about the law even more transparent and ensure there is compliance with it. As policymakers continue to refine the state’s approach to school open enrollment, the state should aspire to maintain its leadership status in this area.

Sutherland Institute policy intern Kenna Stringam contributed research to this article.