Executive Summary
The newest October enrollment data report reveals that enrollment in district public schools is once again on the decline, while total public charter school enrollment continues to grow. In an era of greater education choice for parents, these enrollment trends highlight a need for public school leaders and policymakers to evaluate whether schools and policies are adequately addressing parents’ needs. This is especially true in situations where parents may seek to enroll their child in a district school outside their assigned school boundaries – a policy known as open enrollment.
Sutherland Institute conducted such an audit of Utah’s open enrollment law and school district implementation of the policies in that law. Our analysis found: (1) only 27% of school districts are fully compliant with the reporting requirements of state open enrollment law, (2) school capacity reports conflict with actual enrollment at a school, and (3) open enrollment law makes open enrollment reports unnecessarily complicated and difficult to use for parents.
The findings of Sutherland’s analysis point to three open enrollment policy reforms:
- Require school districts to annually submit open enrollment capacity reports to the Utah State Board of Education to help ensure compliance with the law.
- Simplify capacity definitions in open enrollment law to ensure that capacity reports are easy to understand for parents.
- Conduct a legislative audit of school district compliance with open enrollment law to examine this problem and recommend further policy reforms thoroughly.
This Impact Analysis goes into further detail of these findings and recommendations to inform education policy discussions in preparation for the 2026 legislative session.
Introduction
When it comes to public school open enrollment, a key question for parents is: “How many seats are available at this school for students who want to transfer?”
Getting to the bottom of this requires understanding Utah law on open-enrollment definitions and ensuring that open-enrollment information is communicated clearly to parents seeking this form of educational choice.
We decided to dive into the issue to better understand what parents might find as they seek information.
During our review, we found that (1) the required statutory language used by schools and districts could be more parent-friendly, (2) most districts are not complying with the law requiring them to publish online specific open enrollment data, and (3) it is difficult to assess current and year-to-year seat availability for schools across the state based on the data that is provided.
Drawing on this review, we outline the findings below and offer recommendations to overcome these challenges and achieve the best possible open enrollment experience for Utah parents.
Our review findings
Complicated statutory language could be more parent-friendly
Utah’s open enrollment law provides definitions and calculations to describe when a district must accept a student applying for a particular school outside of their assigned school.
The average parent seeking to transfer their student to another district school might want to know whether the school has capacity for their child, indicated by a number representing the number of seats currently available, or simply whether it’s open or closed.
However, state law says that if a school is at or below the “open enrollment threshold,” then it must accept the applying student (barring other legal reasons for denial).
The term “capacity” is part of the calculation for whether the open enrollment threshold has been met or exceeded. Further, the calculation for open enrollment threshold differs depending on when a student applies, which is either in the early or late enrollment periods.
The “open enrollment threshold” generally means 90% of either “maximum capacity” or 90% “adjusted capacity,” for early or late enrollment, respectively.
The definitions of “maximum capacity” and “adjusted capacity” are based on enrollment levels in “instructional stations,” with maximum capacity closer to actual building capacity and adjusted capacity closer to what can be staffed.
While there might be prudent policy reasons for statutory definitions, the trouble is that for parents trying to determine whether a school has space for their child, the definitions can be confusing. This is important to note because schools are required by law to post open enrollment data reports using these terms on their websites to increase transparency and inform parents and the public about this important form of education choice.
The legislature could simplify the language around open enrollment to improve the parent experience so that when they look for this data, it makes sense to them.
Continued noncompliance with the required open enrollment report
Utah law requires each local school board to post on its website an open enrollment data report (which we call open enrollment capacity reports) that includes several key pieces of data on capacity, enrollment, applications received, and more.
Earlier this year, we conducted and published a review of how many school districts complied with state law that requires them to post specific open enrollment data. We searched websites and did direct outreach. At the time of publication, we found that six out of 41 districts had posted the full capacity report (which was subsequently updated to 7 out of 41). Another 14 posted a partial report. That means 20 school districts lacked any of the required information. We noted at the time that this was a significant and problematic failure to comply with a state law. Recognizing the many requirements placed on districts and that this might have been due to a lack of awareness, we have recommended that the annual LEA Compliance and Assurances checklist include this requirement, so districts have a better chance of being aware.
This past month, we conducted another review and, luckily, found that the number of districts posting a full open enrollment capacity report has doubled. Today, 14 of 41 districts have posted a full capacity report (34%), while another six have posted a partial capacity report. While that means we could not find a capacity report for 21 districts with categories required by law, we did note that three other districts posted a simple “open/closed” document for each school in the district. We note that, in practice, this may be a more helpful tool for parents who may want to apply. In fact, 11 total districts offered an “open/closed” label, many of which included this alongside the required capacity report information.
This time around, we also reviewed whether all data was for the current school year. Even though more districts have a full report with all required categories posted, unfortunately, not all have reports that display data for the current year. Out of the total 20 full or partial capacity reports we found on district websites, 15 have capacity reports for the 2025-2026 school year, three have a capacity report only for the 2024-2025 school year, one has one for the 2022-2023 school year, and one has projected numbers for the 2026-2027 school year.
When searching for districts that had both a full capacity report and one for the current school year, only 11 out of 41 districts (27%) were found to be fully compliant.
Furthermore, we have noted in past reports that there is no state requirement or standard practice for the state board of education to report this data, which may have provided parents with another place to locate it.
Thus, there is still a significant lack of compliance with the state requirement to post open enrollment data on district websites for parents and the public to review.
Difficulty in assessing seats available and trends year-to-year
The Utah State Board of Education gathers and reports enrollment numbers on its state website for each school on October 1 of each school year. To understand the relationship between district-reported maximum capacity and what one could consider capacity based on actual enrollment, we compared district open-enrollment data with the enrollment numbers as of October 1.
When comparing what districts reported as “maximum capacity” for the 2025-2026 school year to the recent October 1, 2025, enrollment, it was found that 74 out of the 449 schools for which we could compare data had enrollment exceeding the reported maximum capacity. Likewise, when comparing the reported maximum capacity for the 2024-2025 school year to the enrollment as of October 1, 2024, it was found that 3 out of 65 had enrollment exceeding the reported maximum capacity.
State law permits districts to enroll students in schools even if they’ve exceeded the open enrollment threshold, but it’s unclear what “maximum capacity” is supposed to represent if many schools are able to enroll students far beyond that limitation.
Furthermore, when reviewing open enrollment capacity reports posted on district websites, it was observed that some districts used different terms for maximum capacity, adjusted capacity, and other related measures. The legislature should clarify what “maximum capacity” should accurately reflect. The state could also conduct audits to ensure it is being calculated and reported correctly.
Recommendations
Conduct an audit on open-enrollment capacity report compliance and language
The state should conduct an audit to see how many districts are complying with the open enrollment law that requires them to post specific open enrollment data online. This could include checking how many districts post all required information, whether reports are posted for the appropriate year, and whether they are labeled correctly and in user-friendly ways. The audit could examine whether the reported numbers make sense when compared with enrollment numbers. It could look for any other inconsistencies that would be obstacles to getting a clearer picture of what open enrollment looks like across Utah.
Consider parent-friendly language for open enrollment
After an audit, 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.”
Pass a state-level open-enrollment reporting requirement
The legislature should require districts to report their open enrollment data to the Utah State Board of Education annually, allowing the state board to compile and publish this data on its website. This could serve as a single location for parents to see school availability and for policymakers to see year-to-year comparisons and trends. If the state board is actively seeking information from districts, this might serve as a natural enforcement mechanism, reminding districts and requiring them to respond.
Conclusion
Gaining a clearer statewide view of open enrollment in Utah may help the state find ways to make district schools an easier and more attractive choice for parents. Ultimately, we recommend that the state conduct an audit from the perspective of this question: “What might a parent want to see if they are looking for open enrollment information?” and implement parent-friendly reforms that flow from there. Public school choice is an important part of education, and this step can help ensure it’s the best it can be.
Sutherland Institute intern Emily Payne contributed research to this analysis.
