The Granite School District School Board faces a critical decision, the consequences of which will be felt by families and neighborhoods for generations to come. The district has recommended the closure of Holladay’s Morningside Elementary and splitting its three academic tracks — and its families — across different schools.
Why should all Utah taxpayers care about school closures? Because closing a successful school that can compete with charter and private schools is throwing good tax dollars after bad strategy. Each student lost to charter schools takes unregulated tax dollars with them. Instead of learning from what makes Morningside work, GSD is eliminating it — ensuring more families leave and more closures follow in neighborhoods across the state.
Charter schools have experienced a growth rate of 620% in 25 years, with an astronomical enrollment rate increase of more than 2,000%. The result is a steady increase in public school closures throughout the state, impacting families, communities and quality of education in a state that doesn’t properly prioritize funding and resources for education. Now Granite School District, seemingly unable to stop the mass exodus to charter schools, is creating space for more competition to grow — this time by dismantling a top 5 elementary school.
The board should pause this proposal and complete a comprehensive study. Morningside families are pragmatic and understand changes are needed, but these changes must be grounded in data, led by consistent standards and aimed at improving the entire area’s future. The current timeline and process cannot deliver the thoughtful, data-driven planning our children deserve.
Untenable timeline
Parents choose Morningside specifically for the multiple tracks it offers. In many ways it serves as the answer to charter and private school options, housed in a top-rated public school that outperforms both district and state averages in academics. Families who see Morningside as a “whole-family” school have children in multiple tracks: Traditional, Advanced Learning Center (ALC) and French Dual Language Immersion (DLI).
For the families with children in multiple tracks, closing Morningside means either splitting their children among different schools or prioritizing one child’s needs over another’s.
The timing couldn’t be worse. Many Morningside parents are now anticipating seeking open enrollment permits at other schools two weeks before the PAC’s proposal is finalized on Dec. 2. On Oct. 7, the PAC told the School Board it would review its proposal with a tentative update on Oct. 21. The PAC is asking parents to make life-altering decisions without a concrete plan.
This compressed timeline prevents the district from developing the detailed implementation plan families need. Critical questions remain unanswered: How will special education services function at a small DLI magnet school? How many students are on the waitlist to join a DLI magnet? Where will the ALC students be for the 2026-2027 school year?
In closing an elementary school with many unique families and programs, the PAC and board need to acknowledge that fewer than 10 months is insufficient to offer a finalized proposal that avoids harm to the community and our children.
Data doesn’t support selective closure
The district says we’re here because school populations are declining. Morningside is different. As a Blue Ribbon nominee, Morningside has a strong academic reputation with diverse options that attract families from all over the district. Additionally, Morningside has seen a 10% rise in in-boundary enrollment since 2022.
If the sole criterion was the decline of traditional “track” enrollment, the proposal’s logic breaks down quickly. Morningside’s 52% traditional in-boundary enrollment rate is comparable to fellow Area 5 DLI school William Penn’s 55%.
The logical disconnect doesn’t end there. Both schools use split classes to manage enrollment challenges. The difference? The PAC recommends closing one and keeping the other open with no clear reason why.
The PAC suggests that successful schools support 500-550 students at about 90% building capacity, with a heavy emphasis on in-boundary traditional students and no split-grade classes. Morningside’s total enrollment tells a success story: nearly 90% full, with stable enrollment, while other Area 5 schools saw as much as double-digit enrollment declines.
These numbers describe a competitive school, not a failing one. Morningside isn’t a case study for closure. It’s a case study to be replicated.
Competition, not population
An analysis of enrollment data reveals the real issue: an estimated 35% of current Skyline High School students didn’t attend their local public elementary school. Granite District is hemorrhaging public school elementary students.
Competitor schools within a 14-minute drive enroll 8,760 students — 69% more than all Skyline network schools combined. Lower in-boundary enrollment at Morningside (32%), Oakridge (33%) and Eastwood (28%) isn’t evidence that families have disappeared. It’s evidence that families exercise choice when they have it.
Closing Morningside concedes this competitive battle. Private and charter schools thrive by offering comprehensive solutions: multiple learning tracks, programs for diverse needs and strong extracurriculars under one roof. It’s baffling that the PAC is recommending removing the school that offers the most comparable whole-family school option in the district.
Children deserve a thoughtful process
Area 5 families aren’t asking the board to do nothing and accept the status quo, and we’re grateful for the board’s efforts. These are not easy problems to solve, and hard decisions must be made.
However, rushing to approve a proposal that doesn’t answer the greater challenges the east side will continue to face isn’t the way. It will exchange one set of problems for another: future closures at other Area 5 schools, displaced families, legal challenges over special education access, further erosion of public school enrollment as frustrated families choose other options, and a weakened competitive position in the very market segment where Granite School District currently has an advantage.
The board’s legacy should be a thoughtful, data-driven restructuring that positions Area 5 schools for long-term success — not a hasty decision made under artificial time pressure.
Pause this proposal. Give it the time, transparency and comprehensive analysis it deserves. Our children’s education is worth getting this right, not just getting it done.