Audit finds unreliable attendance data, inconsistent calendars and missed instructional days; legislators propose statutory clarifications

An internal audit by the Utah State Board of Education’s audit office found significant inconsistencies in attendance-related data across sampled LEAs, a mix of calendar practices that sometimes fail to meet the statutory 180-day standard, and lapses in local policy alignment with code. Auditors recommended clarifying definitions and improving data processes; a legislator immediately presented draft statutory language to address data uniformity and definitions.

Who spoke: Debbie Davis, chief audit executive for the Utah State Board of Education, and Kevin John, deputy audit executive, presented the audit results and methodology. Senator Fillmore later outlined draft legislative language titled "public school attendance amendments" to address data and definitional gaps.

Audit method and notable findings Davis said the audit team first completed a related data-reliability review that compared LEA-held records with files the state received and found substantial mismatches. In that earlier work the audit team reported "12 of 13 LEAs (92%) had days-attended totals that did not match the state’s examined file," accounting for a large portion of affected student records.

For the attendance audit, the auditors obtained raw data directly from 16 LEAs (districts and charters), cleansed and normalized it for analysis, and carried out parent and educator surveys tied to the sampled LEAs. Davis said assembling and normalizing the LEA data “required an extraordinary effort” and estimated the equivalent of 10 auditor-weeks to produce the dataset.

Key conclusions presented by auditors - Data reliability: High rates of mismatch between what LEAs report internally and what the state receives, suggesting measurement and transmission problems. - Policy misalignment: Local policy documents often contain obsolete citations to Utah code and inconsistent or undefined terms. For example, Davis said 13 of 16 LEAs did not define what constitutes a “tardy.” - Calendar and instructional-day problems: In the sample, 25% of LEAs for school year 2024 and 38% in 2025 did not schedule the statutory minimum of 180 school days. Auditors also flagged instances where students were excused for some grade levels on statewide testing days while other grade levels remained on campus for instruction. - Lunch/meal and contingency-day issues: Auditors said some calendar days counted as instructional days lacked required services such as lunch (relevant when LEAs participate in the National School Lunch Program) or contingency make-up days, potentially rendering those days non-countable under the board rule the auditors analyzed. - Discipline and compulsory-education gaps: Several LEA conduct and discipline plans lacked definitions and mandatory elements required by statute; auditors identified situations in which expulsions occurred without explicit LEA board approval. - Participation patterns: The audit included heat maps of enrollment, absent counts, and absence ratios; auditors noted predictable patterns (for instance, higher absenteeism on Fridays and before breaks) and observed that absenteeism correlates with lower student test performance and GPA, though the auditors cautioned about threshold effects (i.e., how much absence produces meaningful drops in outcomes).

Legislative responses and proposed statutory clarifications Senator Fillmore presented draft language titled "public school attendance amendments." Fillmore said the bill focuses on definitions, data uniformity, and transparency. The draft includes definitions for terms that the auditors found inconsistent in LEA policies (for example, "instructional day," "attendance," and "learner-validated" attendance models for asynchronous/virtual programs) and moves some board rule content into statute to establish a consistent baseline.

Fillmore described three policy aims in the draft: (1) codify clear definitions (see lines 54–81 in the draft referenced during the meeting), (2) clarify state board versus LEA responsibilities for data collection and reporting, and (3) remove COVID-era temporary code provisions that the speaker said are obsolete. He also said the draft would explicitly permit school land-trust funds to be used for activities to reduce chronic absenteeism, at LEA discretion.

Committee reaction Committee members asked for specificity and cautioned against one-size-fits-all mandates. Senator Eby and Representative Thompson questioned whether the audit’s parent-survey results and other measures reliably describe statewide conditions, noting changing reporting systems and varied local practices. Representative Moss emphasized historical policies linking attendance to citizenship grades and exhorted lawmakers to consider behavioral and systemic causes of chronic absenteeism, not only data fixes. Several members asked USBE to supply underlying datasets and to remain available for follow-up discussions.

What’s next Auditors and USBE officials told committee members they would make themselves available for follow-up questions. Senator Fillmore said he welcomes technical feedback (especially from districts and charter operators that run virtual programs) and asked LEAs to comment on the draft definition for "learner validated" attendance. Committee staff will track the draft bill; the committee indicated attendance-related legislation could be heard in the session.

Ending: The audit established data-quality and policy-alignment concerns that officials and legislators said will be subject to additional review and possible statutory changes; several committee members stressed balancing parent choice and operational practicality when drafting any attendance-focused legislation.