Child after child, most of them in elementary or middle school, approached the podium and spoke in support of Wasatch County School District’s proposed boundaries for the 2026-27 school year.
Outspoken Tesla Cottle thanked the school board for listening to her complaints from the previous board meeting and informed them they’d done a “good job.”
Soft-spoken Maxine Wilkinson said she would feel safer riding her bike to school without having to cross Main Street.
Brigham Heywood was just happy that he’ll get to sleep in.
“I live kind of far away from my school already, and I have to take the bus there. And if I went to Rocky (Mountain Middle School), I’d have to go even farther,” he said. “I don’t want to do that because then I’d have to wake up way more early.”
The boundary approved by the school board during the Nov. 5 special session uses Highway 40 as a natural boundary, branching off eastward near Coyote Canyon Parkway. Students on the west side will go to Rocky Mountain Middle School and the new Deer Creek High School, while students on the east side will go to Timpanogos Middle School and Wasatch High School. The jagged boundary line is the product of precise attention to keeping neighborhoods together as much as possible.
Although the splitting of students at the J.R. Smith and Daniels Canyon elementary schools was a concern raised in the previous Oct. 28 public hearing, the two elementary schools will remain split.
Parent Tiffany Jones said she takes no issue with this. She’s observed her children’s friend groups change entirely during middle school and believes elementary schools feeding into the same middle schools shouldn’t be prioritized over the board’s litany of other concerns.
Of the 21 public comments made, 18 were in favor of the final boundaries.
Erin Sabey was one of many parents who, regardless of their feelings about the boundaries, complimented the school board’s handling of the decision over the past six months.
“As I watched the special meeting last week, I was so grateful for leaders who are able to see things differently, have a variety of communication styles and can disagree without being disagreeable. … This is the kind of leadership I want my children to see and the kind of leaders I want them to become,” she said. “We voted you fine people to represent us. Now it’s our turn to listen to what you represent and support your decision.”
Opponents of the final boundaries advocated for the previously proposed Scenario B, which divides students between middle and high schools based on the elementary school they attend, not their geographic location.
These opponents included board members Breanne Dedrickson and Brad Ehlert, the two “no” votes against the three who voted in favor of the new boundaries.
Dedrickson had concerns about equity between the middle and high schools.
“It’s the option that has the greatest disparity in the numbers for free and reduced lunch, and that is concerning to me,” she said.
Ehlert echoed Dedrickson’s concerns and the fact that the two elementary schools will be split. He encouraged the board to look at reorganizing elementary school boundaries as soon as possible.
Although it was a close vote, it was far from contentious. The board’s message was unity — both in their final decision and within the valley as they add a second high school after over a century of just having one.
“Our kids are here watching today: the way we act, what we say, how we treat each other,” said Kim Dickerson, board president. “Moving forward, I hope that our community can come together and be good examples for our kids and be united in purpose.”
Despite voting yes, board vice president Cory Holmes said he felt “depressed.”
“I don’t think I’ve slept more than about three or four hours in the last week,” he continued. “I know we’ve affected some of your lives, and you feel like they’ve been turned upside down now. But I think the way you message this to your kids is going to be really impactful.”
Board member Jake Collett added that “the decision made was because a decision had to be made.”
The board members at the end of the meeting expressed gratitudes: for everyone who has worked tirelessly to research the issue from all angles, for residents who voiced their concerns with respect and for their fellow board members for being able to engage in thoughtful and civil debate.
“When board members advocate for those who live in their area very strongly, and we have robust discussions, that is not a board member bullying us. That is not a board member trying to manipulate us or coerce us into a decision,” Ehlert said. “I voted the same way as (Dedrickson) did tonight. If you watch the meetings, in the first one, I was on the other side of the table as her. … That’s what discussion does.”
Superintendent Garrick Peterson was one of many who choked up as he delivered his final comments.
“This is the best process I’ve ever gone through in doing one of these. Not that it was easy, because I’ve been in easier ones. … But as far as the way that people treated each other, expressed their opinions, worked together? Best process I’ve ever been a part of,” he said. “I’ve thought several times, ‘This is why we moved here — to be around people like this.”