[{"_1":2,"_115":-5,"_116":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,85,95,105],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6458151,"mediaKeyId","5823568-7f69bcac6dca7d13ccaddfb4ec2fe960","parentId",5823568,"title","Washington County discusses limits, placement process for J‑1 exchange students","audioSeconds",1337,"startMs",12915,"endMs",1350000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5823568-7f69bcac6dca7d13ccaddfb4ec2fe960&start=12&end=1350","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6458151/Utah/Washington-County-discusses-limits-placement-process-for-J1-exchange-students","mediaUrl","author","Washington County School District","date","2025-09-22T00:00:00Z","article","District staff described the Washington County School District’s current approach to international exchange students at the Sept. 22 work session, saying the district does not accept F‑1 visa students and only accepts a small number of J‑1 exchange students placed through third‑party agencies.

A staff member explained the distinction between the two visa categories, saying, “We just don’t do F‑1 visas,” and described F‑1 placements as those that require additional federal certification and are often associated with private academies. By contrast, the staff member said J‑1 students are placed by agencies with host families and that the state of Utah allocates a fixed number of J‑1 slots to be divided among all public, charter and private schools in the state.

The staff member said Utah has 326 J‑1 slots statewide and that districts request how many slots they want each year; Washington County typically requests roughly two to three slots per high school. The district then notifies agencies which schools have available slots and the agencies recruit host families for those slots.

Board members raised placement issues that have occurred when agencies promise families a spot without confirming school assignment. The staff member described an example in which a student was placed with a host family but assigned to a school that required the family to drive a long distance every day; the family later complained that the assignment was inconvenient.

Board members discussed whether to offer every high school the option to accept J‑1 students rather than limiting offers to open‑boundary schools. Staff said doing so would increase flexibility to move students among schools if principals agree and would reduce situations where host families feel misled about a student’s school location.

The group also discussed charter schools’ role in recruiting many J‑1 students. A board member said some charters have taken large numbers of exchange students, drawing a funding advantage because state funding follows the student. Staff said the slot allocation process (the state’s fixed number of slots) limits total placements and that districts sometimes receive requests from the state to transfer unused slots.

The board gave informal consensus to continue offering roughly two J‑1 slots per high school and to allow principals to reallocate slots among schools when necessary. Staff said they would continue to refine procedures, work with approved agencies, and consider a clearer disclosure process for agencies and host families about school assignments.

The district did not adopt any new formal policy at the meeting; staff described the proposal as procedural and said a future policy or procedure could be written if the board wants to formalize changes.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Working Session – 9/22/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Board staff outlined how the district handles international exchange students, saying the district does not accept F‑1 visa students and that J‑1 placements are limited by a statewide cap of 326 slots that the state allocates among districts and charters.","taxTitle","Washington County School District, Utah School Boards, Utah","taxId",65999,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6458141,"Washington County reports near‑95% average daily attendance; board hears strategies to sustain gains",1465,2328085,3794000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5823568-7f69bcac6dca7d13ccaddfb4ec2fe960&start=2328&end=3794","/articles/6458141/Utah/Washington-County-reports-near95-average-daily-attendance-board-hears-strategies-to-sustain-gains","District leaders presented attendance figures and interventions to the board at the Sept. 22 work session, showing Washington County’s average daily attendance around 94% and chronic absenteeism rates well below state and national averages.

Staff described multiple tactics principals and schools use to improve attendance, including home visits to welcome new students, business partnerships that offer rewards when students attend, school stores that provide incentives, targeted conferences with parents when attendance and grades decline together, and focused outreach to families facing barriers such as health concerns.

A presentation compared district consistent‑attendance measures (students missing fewer than 10 days per year) with state and national data. Staff said the district outperforms the state by several percentage points on consistent attendance; the presenter noted Utah’s statewide chronic absenteeism rate was about 23.8% in 2023 and that national figures were higher.

Board members asked how the district treats excused versus unexcused absences. Staff said Utah law allows parents to excuse absences for a broad set of reasons; the district focuses enforcement on unexcused absences. Under current procedure, after 10 unexcused absences the district sends a letter and requires a mandatory meeting; another 10 unexcused absences can trigger referral to child‑welfare or juvenile justice systems.

Members praised teachers and principals for creating a welcoming school culture and acknowledged demographic and family circumstances can affect some schools’ attendance trends. Staff said targeted, school‑level interventions and a focus on relationships with students are key to maintaining strong attendance.","District staff presented attendance data showing the district average at about 94%–95% and described local strategies — incentives, home visits and targeted family outreach — credited with improving attendance post‑pandemic.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":50,"_51":92,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":93,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":94,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6458146,"Board debates faster legislative tracking; members say local voice may beat JLC timelines",628,1260050,1889000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5823568-7f69bcac6dca7d13ccaddfb4ec2fe960&start=1260&end=1889","/articles/6458146/Utah/Board-debates-faster-legislative-tracking-members-say-local-voice-may-beat-JLC-timelines","Board members and staff discussed the district’s legislative strategy at the Sept. 22 work session, with several members urging faster, more direct communication to local legislators on bills affecting the district.

Board members described recent experience in which the JLC process moved too slowly to influence committee action in the opening weeks of the session. One board member said the legislature often advances many bills in the first week and that waiting until the JLC agenda on Thursday or Friday can be “behind the game.”

Staff and board members proposed an internal alert system to notify board leadership and relevant staff when bills of interest are introduced. The district identified a staffer, Joby, who monitors bills closely; the board discussed whether additional staffed support could provide earlier alerts so the district could engage with legislators before a bill reaches committee.

Discussion included the tradeoff of acting before JLC takes a position. Board members noted that early outreach could put the district out of sync with JLC, but several said the board’s local, collective voice may carry weight with regional legislators and could be faster than relying solely on the JLC timeline.

Members outlined a practical plan: identify bills of interest by mid‑week, have a staff reader summarize bills for board leadership, and send “point papers” to legislators early in the week so the district’s concerns can be voiced before committee action. No formal change to the district’s legislative policy was adopted; members asked staff to return in October with a proposed communication plan and suggested board representation at early legislative meetings when schedules allow.","Board members discussed their approach to tracking bills during the Utah legislative session, recommending more rapid local notification of bills of local concern rather than waiting for the Joint Legislative Council (JLC) process that can be slow.",{"_33":96,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":97,"_41":98,"_43":99,"_45":100,"_47":101,"_49":50,"_51":102,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":103,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":104,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6458132,"Board approves framework to fund capital projects; Pine View auditorium and Fine Arts wing among priorities",1700,4810675,6511000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5823568-7f69bcac6dca7d13ccaddfb4ec2fe960&start=4810&end=6511","/articles/6458132/Utah/Board-approves-framework-to-fund-capital-projects-Pine-View-auditorium-and-Fine-Arts-wing-among-priorities","The Washington County School District board voted to approve the capital‑projects funding framework discussed at the Sept. 22 work session, clearing the way for staff to begin planning and bidding on a multi‑year list of facility projects.

Superintendent and staff presenters outlined prioritized projects including Pine View High School auditorium repairs and a Fine Arts wing, classroom and circulation upgrades at several elementary and middle schools, Water Canyon High classroom additions, and parking and circulation improvements at multiple high schools. Staff said work would begin out of the district’s operating fund (Fund 10) and then be moved into the district’s capital levy fund (Fund 32) as the 2026–27 levy and budget are finalized.

Board members discussed specific items the packet lists for design and repair: Pine View High School auditorium issues (including a newly reported wet spot in the auditorium subfloor), building refreshes for older elementary schools, a possible press box replacement at a stadium, a proposed Water Canyon commons and classroom expansion, and multiple bus‑relief and parking projects.

The board held a public hearing for the capital projects and no members of the public spoke. A motion to approve the capital project funding framework carried by voice vote; the board chair said the motion was made by Member St. Miller and seconded by Member Wade and that the motion carried after an aye vote. The board also approved a set of LEA‑specific license items for two staff members so they could qualify for teacher salary supplements and supplies tied to state reporting. A subsequent motion to go into closed session carried by voice vote (moved by Member Hammers; seconded by Member Collins).

Staff emphasized that project‑by‑project bids and contracts will return to the board for approval; the vote taken at the meeting freed the budget framework so planning and design work can commence.","The board approved a framework to free capital funds for a multi‑year slate of facility projects, with staff to bid and return for individual project approvals. The vote to authorize the capital project funding framework passed by voice vote.",{"_33":106,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":107,"_41":108,"_43":109,"_45":110,"_47":111,"_49":50,"_51":112,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":113,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":114,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6458135,"Board discusses boundary change proposals as rapid housing growth pressures Desert Canyons Elementary",1007,3766674,4774000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5823568-7f69bcac6dca7d13ccaddfb4ec2fe960&start=3766&end=4774","/articles/6458135/Utah/Board-discusses-boundary-change-proposals-as-rapid-housing-growth-pressures-Desert-Canyons-Elementary","District staff told the board Desert Canyons Elementary is approaching capacity (about 740 students) and recommended initiating a boundary change process to prevent overcrowding next year.

Staff presented one near‑term proposal to move the portion of the Desert Color subdivision that currently sends about 45–50 students to Desert Canyons over to Bloomington Elementary, which would reduce Desert Canyons’ projected enrollment and free two to three classrooms for the following year. Staff said Bloomington would be at an estimated ~515 students after that move.

The board discussed other candidate adjustments, including moving parts of the White Dome Drive area to Bloomington or Little Valley elementary schools; White Dome and adjacent parcels have several planned residential developments that could produce several hundred housing units across a 3–5 year horizon. Staff emphasized the tradeoff between immediate relief (moving a small area now) and how multiple near‑term adjustments could require additional boundary changes as new subdivisions build out.

Board members asked that staff present a few concrete proposals at the next board meeting: one smaller adjustment limited to Desert Color to buy a year of relief, and at least one broader plan that accounts for projected multi‑year residential growth (including areas east and northeast of White Dome Drive and the planned 3,000 roadway corridor). Staff proposed holding a parent meeting in mid‑October, accepting public comment in November and a public hearing and vote in December if the board elects to proceed.

No boundary changes were adopted at the meeting; the board directed staff to prepare formal proposals and community outreach materials for upcoming meetings.","District staff proposed a boundary adjustment — starting by moving Desert Color subdivision students — to relieve overcrowding at Desert Canyons Elementary and to manage projected growth along White Dome Drive and nearby development sites.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Washington County discusses limits, placement process for J‑1 exchange students

Washington County reports near‑95% average daily attendance; board hears strategies to sustain gains

Board debates faster legislative tracking; members say local voice may beat JLC timelines

Board approves framework to fund capital projects; Pine View auditorium and Fine Arts wing among priorities

Board discusses boundary change proposals as rapid housing growth pressures Desert Canyons Elementary