The family resides in the Cedar Rapids where Harry attended kindergarten during the 1993-94 school year. Mr. Brandt is on call 24 hours a day and has an unpredictable schedule. Often he has to work quite late.The change in circumstance which gave rise to the application for open enrollment occurred on May 4, 1994. At that time, Ms. Brandt received approval of the small business loan which enabled her to open her shop in Central City. She operates a fabric and sewing machine business in a building her family has owned for years. Her business is open six days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. She teaches classes in the evening and is often working the same time her husband is gone.

Ms. Brandt's mother lives in Central City 2 1/2 blocks from the elementary school. Ms. Brandt's business is located only 3 1/2 blocks from the Central City school. Since day care is not available in Cedar Rapids as late as it would be required by the parents, the best alternative was to send Harry to the Central City schools where his mother is close by and his grandmother can provide evening day care. Ms. Brandt feels that the Central City school provides a better classroom environment because the class size is much smaller than that in the Cedar Rapids' attendance area.

Appellants' open enrollment application had two problems to overcome: (1) the fact it was filed late; and (2) the fact that as a nonminority student, Harry's departure from the Johnson attendance center in Cedar Rapids would have an adverse effect on the District's desegregation plan. The open enrollment application was not denied for being late without "good cause". The application was denied because of its adverse effect on the District desegregation plan. On appeal, Appel-lant's position is that the District's decision is based solely on race and is therefore discriminatory.Since the 1970s, the District has been operating under a voluntary desegregation plan after it was found to be out of compliance with state-monitored race equity guidelines. The voluntary plan addresses open enrollment applications for trans-fers within as well as statutory open enrollment out of the District. It is based upon the State guidelines establishing that a school district is in violation of desegregation efforts if a school building's racial composition exceeds the district's minority student population plus 20 percent.Appellant's principal argument is that the Board's policy is racially discriminatory and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The District Board Policy and Procedure 602.5 and 602.5a were adopted in June, 1989. Mr. Evans testi-fiedthat the policy had not been changed since that time up to its application to Appellant's open enrollment request. Consequent-ly, we take official notice of the facts and conclu-sions found in In re Anthony, Daniela and Jessica Ausborn, 8 D.o.E. App. Dec. 243 (1991) and In re William Croskrey, Craig and Jan Croskrey, Appellants v. Cedar Rapids Comm. Sch. Dist., Appellee, 10 D.o.E. App. Dec. 323, which uphold the District's policy and procedures.

Finding no basis in law or fact in which to overturn the Board, the decision to deny Appellant's application for open enrollment for Phillip Brandt was affirmed.