Thinking through the value of different public school choice navigators
There are benefits and challenges to different navigator features. We outline considerations below to prompt discussions about what would fill the gaps in Utah and the policy implications of these features as well.
Informational vs. Functional
Some platforms are primarily informational websites that provide parents with details on the available schooling options. These often host search bars or map tools that use a user’s address to find options nearby.
Some informational platforms offer additional assistance to help families access information, with one-on-one mentoring or customer service specialists guiding parents through their options and any associated processes. This allows platforms to be hubs of information with a high degree of interaction, creativity, and breadth, but may not require as much direct collaboration with actual providers and school districts in the same way as a more functional platform.
Other navigators are more functional, meaning they are websites where families can actively search, apply to, or enroll in a school or in a particular district. For instance, some platforms allow families to apply to multiple schools simultaneously, enabling them to be matched with one of their top choices.
The more functions provided, the more imperative it is to ensure accurate, up-to-date data sharing so platforms can help families find real availability. Likewise, more functions require greater development of relationships with providers and school districts, who are the ultimate decision-makers for accepting or denying students from open enrollment applications. This also means that providers and districts need to have a greater awareness of their legal requirements.
Nonprofit vs. government-sponsored
Nonprofit platforms typically have fewer barriers to entry, in the sense that an organization can create a website without any prescribed public or governmental process. This may be more efficient and responsive to parent feedback in the long run.
Government-sponsored platforms may have more official support, but they also have more policy or bureaucratic barriers to overcome in their launch. For instance, creating a state or district platform may require public meetings, policy or legislation, as well as an RFP to find an administrator. Making changes may also be more laborious with a government entity than with a nonprofit.
At the same time, a government-sponsored platform may have greater leverage to require the already mandated data sharing from public schools. While school districts are obligated to comply with mandated data reporting, a nonprofit organization doesn’t have the same oversight role as a government agency.
Funding is a question for both types of public school choice navigators. Nonprofits rely on ongoing private donations, while the other requires the political will to allocate ongoing appropriations or prioritize funding in a budget.
Regional vs. Statewide
Deciding whether to serve a region or the entire state is essential. Without a doubt, many functional government-sponsored platforms are focused on specific school districts (or at least limited to certain regions).
In general, functional statewide platforms may be a heavier lift logistically, whether it’s run by a district or nonprofit. Delaware has a statewide government-sponsored platform, but this may be more reasonable given it is one of the least populous states in the nation.
Obviously, promoting a single statewide website may be easier for marketing purposes, but a district/region-based platform may realistically have higher accuracy for real-time data.
Achieving a statewide platform is aided by a mandate to report open enrollment data at the state level (Utah does not have this), which in turn necessitates local compliance with existing laws.
Broad choice vs. Specific choice
Finally, platforms can offer varying scopes of school choice. Some are geared towards helping parents understand and access all education choices, including district schools, charter schools, private schools, private vendors, and more.
Others are specifically designed to show charter school options or open enrollment availability or offerings eligible to be paid for by a particular state-funded scholarship program.
Offering an “all education choices” platform may help a time-strapped parent who is not sure what type of choice will meet their child’s learning needs, but simply knows they want more options. At the same time, websites limited to a particular subset of choices may offer greater expertise, specificity and depth.
Recommendations for Utah policymakers
Utah education leaders and reformers already host information websites on various options, which is good news. However, there is space to offer a streamlined public school choice experience for Utah parents.
Therefore, we recommend a nonprofit or government-sponsored, statewide, “one-stop shop” style public school choice navigator that offers as much functionality as possible.
Regardless of features, policymakers should take the following policy steps to facilitate the launch of a navigator:
- Clarify the definitions of capacity for purposes of open enrollment and attendance. A recent audit reveals confusion about what constitutes attendance in Utah schools. Another audit has been requested to understand open enrollment “capacity” and other issues. These definitions will help districts report more accurate data on the number of available seats for open enrollment in their schools.
- Require public charter schools to follow a standard application window and timelines statewide, with an exemption that charter schools can apply for if their unique charter or operation requires a different application window or timeline.
- Add the statutory requirement to post an open enrollment capacity report to the annual LEA Assurances Checklist that all districts must sign each year. It’s not a comprehensive list of all state laws that impact districts, and it is noticeably missing requirements that would impact sharing public information that benefit parents (like the capacity report being posted to the website or posting online how to access curriculum).
- Seek more robust compliance with data reporting from districts. In an early 2025 report, we found that only seven districts out of 41 posted a full open enrollment capacity report that parents could find and review.
- Create a state-level open enrollment data reporting requirement. There is no requirement to report district-by-district open enrollment data to the state board nor for the state board to share it. This reform itself may assist with compliance as it would highlight what’s missing. If a navigator is to succeed, there must be a central place for data in the first place. Even if a navigator is not feasible for some time, the state should at least host this information in one place.
Research contributed by Alexis Morgan and Dallyn Edmunds.
