In November 1995, Appellant and her daughters moved to the North Linn Community School District. The girls had a difficult time adjusting to the new school district and were "harassed" by other girls in the school. In the Spring or Summer of 1997, Ms. Shaffer decided to open enroll her daughters back to Central City. She called Central City to inquire about this possibility and was advised that she had missed the January 1 open enrollment deadline for the 1997-1998 school year. However, she was advised to request open enrollment for the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Shaffer called the North Linn District and requested the open enrollment forms and was sent open enrollment forms for the 1997-1998 school year. She filled these out believing that everything would be okay. Because the District Board considered Ms. Shaffer's requests late, her applications for open enrollment were denied on August 21, 1997. The Board determined they were filed after the January 1 deadline, and there was no good cause for the late applications. Ms. Shaffer testified that she never received the letter informing her of this fact. When she inquired in February of 1998, she was told her application had been denied the previous August. She explained that she wanted to apply for the 1998-1999 school year and asked for the appropriate open enrollment forms. Ms. Shaffer was put on the agenda for the March 19, 1998, board meeting, but she did not attend.

The Board considered her applications at its meeting and denied them on the grounds that they had been filed past the January 1 deadline for the 1998-1999 school year.Since the circumstances of her case did not meet the criteria for granting an exception to the open enrollment deadline, there was no basis for the State Board of Education to exercise its subsection (18) authority. The superintendent and the District Board had no way of knowing that by filing an application for open enrollment on the 1997-1998 form, Ms. Shaffer was actually applying for the 1998-1999 school year. In both instances, the District Board's actions were appropriate under the law. Therefore, there was no basis for the State Board to reverse the decision of the District Board in this case.