Testimony to the Utah State Legislature

On 1/31/07, Randy Smith from DavisParents.org testified before the administrative rules committee of the legislature. Following his testimony and that of State Superintendent Patti Harrington, the committee voted unanimously to invalidate the current rules and require the State School Board to create new rules allowing open enrollment. As a result of this testimony, SB122 was amended to require the State School Board to create new rules to implement Open Enrollment. The amended bill passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate.

The following is the outline of his testimony:

Rules governing the Open Enrollment/Open School statutes (53A-2-207 - 209 and 213)

The “Open Enrollment/Open School statutes (53A-2-207 through 209 and 213) states: “A local school board shall allow students who reside within the district to attend any school within the district” (53A-2-231(1)(A)), subject only to capacity constraints and the application procedures. Other areas, of the statute, extend that to any public school in the state. However, the rules defining capacity are such that no district is required to ever consider this statute. The rules define capacity as follows:

1. Only classrooms, where the administration has assigned a teacher, are considered when calculating capacity (R277-437-1(F)).
2. Capacity is calculated based on 20 students per classroom (R277-437-1(K)(6-7)).
3. The enrollment threshold for compliance is 90% of capacity (R277-437-1(B)).
Here is how these rules work in practice. The new High School #8 in Syracuse was build with 93 classrooms for a capacity of 2,344 students, at a cost of $50,000,000 or $21,334 per student. The school district enrollment projections based on the new boundaries show an average enrollment of 1,450[1] students over the next ten years. If you assume a student to teacher ratio of 25 to 1, only 58 (58 = 1,450/25) of the 93 classrooms will be utilized. The capacity, based on the definition above, is 1,160 (1,160 = 58 * 20) students. The actual enrollment before compliance, with this statute, is required is 1,044 (1,044 = 1,160 * 90%). This leaves 1,300 empty seats in 52 heated but empty classrooms, before compliance with this statute is required or $27,734,000 of empty school space.

Of even greater concern is the fact that the rules add protection to the “resident” school (R277-437-1(E)), even though the statute makes no provision to protect the “resident” school. In our opinion, the administration, not the child, is responsible for the quality of the “resident” school. No child should be “held hostage” by a resident school.

This school year the district denied seventy of the ninety students requesting a variance to attend Bountiful High which had a projection of 205 empty seats. Last year the Haycock family applied for a variance to Bountiful High so their daughter could attend the same school as her older sister. Unfortunately, the administration believes that variances hurt the resident school and so their variance request and numerous appeals were denied. Only after six months of persistent pressure through letters, phone calls and personal visits did the district allow this distraught family to stay together.

Because of these rules, the statute has no bearing on how our public schools operate. Our recommendations:

• Define capacity based on the building capacity designed as extended through existing portables.
• The 90% enrollment threshold for compliance should not be considered for intra-district transfers.
• Remove protection of the “resident school” in favor of protecting the child.
  [1] Enrollment projections based on current enrollment of students from K-11th grades.