Appellants and their three school-aged children live in the Springville Community School District. Their residence is located approximately 1/2 mile from the Mt. Vernon Community School District boundary. The children have always attended school in the Mt. Vernon District through open enrollment. The issue in this appeal is whether the Springville District Board abused its discretion when it refused a requests from the Haugs to allow a bus from the Mt. Vernon District to enter a distance of roughly 1/2 mile to pick up the Haug children. The Grant Wood AEA determined that the Springville Board had not abused its discretion in deciding not to allow the bus into its District. That conclusion is correct.

This was not the first time the Haugs made such a request of the Springville District Board. On September 25, 1995, the Board denied the Haugs' first request. The denial was not appealed. Rather the Haugs next approached the Springville Board to ask that they approve a boundary alteration whereby the Haug's property would be "swapped" for another parcel of land that was contained within the Mt. Vernon District. When the Springville Board denied this request, the Haugs appealed to the State Board of Education. In re Arthur Haug, 14 D.o.E. App. Dec 288(1997).

The Haugs tried to request open enrollment transportation from the Springville and were twice refused time on the Board's agenda. The family then appealed these refusals to the State Board which again upheld the Springville Board. In re Joshua Haug, 15 D.o.E. App. Dec. 81(1997) and In re Joshua Arthur and Tea Haug, 16 D.o.E. App. Dec. 336(1999). In the Joshua Haug decision, the State Board of Education noted that the local board could revisit an earlier position taken if "the makeup of the board has changed substantially." 15 D.o.E. App. Dec. 84.

In the 2002-03 school year, Springville had a new superintendent and new board members. The Haugs' request to be placed on the Board's agenda was granted. However, the outcome was the same. On January 15, 2003, the Board again denied their request. In a recent Iowa Supreme Court case (Sioux City CSD v. Iowa DOE, No. 23/01-1996(filed April 2, 2003), the court ruled,"The Department has authority to review the school district's discretionary decisions made pursuant to Iowa Code section 285.12. However, b necessary implication, the Department's review is limited to determining whether the school district abused its discretion. The parents were required to show the school district's decision was unreasonable and lacked rationality."

The Springville Board's desire to discourage open enrollment cannot be said to be irrational. The loal board is not denying or taking away any "right" that the family or its children possess.

That the February 19, 2003, decision of the Board of the Grant Wood AEA to uphold the decision of the Springville Community School District's Board of Directors to refuse to allow other school district buses into the Springville District for open enrollment transportation was affirmed.