This past legislative session shows that Utah lawmakers are still interested in education choice in all its forms, including open enrollment. Utah has made progress in its open enrollment landscape, both in legislative support and in on-the-ground compliance, but there is more to do.
The following report announces districts that have earned an Open Enrollment Excellence Certificate, reviews the current state of open enrollment in Utah, and highlights opportunities for improvement.
Districts that earned an Open Enrollment Excellence Certificate
In February of this year, we announced the launch of a new project that offers school districts an Open Enrollment Excellence Certificate if they meet the requirements of our five-part rubric.
Utah school districts that earned a certificate as of April 2026 are:
- Cache County
- Iron County
- Juab
- Logan City
- Nebo
- South Summit
- Washington County
To earn the certificate, our five-part rubric requires that the district be in compliance with the law. This is the main focus of our work: ensuring districts offer the public (parents) this data so that open enrollment can be more transparent. In addition, the other four criteria were best practices we found meaningful to parents. These included simple designations for when schools are open or closed, a link to the application, district contact information, and a full webpage on open enrollment or school choice.
We commend these seven districts that met that standard for both complying with the law and going above and beyond to make open enrollment information accessible to parents.
We also acknowledge that several districts excelled but came up short in just one category. We will be awarding certificates on a rolling basis throughout this year as districts meet the standard and request it.
Districts that earned 4 out of 5 categories
The other 12 districts that are leading in this space, meeting 4 out of the 5 requirements were: Alpine, Carbon, Emery, Granite, Jordan, North Sanpete, Ogden City, Park City, Provo, Salt Lake City, Tooele, and Wasatch.
In fact, seven would meet all requirements in the rubric simply by complying with the statute to post a capacity report. Some districts have something posted online but simply need to update the information. For a look at all the districts and the requirements they met, look at this table.
Districts that are in compliance with the law
Ultimately, Sutherland Institute’s goal is to help equip parents as they make educational choices. To do this, one of our primary goals is to ensure districts comply with the law requiring them to post capacity reports publicly on their websites.
Our latest review found that as of the last week of April 2026, 13 of the 41 Utah school districts (approximately 32%) are following the statutory requirement to post specific open enrollment data on their websites, an increase since our last review.
The last time we surveyed school district compliance in November 2025, only 11 of 41 districts (approximately 27%) were compliant.
For perspective, compliance has more than doubled since we first began these surveys a year ago, when only six districts were posting a full capacity report (see our first report here). Altogether, this is good news, even though there is obviously still a way to go.
What we learned when searching district websites
Reviewing open enrollment websites revealed a highly uneven experience in terms of clarity, accessibility, and usability. While conducting these website searches, we noticed many other strengths and areas for improvement. Some sites presented this information in a straightforward manner, while others required extensive searching through layered menus, PDFs, or disconnected pages. Some websites also appeared outdated, which raised concerns about reliability. When conducting outreach on Utah’s open enrollment policies, we found that some districts did not have staff who were knowledgeable about the open enrollment process and were unable to answer basic questions regarding out-of-district registration.
However, there were also praiseworthy efforts worth noting. A few districts provided well-organized enrollment hubs with step-by-step instructions, graphics, FAQs, and clearly labeled deadlines, which significantly improved usability. Some even offer the information in both Spanish and English. Additionally, schools that clearly define terminology help users better understand how placement decisions are made.
Overall, Utah parents who are trying to find information about open enrollment in Utah school districts are often forced into a time-consuming search that favors those with greater digital literacy, time, and familiarity with the system. As a result, access to open enrollment is not only a matter of policy availability but also of information accessibility, raising concerns about equity and whether all families are truly able to take advantage of the options intended for them.
Recommendations
This most recent 2026 General legislative session, lawmakers nearly passed H.B. 528 Local School Board Reporting, which would have required districts to report their capacity reports to the Utah State Board of Education and for the board to then publish the aggregated data on their state website. It would not only increase awareness for districts around the requirement to post this data but also create a natural state layer of transparency around open enrollment.
The bill had nearly unanimous support throughout the process but ran out of time on the last day, so it is our recommendation and hope that this reform be enacted next year.
This reform is a first step, but there are other important steps the legislature could take, or districts could take on their own. Districts should include a reason for denial in their notifications to families if a denial is made to increase transparency and help families. Utah should create an appeals process that uses a neutral entity as the final decision maker.
The legislature should consider making the statutory definitions related to open enrollment more parent-friendly so districts can simply communicate how many seats are available. This includes ensuring that the statutory language reflects the common understanding of terms like “capacity” and requiring capacity reports to use simple labels like “open/closed” or an updated count of “seats available.”
The state board should also include, on its LEA Checklist and Assurances document, details about the need to post the capacity report online.
Conclusion
Many districts are excelling at making open enrollment information available to parents, clearly demonstrating their desire to partner with parents as they make education choices. Over the past year, more districts have complied with the law on sharing open enrollment data and have made changes to their websites to be parent-friendly. That said, most still have work to do. The state should elevate this issue by enacting legislative reforms and creating better awareness at the state board level. Local groups can also help by advocating for parents who need this information. It’s a whole state, team effort, but Utah can get there.
