Population and Boundary Study FAQ

We love our schools, teachers, and staff and know they are some of the best educators in the country. Yet the student population of the Salt Lake City School District is declining. The district’s elementary school enrollment has dropped nearly 30% over the last eight years, from 12,431 students in 2014 to 9,602 students in October 2022. This has left many elementary schools with populations that are too small.  

We are committed to providing our students with access to high-quality academic programs and other opportunities that will develop their full potential. To honor this commitment, we are looking at “right-sizing” our elementary schools to create the best learning design and educational environment for our students.  

A right-sized elementary school aims to provide three teachers per grade level, full- day kindergarten classes, and possibly PreK classes to meet the needs of neighborhood families. This enables schools to provide a variety of options for students at each grade level and increases opportunities for teachers to collaborate to support and enrich student learning in each grade. Our aim is to make the best decisions possible to serve the academic needs of our students and to meet our financial responsibilities. 

The closure of schools will not necessarily result in increased class sizes for students. Schools receive the vast majority of their funding based on the number of students enrolled. Closing a school does not mean the district will lose students. They will be assigned to a new school through a boundary adjustment process. The number of teachers is likely to remain close to current numbers, because the total number of students will theoretically remain the same.  

A decision to close a school is not a negative reflection on the teachers and staff in that school. We have many exceptional employees in every school who are doing incredible work as they serve our students and families. The district will strive to retain our valued employees should any long- term closure occur.

From the instructional standpoint, right-sizing our elementary schools will increase collaboration opportunities for teachers during professional learning and minimize teachers having to teach unintentional split-age/grade classes and having to change grade levels as often. It will also allow schools to more efficiently support educators within the building to improve student outcomes. If an elementary school is closed, the district will work to smoothly transition teachers and staff to other elementary schools in the district while minimizing the need to eliminate positions. With any closure, teachers and some staff would move to different schools. Likewise, school administrators may be moved to different schools. Like every school district, each year employees make decisions to leave the district for a variety of reasons, including to enjoy retirement or to pursue other opportunities. This regularly occurring movement will also assist the district in potentially avoiding any involuntary reductions in force.

Our goal in right-sizing our elementary schools is to provide students with a vibrant and academically robust educational environment in which they can access an increased number of programs and educational opportunities. If our elementary schools are right-sized, the district can fully implement academic and extracurricular models that reflect best teaching practices to better serve our students and improve their educational experience. We want to maintain schools at a size that will support students in having excellent resources, including library books, field trips, and other activities that are funded on enrollment.

We strive to provide all students with a high-quality education, no matter which District elementary school they attend. The district will work with parents, students, educators, and leaders to create transition teams that will work to facilitate the creation of new school communities. This may include scheduling activities and events aimed at easing the relocation of students, teachers, and staff to new schools. We will start transition activities before the end of the current school year so that all stakeholders can increase their level of comfort with any necessary moves. The district’s goal is to ensure that families and students feel welcome, included, and valued in every educational setting, especially in their school.

The main goal for engaging in the school closure and boundary realignment process is to make sure every student in the district has a high-quality education and access to a wide variety of educational programs and learning options. Our hope is that by right-sizing our schools, we can provide a higher quality education to students at all our elementary schools. With an average of three teachers per grade level, teachers will be able to increase their collaboration and professional learning opportunities, leading to better outcomes for students. Right-sized elementary schools may also give students access to additional district resources and opportunities they do not have in their current neighborhood school.

Equity is a critical part of this process. We want our students to have choices within their grade level. We want their teachers to have opportunities for collaboration, which will enhance the quality of our students’ education. We want students to have broader access to special district programs (like Magnet (ELP) programs or Dual Language Immersion programs), no matter where in the city they go to school. In the Salt Lake City School District, we strive for excellence and equity: every student, every classroom, every day. Right now, we’re not meeting that standard. Right-sizing our schools is an important step in helping us come closer to achieving this vision.

In further studying schools, the district will again consider the factors named in the G-5: Administrative Proceduresand will be guided by the district’s commitments.

First, the district has grouped the considerations into five primary categories that represent critical principles that will guide the development of recommendations to the Board. The five categories are: 

• Student enrollment and residential population
• Proximity and availability of neighborhood schools
• Building and learning environment quality
• Strategic placement of district-wide programs for equitable access
• Community input and stakeholder feedback

Second, the district will compile and evaluate additional data related to each of the categories. 

Third, the district will evaluate the implications of closing the schools recommended for further study. For example, the district will consider whether there is a large enough neighborhood population of students in the surrounding area to support a school at a right-size in the range of 400 to 550 students. As another example, the district will assess if there are alternative neighborhood schools that students can walk to and from safely. If a number of issues related to closure cannot be overcome, the school may not be recommended for closure. 

Ultimately, in evaluating the five categories above, the district will take a holistic approach to determine which schools to recommend for closure. Through this approach, we will balance needs across the district to best serve our students.

The four quadrants that were presented in earlier board meetings provided a simple way to show the need for a boundary and planning study to be undertaken on a districtwide basis. Using the quadrants showed that every area of the city was affected by declining enrollment. As the board approved the study of all 27 elementary schools, every area of the district was equally considered in this process. 

The reconfiguration of our elementary schools, including our K-8 school, is not part of the currently approved boundary and planning study, because those decisions would likely affect middle school boundaries that were not approved by the Board for study in February of 2023. By way of reminder, on February 7, 2023, the Board approved the study of all district elementary schools for potential long-term school closure or boundary adjustment.

The district has a detailed and lengthy process that it is using to determine which, if any, schools should be recommended for closure. The complete process is outlined in the district’s G-5: Administrative Procedures, District Reconfigurations & Long-Term School Closures (click to read in English or Spanish). The district has also created an infographic that shows the timeline and where the district is in the process; the infographic can be viewed here. This process takes place over a period of two school years, with implementation of any changes happening at the earliest in the third school year. Here is a summary of the timeline:

• July 2022-February 2023
  District leadership reviewed data and presented information to the Board for consideration.
• February 2023
  Board approved recommendation to study all elementary schools for potential boundary change or closure.
• March-May 2023
  The Boundary Options Committee was convened. Assigned staff met with impacted principals and School Community Council (SCC) chairs to generate a core set of options for the Options Committee to consider.
• May-June 2023
  Boundary Options Committee studied core options to generate a list of viable options. Viable options were presented to the impacted school principals and SCC chairs for their comment before being presented to the Board in July.
• July 2023
  The Boundary Options Committee reported its recommendation of viable options to the Board and shared comments from impacted schools.
• August 2023
  The Board determines whether to approve the recommended options for further study. City leaders and parents of students who attend any potentially impacted schools are notified of any approved recommendations.
• September-October 2023
  Approved recommended options may be presented at public information sessions in September and October. All public comments will be gathered and analyzed.
• November 2023
  Two public comment periods would be held during November board meetings. The Director of Boundaries and Planning will provide feedback to the Board from any public information sessions.
• December 2023-January 2024
  The Board holds a public hearing, and the recommended options are placed on a Board discussion agenda. If the Board takes action, final options are placed on the action agenda for the NEXT board meeting. Approved changes, reconfigurations, or long-term losures are implemented on a timeline specific to the needs of the affected schools and communities.
• As stated in the timeline above, if the Board approves the recommended list of viable options for further study, the district will begin providing notice to all affected families, as well as to specific community leaders, and scheduling numerous opportunities to gather input from the community. Stakeholders will have opportunities to speak at meetings held in the community, to address the Board in official board meetings, and/or to provide written comments for the Board and district to consider. After months of further study and gathering community input, the district will make a final recommendation to the Board of which, if any, schools to close and which school boundaries to adjust. The Board may make the final decision on whether to close any schools and/or adjust any school boundaries in an open board meeting in either December 2023 or January 2024.

When the Boundary Options Committee studied all 27 elementary schools and then made a recommendation to the Board of Education, they were not told that certain areas of the city should be targeted or ignored. Their charge was to study all 27 elementary schools.  

The committee based their review of all 27 elementary schools on the 12 criteria outlined in the G-5: Administrative Procedures (more detailed definitions of each of the 12 criteria are available in the G-5: Administrative Procedures – section I-B-1a): 

• School enrollment data  
• Facility capacity and design  
• School feeder patterns  
• Federal, state, or court mandates 
• Demographics 
• Community input 
• Student safety 
• Transportation 
• Geographic features of the district 
• Special programs 
• Financial implications 
• Student educational opportunities and academic performance 

These 12 criteria were then placed into four categories: safe, reasonable, simple, and cost-effective. The spreadsheet linked here shows how the categories and criteria were set up. The Boundary Options Committee was split into teams and each team carefully considered and gave a score to each school under each of the four categories (safe, reasonable, simple, cost-effective). They scored each category from 1-4 and added up the four categories for each school. That means the highest any school could have scored was 16. Then, the four team scores were compiled to find an average score for each school.  

The box in the far-right column of the spreadsheet has five numbers: the first four numbers represent the total score that the school received from each boundary options committee team. After further discussion and validation, those scores were averaged to come up with the final overall score – the fifth number.   

The Boundary Options Committee noticed a distinct gap in the scores of one group of 20 schools compared to the remaining seven schools, which had a total average score below 10. The seven schools with the lowest scores were recommended for further study, regardless of their location within the district. 

No, the district has not set forth any minimum or maximum student enrollment numbers for elementary schools. The district is focusing on right-sizing our elementary schools, which includes providing approximately three teachers per grade level. This will allow us to provide more educational opportunities to students across the district. Additionally, because of the different sizes of our elementary schools and the specific needs of each school’s various programs, a rigid minimum or maximum student enrollment simply isn’t practical.

The district had specified numerous considerations and criteria for the district to consider before making any recommendation to close a school. The list of required considerations included (in no particular order of importance):

• school enrollment data,
• facility capacity and design,
• school feeder patterns,
• demographics,
• community input,
• student safety,
• transportation,
• geographic features,
• special programs,
• financial implications,
• student educational opportunities and academic performance,
• special program facilities,
• environmental factors, school designations, and
• community and neighborhood identity.

The district also focused on “safe, reasonable, simple, and cost-effective" criteria to determine which schools should be further studied for potential long-term closure and potential boundary adjustment.

Former Interim Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Martin Bates, appointed 13 district employees to serve on the boundary options committee. The chosen administrators came from a variety of departments including School Leadership and Performance, Teaching and Learning, Special Education and 504, Educational Equity and Student Success, Transportation, Auxiliary Services, Early Childhood, Information Technology, and Budgeting Development and Control. More than half of these committee members have been teachers and more than half have also been building administrators. Each member brought their expertise and unique perspective that enhanced the committee's ability to make a well-reasoned, data-driven recommendation to the Board.

the committee conducted a comprehensive evaluation process based on data reflecting the considerations required by the district’s administrative procedures and input from the community. The committee then analyzed school enrollment data, facility capacity and design, school feeder patterns, demographics, community input, student safety, transportation, geographic features, special programs, financial implications, student educational opportunities and academic performance, special program facilities, environmental factors, school designations, and community and neighborhood identity.

For example, in considering “facility capacity and design,” the physical condition and age of each school building were evaluated. While all district schools are safe and well-maintained, schools with known infrastructure challenges were typically deemed to be worthy of further study. In keeping with the Board’s sustainability resolution, the current and future energy footprint of each campus was also a point of discussion.

The potential consequences of school closures on the surrounding community, including access to extracurricular activities and support services, were also considered. The committee received significant information regarding the potential community impacts from the extensive stakeholder feedback that was shared at school community council meetings, community meetings, and online. Although each school community has concerns about losing resources and programs offered at their current school, programs can and would be relocated in the event of a school closure, and the district is committed to ensuring that any closure decision will not remove access to resources and programs from any given community.

In considering these and other factors, the committee focused on creating a list of viable core options that reflect the direction of the Board to ensure that the choices presented will be safe, reasonable, simple, and cost-effective. According to the committee's evaluation of data and community input, the schools on the list for further study are viable options for school closure.

The committee engaged in a data-driven process to evaluate the characteristics of each school in order to determine how to best right-size the district’s elementary schools. The committee met over the course of several weeks to review an abundance of data and discuss the characteristics of each elementary school. Part of the committee’s process included looking at the considerations outlined in the G-5: Administrative Procedures. and data that support each consideration. After hours of analysis and conversation, members of the committee were assigned to one of four teams. Each team rated every school based on four criteria: safe, reasonable, simple, and cost-effective. They then worked collectively, as a whole committee, to determine the validity of each team’s ratings and talk through the specific characteristics and scoring for each school.

The spreadsheet (linked here), including the rankings, contains some of the informational items for the committee’s consideration, rather than specific items to be scored. For example, each elementary school’s feeder pattern is listed on the spreadsheet but was not used to either increase or decrease a school’s score. The number included in the transportation column represents the number of bus routes currently scheduled for that school, but this number was not used to determine a “high” or “low” rating. The “financial implications” column represents the per pupil spending at that school. The per pupil spending figure varies greatly depending on whether the school is a Title I school (receiving additional Federal funding) or non-Title I school, and, because of that fact, this was an information item for the committee, as opposed to a factor to be weighed.

While the committee looked at a wide variety of data and used their individual and collective expertise and knowledge of the district to evaluate this data, the attached spreadsheet was used to document the committee’s final score for each school from each of the four teams. Each box in the far-right column has five numbers: the first four numbers represent the total score that the school received from each boundary options committee team. After further discussion and validation, those scores were averaged to come up with the final overall score – the fifth number.  For example, the first school listed on the spreadsheet is Backman – the last column shows “13, 12, 12, 13 = 12.5.” This means one team scored Backman a 13, another scored it a 12, yet a third team scored it a 12, and the fourth team scored it a 13; those scores were then averaged to come up with a final score of 12.5.

The seven scores highlighted in yellow in the far right-hand column on each page are the schools that received the lowest combined scores in the four areas and were therefore recommended for further study for potential long-term school closure.  While the G-5: Administrative Procedures required the committee to make a recommendation based on the four criteria above, which it did, there were many factors and considerations that went into the committee’s recommendation. In the end, the committee took a holistic approach to scoring schools as they recognized, as does the district, that a school is more than simply facts or figures on a spreadsheet.

School enrollment data is just one of the 12 factors considered in the recommendation to study these seven schools for potential closure. Many other factors were also taken into account. 

When the district talks about “right-sizing” schools, research shows that ideally, each elementary school should be able to support about three classrooms per grade level based on their neighborhood enrollment. This means we need to differentiate between neighborhood enrollment vs. enrollment due to district special programs. 

For example, a school may have 200 students enrolled who reside in the neighborhood, but overall enrollment may be 320 because a district program at the school brings in students from other areas of the city. Both levels of enrollment were taken into consideration, but the process of “right sizing” is focused on the neighborhood enrollment.  

If a school with a DISTRICT special program were to close, the program would be moved to a different school so that students would continue to have access to that educational program. 

District programs such as the Extended Learning Program or Dual Language Immersion will not be eliminated if the school where that program resides is closed. The Board and district will carefully consider placement options for that program and determine which school would be the best choice for its new location.  

The district will ensure that all students receiving special education services through an IEP or accommodations through a 504 Plan continue to receive their services without interruption. If a student is receiving services at a school that the Board determines to close the following year, the student’s IEP or 504 team will meet before the conclusion of the 2023-2024 school year to discuss with the parents/guardians and/or the student where services will be provided in the 2024-2025 school year and how any transportation needs will be met. No services will be discontinued or not provided due to any decision to close a school. All needed and agreed-upon services will be provided at the new location. IEP teams will also be encouraged to outline any additional services that individual students may need in order to ensure the transition to the new location is as easy as possible for our neurodiverse students.

In proposing any boundary adjustments, the district will focus on student safety by studying safe walking and biking routes, avoiding major thoroughfare and highway crossings, and recognizing naturally occurring geographic barriers. The district also recognizes that a school closure could result in increased busing needs for some of our students and families. The district’s transportation department will play a vital role in ensuring that the transportation needs of our students are met as a result of any boundary adjustment or long-term school closure.

K-6 students who live more than one and a half (1.5) miles from their boundary school are provided district-sponsored transportation to and from school. While the district strives to limit the amount of time any student spends on a bus, there are no specific rules or laws outlining the maximum bus ride for general education students. For students receiving special education services, who have transportation included as a related service on their Individualized Education Program (IEP), the district will make every effort to ensure their bus rides to and from school do not exceed 30 minutes each way.

In addition to district-sponsored busing, the district also provides free UTA bus passes to all its students, including elementary students. The district is proud to support the use of public transportation while also recognizing its obligation to provide district-sponsored transportation to eligible students.

It might, but our goal as we consider school closures and boundary adjustments is to make sure we can provide students with opportunities to safely get to school. As we continue to study the seven schools for potential closure, we are also studying the other 20 schools for possible boundary adjustments. In proposing any boundary adjustments, the district will consider student safety by studying safe walking and biking routes, avoiding major thoroughfare and highway crossings, and recognizing naturally occurring geographic barriers. 

It is possible that a school closure may result in some students needing to be bused who were not bused before, but we will work to minimize student travel time as one of the factors under consideration throughout this process. 

As part of the district’s boundary and planning study, the district will analyze what adjustments need to be made to neighboring school boundaries should any elementary school be closed. The district’s goal would be to ensure boundaries are adjusted in a manner that makes sense for families, communities, and schools. The district recognizes that any decision to close a school may result in uncertainty and stress for impacted families, however, we would work to build new welcoming school communities based on mutual trust, respect, and appreciation. If any school is closed, the district would immediately begin creating transition teams and scheduling joint social and learning activities to make any necessary transitions as smooth as possible. Our goal is always to ensure that families and students feel welcome, included, and valued in every educational setting.

While this is a valid concern, right now the district is focused on ensuring we follow our process and state law in making the best decision as to which schools, if any, to recommend for long-term closure. If, in December of 2023 or January of 2024, the Board votes to close any school(s), the district will begin to evaluate how to best repurpose the buildings or utilize the sites. In making those decisions, the district will solicit community input and leverage business and community partnerships to ensure that neighborhoods are not blighted by vacant buildings. The district’s intent is to support the community in creating new needed experiences or resources. Many school districts across the country have struggled with these issues, and the district is committed to learn from their experiences and challenges.

Consolidating schools has been shown to have a positive impact on extracurricular activities and after-school programs which can flourish because of increased participation and funding. The district’s main goal in right-sizing its elementary schools is to provide a better overall educational experience for students, and that includes in its extracurricular and after-school offerings.

There are no current plans to open new schools or expand existing elementary schools. Current enrollment projections indicate that should the district right-size its elementary schools, the existing elementary schools will have sufficient capacity to accommodate our student population while providing space for any future growth.