WASHINGTON COUNTY, Utah

Washington County School District officials spent the Nov. 11 working session focused on enrollment data and a proposed boundary change intended to ease overcrowding at Crimson Cliffs and send students to Pine View. District enrollment director Sherry clarified how the district interprets state open enrollment rules and how those differ from local boundary waivers, saying open‑enrolled students “shall be permitted to remain in that feeder system unless revoked by the principal in accordance with section 3.2.4.”

The board reviewed staff counts and program impacts. Staff told the board that Crimson Cliffs Middle currently shows about 53 incoming students from other areas but only five of those were admitted on local boundary waivers; the remainder entered through open enrollment. Staff also noted that a 234 out‑of‑boundary figure tied to Pine View High includes students attending CT High and program transfers. Sherry outlined dual‑immersion program movement, citing roughly 32 high‑school, 55 middle‑school and 35 intermediate students who attend out of cone site for immersion programs.

Board members discussed two main options: adopt a boundary change now (Proposal 1 would move areas north of Down Road in Leeds into Pine View's cone) or pursue a policy change that would shorten the district's point‑of‑entry protections so the boundary change would take effect sooner for affected grade levels. Several board members urged faster relief for Pine View; others warned that changing the district's policy midprocess could appear reactionary and risk large community backlash. One board member said an immediate boundary change plus a visible improvement plan for Pine View (facility refresh, leadership changes and program expansion) could shift perceptions and produce quicker enrollment movement.

The meeting included concerns about athletics and eligibility when students shift schools, and about community messaging after parents reported strong feelings at public meetings. Board members also flagged isolated instances of inappropriate language used at a parent meeting and said district leaders must address school climate and reputation as part of any boundary work.

District staff recommended legal review before changing policy language, noting statutory limits and exceptions (for example, Department of Child and Family Services cases and documented safety hardships). The transcript provided ends during discussion; no formal motion or roll‑call vote on the boundary proposal appears in the provided text. The board signaled it would continue refining numbers and options and expects further discussion at upcoming meetings before taking formal action.

What happens next: Staff will continue to refine the enrollment breakdowns, legal counsel will be consulted on open‑enrollment interpretation and any policy change, and the boundary proposal remains on the board's agenda for follow‑up consideration.