Welcome to the K-12 Education Performance and Spending Dashboard. This tool is designed for parents, educators, community members, and decision-makers to explore how education funding is allocated across the State of Utah. Student performance data is also integrated to help users examine the relationships between spending and academic outcomes.
Make sure to click the "Submit" button for your filters to take effect.
To provide a clear and consistent understanding of how funds are allocated, the Office of the State Auditor developed categories based on the USBE Uniform Chart of Accounts. This approach allows for meaningful comparisons across different districts and helps stakeholders understand the key drivers of educational costs. The following spending categories were developed to isolate distinct operational functions and funding purposes:
RISE and Utah Aspire Plus assessments measure English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science skills at the end of the school year. The Aspire assessment is administered to students in grades 9 and 10 and serves to predict future ACT scores.
Note: RISE and Aspire testing also measure Reading skills, which Project KIDS does not currently report.
Chronically Absent: Students who have missed 10% or more of the days they were enrolled.
English Language Learner (ELL): Students who are learning English or have limited English proficiency.
Gifted: Students who are eligible to participate in a gifted and talented program.
Homeless: Students who are experiencing housing instability, ranging from doubling up with other families due to economic hardship to staying in places without adequate facilities (such as running water, heat, or electricity).
Low Income: Students who are economically disadvantaged based on family income and may be eligible for free or reduced-price meals.
Migrant: Students whose families move frequently across school district lines for temporary or seasonal agricultural or fishing work.
Mobile: Students who have one or more enrollment records with fewer than 160 days of membership.
Special Education: Students who have a special education designation (e.g., Autism, Speech-Language Impairment, or Intellectual Disability).
School and District locations and information were gathered from the USBE website, and student and teacher counts were calculated using course records; a student or teacher is included in this count if they took or taught at least one class in the selected school or district. The student count can be slightly different from enrollment counts because a student may be enrolled in one school but may also take a class in another school. Class size was calculated by taking the average of the student count for each class in the school/district. Classes are defined as a unique combination of Term, Cycle, Class Period, and Course Section, which are part of course records. AP, Concurrent Enrollment (CE), Dual Language Immersion (DLI), and IB class lists were gathered using core code information found on the USBE website and course records.
Student demographics were calculated using student enrollment records gathered from the USBE. Records containing information from 10 or fewer students were removed to protect student privacy.
Test score data for each student from the RISE/Aspire, AP, Financial Literacy, and ACT tests came from the USBE. Average testing scores for each school/district were calculated, masking any information that contained data from 10 or fewer students.
School districts and charters submit their expenses to Transparent Utah. Project KIDS uses the data that these entities submit along with more detailed payroll information that districts submit to the Utah Office of the State Auditor for Project KIDS. Data is cleaned and standardized.
Average spending was calculated by dividing the total school/district spending by the number of students in a given school/district.
Project KIDS also broke down school expense and payroll information into 8 major categories based on financial account codes in the USBE Uniform Chart of Accounts.
When Local Education Agencies (LEAs) provided transaction data that lacked school-specific details, we aggregated these unallocated funds at the district level. We then redistributed them to individual schools proportionally, based on student enrollment. This approach allowed us to account for all funding at the school level without altering overall district spending totals.