The district identified a process gap between enrollment, special education eligibility, and the student accounting system. That delay caused some students to be reported late to USBE and reduced expected funding. It did not change the services written in a student’s IEP. The district has revised the process so newly enrolled and newly eligible students are entered into the accounting system more quickly.

That is not the most accurate way to describe the problem. The stronger explanation is that the district had a system and timing gap in how enrollment and eligibility information moved into the student accounting process. Our response should focus on fixing the process rather than assigning broad blame to individual staff members.

The undercount affected district funding. However, the resource-teacher FTE adjustments made in March were based on projected student caseloads, including incoming kindergarten students, outgoing fifth-grade students, projected move-ins, newly eligible students, and historical prevalence. Paraeducator allocations involved a separate review of current student needs and later budget reallocation.

The district is managing several pressures at the same time: a Medicaid repayment, fewer Medicaid-eligible students, declining overall enrollment, changes in state funding, and rapid growth in students who need more intensive specialized programs. Those programs cost more to staff than traditional resource services.

The materials identify five district-office positions, three related-service positions, and more than $500,000 in reductions to supplies, software, travel, and mileage. The district also adjusted specialized-program budgets and paraeducator allocations.

January is a planning checkpoint, not the only data point. Staffing decisions use the most recent verified counts available during the staffing cycle, along with October, December, and May reporting trends, five-year prevalence, incoming kindergarten students, outgoing fifth-grade students, projected move-ins, newly eligible students, school closures, and other known changes. The district should not describe the decision as being based on one January snapshot.

The district guideline is generally 20-40 students for a full-time resource teacher and 10-20 students for a half-time teacher. Twenty projected and verified students is the general starting point for 1.0 FTE, but it is not an automatic trigger by itself. The district also reviews trends, student movement, service needs, and operational constraints.

Teacher positions are allocated in half-time increments, while student counts change throughout the year. That can place different schools in the same staffing band for a period of time. Still, if a school’s verified active caseload is materially outside the district guideline, the allocation should be reviewed rather than defended only by reference to the formula.

Yes. The staffing projection includes known incoming kindergarten students, outgoing fifth-grade students, projected move-ins, and students who may become newly eligible. Because some future enrollment is unknowable, the district also reviews actual data after school begins and adjusts when student needs materially change.

Technical compliance managers review student counts, service data, and program compliance throughout the year, generally every four to six weeks. Schools should raise concerns as soon as current data show that the existing allocation cannot support required IEP services. Staffing and support levels can then be reviewed.

The materials do not establish that a caseload-only model produces better outcomes. Granite uses caseload and prevalence because they provide an objective and consistent districtwide starting point. Workload, service intensity, case management, collaboration, behavior needs, and student complexity also matter and should inform school-level review and exceptions.

Yes. Planning, case management, progress monitoring, family communication, collaboration, and behavior planning are part of the work. At the same time, special education staffing must remain tied primarily to implementing IEP services and managing special education responsibilities. General intervention and schoolwide problem-solving are shared responsibilities and cannot rest on the special education teacher alone.

Arcadia Elementary
Resource FTE Change: -0.5 (from 1.5 down to 1.0)
2026 Prevalence Rate: 9.5% (29)
Bridger Elementary
Resource FTE Change: -1.0 (from 2.0 down to 1.0)
2026 Prevalence Rate: 14.4% (29)
Copper Hills Elementary
Resource FTE Change: -1.0 (from 3.0 down to 2.0)
2026 Prevalence Rate: 16.7% (52)
Crestview Elementary
Resource FTE Change: -0.5 (from 1.0 down to 0.5)
2026 Prevalence Rate: 5.1% (18)
Diamond Ridge Elementary
Resource FTE Change: -0.5 (from 1.5 down to 1.0)
2026 Prevalence Rate: 9.7% (30)
Elk Run Elementary
Resource FTE Change: -1.0 (from 3.0 down to 2.0)
2026 Prevalence Rate: 10.5% (53)
Gourley Elementary
Resource FTE Change: -0.5 (from 1.5 down to 1.0)
2026 Prevalence Rate: 10.1% (33)
Lake Ridge Elementary
Resource FTE Change: -1.0 (from 2.0 down to 1.0)
2026 Prevalence Rate: 10.5% (21)
Lincoln Elementary
Resource FTE Change: -0.5 (from 2.0 down to 1.5)
2026 Prevalence Rate: 7.6% (36)
Morningside Elementary (includes ALC)
Resource FTE Change: -0.5 (from 1.0 down to 0.5)
2026 Prevalence Rate: 2.8% (16)
Moss Elementary
Resource FTE Change: -0.5 (from 2.0 down to 1.5)
2026 Prevalence Rate: 6.6% (40)
Penn Elementary
Resource FTE Change: -0.5 (from 1.5 down to 1.0)
2026 Prevalence Rate: 5.0% (22)

Secondary Reductions

Hunter Junior High

Resource FTE Change: -0.5 (from 3.5 down to 3)

2026 Prevalence Rate:   10.9% (25)

Kearns Junior High

Resource FTE Change:  -0.5 (from 3.5 down to 3)

2026 Prevalence Rate:  14.8% (32)

West Lake Junior High

Resource FTE Change:  -0.5 (from 4 down to 3.5)

2026 Prevalence Rate:   13.9% (34)

Granger High School

Resource FTE Change: -1 (from 10 down to 9)

2026 Prevalence Rate:   11.4% (28)

It should not. Schools remain responsible for Child Find, timely evaluation, and appropriate intervention processes. A staffing allocation cannot be used as a reason to delay an evaluation or avoid responding to a suspected disability.

Staffing and budget allocations are changing, but required special education services are not optional. Each student’s IEP continues to govern specially designed instruction, accommodations, related services, and supports. The district must implement those services as written unless the IEP team, including the parent, changes the IEP.

A staffing change does not automatically change a student’s services. Any change to the IEP must be made by the IEP team with parent participation and based on the student’s current data and needs.

The school and district must problem-solve and provide the services the IEP team determined the student needs. Lack of staff or budget is not an acceptable reason to reduce, suspend, or omit required IEP services. Concerns should be raised immediately with the school administrator and Special Education Department.

Yes. Accommodations and services written in the IEP remain required. Families or staff who believe an accommodation is not being implemented should bring the concern to the school team promptly so it can be addressed.

Services are the specially designed instruction and related-service minutes a student receives from a licensed special education teacher, speech-language pathologist, occupational therapist, physical therapist, or under the direction of one of those licensed providers, as written in the IEP.

No. Schools may have provided helpful supports beyond what an IEP required. Those additional supports may change as resources are aligned across the district. Required IEP services, accommodations, modifications, and supports must continue.

A staffing change by itself is not a violation. A legal problem occurs if the change results in failure to evaluate a student, implement an IEP, provide required supports, or provide a free appropriate public education. The district must monitor implementation and respond when current staffing is not sufficient to meet those duties.

The district reviewed of IEP service requirements, caseloads, and staffing allocations.

The district moved from relying on prior-year allocations to reviewing current student data and documented needs. The review found some hours continued after students moved, advanced, met the related goal, or no longer had an IEP, behavior, medical, or OT/PT need tied to that support. A later budget reallocation reduced the total further.

Elementary paraeducator support decreased from 8,263 hours per week in 2025-26 to 5,322 hours per week in the final 2026-27 allocation. That is a reduction of 2,941 hours, or about 35.6%. The final allocation is about 64.4% of the prior year’s hours.

Secondary paraeducator support decreased from 7,259 hours per week in 2025–26 to 4,524 hours per week in the final 2026–27 allocation. This represents a reduction of 2,735 hours per week, or approximately 37.7%. The final 2026–27 allocation provides approximately 62.3% of the paraeducator hours allocated during the previous school year.

The district used formulas based on school level, program type, number of classrooms, and resource caseload. Those formulas are a starting allocation. They cannot operate as a hard cap when current data show that additional support is required for a student to access education or receive IEP services.

The base allocation will not look the same as prior years. Schools must first organize staff around current IEP services and documented student needs. When data show that the base allocation is not enough, the school can request additional support. The district remains responsible for providing required services and access.

The school team should document the student’s current setting, schedule, IEP goals and services, behavior or safety data, and the specific support needed. The request should be submitted through the school’s special education coordinator for review.

Not automatically. Additional support should be reviewed each year using current data, the student’s new setting, and the IEP team’s determination of need. However, support cannot be removed solely because of cost if the IEP team determines it is required for access, safety, or implementation of the IEP.

Inclusion hours are additional paraeducator hours assigned to a school to support teacher-designed instruction for a student or group of students who need added academic or behavioral support to access general education settings.

In our secondary program, we do not use the term “inclusion hours.” Some elementary programs may use that phrase to describe additional paraeducator staffing assigned to support students in general education settings. At the secondary level, the IEP team determines the specific special education services, accommodations, supplementary aids, and supports a student needs to access and participate in general education classes. The school then assigns appropriately trained staff and develops a service-delivery plan to implement those IEP requirements. Depending on the student’s needs, support may be provided by a special education teacher, a paraeducator supporting a classroom or group of students, consultation with general education teachers, or another service model identified in the student’s IEP.

A motor aide is a paraeducator assigned at the direction of an occupational or physical therapist to carry out a student’s OT/PT support plan. Motor aides are hired and supervised through the district process rather than by the individual school.

At the secondary level, we do not typically use “motor aide” as a separate staffing title. However, that does not mean a student would go without needed motor support. The student’s IEP team, with input from the occupational therapist or physical therapist, determines the specific supports the student needs to access instruction, participate in school activities, and make progress on the IEP. Depending on the student’s individual needs, support might be provided by the occupational therapist or physical therapist, through consultation and training for school staff, or by a trained paraeducator working under the therapist’s direction. We would be happy to review your student’s current needs and IEP supports with you to ensure the appropriate services are in place in the secondary setting.

The principal, special education teacher, and coordinator need to build the schedule from the IEPs backward: required minutes first, compatible groups where appropriate, clear paraeducator assignments under teacher direction, and planned coverage for behavior and safety needs. The schedule must also preserve employee lunch and planning time. If the schedule cannot meet IEPs or basic safety needs, the team should document the gap and request additional support rather than relying on staff to absorb it.

Schools may utilized Title I funds for additional paraeducators, while TSSA and Land Trust funds may not.

The school may use the available balance to hire additional support staff or reserve funds for substitute costs, based on student and school needs.

The district is adding additional Special Class classrooms across the district. This new FTE is coming from FTE recaptured and reallocated.

Special Class caseloads are always significantly lower than typical resource classrooms. Operational limitations do not allow us to cap or to easily equalize caseloads as we can not control where students and their families reside. However the additional classrooms will keep class size lower.

Start with the student’s teacher and school administrator so the concern can be addressed quickly. If the issue is not resolved, contact the school’s special education coordinator or the district Special Education Department. Families may also request an IEP meeting at any time.

School teams, Technical Compliance Managers, Student Accounting, Special Education administration, and other appropriate district staff participate in verification. Verification may include enrollment records, eligibility information, student accounting entries, service information, historical trends, and known incoming and outgoing students.

School allocations were developed using student, program, fiscal, and operational information. Association negotiations did not determine individual school allocations.

Travel time must be reflected in the employee’s work schedule and cannot be treated as student service time. Schools and district staff must develop schedules that account for travel while maintaining required services, meetings, planning, and employee responsibilities.

School administrators and district staff must coordinate schedules so required IEP meetings, evaluations, timelines, and student services are maintained. Conflicts that cannot be resolved locally should be elevated during monthly coordinator reviews.

Additional information has been added to question 13b above.

The district is reviewing what additional aggregate secondary staffing information can be provided accurately and consistently. Any information released should reflect finalized allocations, vacancies, funding sources, and actual assignments while protecting student privacy.

The district recognizes the statewide shortage of qualified special education personnel. It must balance recruitment realities, changing student needs, available resources, and its continuing obligation to provide the services required by every student’s IEP. The district should not claim alignment with the report until its findings and recommendations have been formally reviewed.

Equity does not necessarily require identical staffing at every school. It requires allocating and reviewing resources according to student needs so students have access to the services and supports required by their IEPs. Monthly school monitoring will help identify conditions requiring additional assistance.

The district is reviewing reporting and funding information with the appropriate state and district offices. It would be premature to state whether funding can be recovered until the applicable reporting periods, state requirements, and verified figures have been reviewed.

Community partnerships may support supplemental programs or needs, but private funding cannot replace the district’s responsibility to provide services required by student IEPs. Any proposal involving Foundation support would require review by district leadership and the Foundation. The Granite Education Foundation is a private foundation and the district cannot direct the use of their funds.

The district will continue updating written information, providing general program information, and addressing student-specific concerns through schools and IEP teams. District coordinators will meet monthly with school teams to review student accounting, service delivery, timelines, compliance, and support needs. Allegations directly involved in the pending state complaint will be addressed through USBE.

Each school must maintain appropriate supervision, emergency procedures, and trained personnel. Any behavioral, health, supervision, or safety support required by a student’s IEP must be implemented regardless of one employee’s location. School-specific safety concerns must be reviewed and addressed promptly by the school team. For each school multiple staff members are to be trained so that those inclose proximity have the tools to responde appropriately.

Schools must build schedules from current IEP requirements, qualified-provider responsibilities, student needs, and safety requirements. When the base allocation is insufficient, the school should document the need and request additional support through its special education coordinator. Because statements allegedly made to the Community Council may be relevant to the complaint, the communication history should be addressed through USBE.

Yes. Special education caseload counts are verified through the district’s student accounting records, which are maintained and reviewed by Technical Compliance Managers (TCMs) and school special education staff. Those records are also cross-checked with the district’s student information system.

The district verifies that students appear in the appropriate records and have the required enrollment, eligibility, and special education indicators. When discrepancies or missing information are identified, schools are notified so they can be reviewed and corrected.

Counts are date-specific and may change as students enroll, withdraw, become eligible, change services, or are assigned to different providers. This is why a count reported at one point in the staffing process may differ from a later school-year count.

Granite Special Education defines curriculum as the organized combination of standards, instructional content and materials, evidence-based instructional practices, scope and sequence, and pacing used to provide students a coherent progression of learning. For students with disabilities, specially designed instruction may adapt the content, methodology, supports, or pacing based on the student’s IEP.

Essential Elements (EE) K–12: Unique Learning System for ELA and math.

Elementary Resource: HMH Into Reading, supplemented by Phonics for Reading and UFLI Foundations; i-Ready Math, supplemented by KickStart Math and KickStart Number Sense.

Applied Academics (AA): District core curricula, including Into Reading and i-Ready, supplemented with the intervention curricula above as appropriate.

Secondary Resource: Students not in co-taught classes use LANGUAGE! Live in junior high and READ 180 in high school for ELA, with i-Ready intervention resources for math.

Granite uses Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and tiered instruction to guide differentiation. Through UDL, students are provided various methods to engage with content, access information, and exhibit mastery. Educators further differentiate by adapting the methodology, instructional content, student outcomes, or environment to address unique student requirements. These instructional strategies are implemented alongside a student’s IEP goals and the relevant grade-level core or Essential Elements standards.

For 2026–27, 10 schools received approximately 14.0 additional Special Class FTE—seven elementary and three secondary schools. 

Cottonwood Network – 2 schools

• Cottonwood High School
• Granite Park Jr. High School 

Cyprus Network – 1 school

• Elk Run Elementary

Granger Network – 2 schools

• Farnsworth Elementary
• Rolling Meadows Elementary

Hunter Network – 3 schools

• Hillside Elementary
• Hunter Elementary
• Kennedy Jr. High

Kearns Network – 1 school

• South Kearns Elementary

Skyline –  1 school

Upland Terrace Elementary

Six elementary schools currently have a 0.5 Resource Teacher FTE, generally representing 2 FTE shared across four schools and two 0.5 FTE assigned at individual schools. The guideline is generally 10–20 students per 0.5 FTE.

The district has approximately 59 SLPs serving 83 locations. About ~4,000 students receive speech and/or language services, averaging approximately 65 students per SLP. Individual caseloads vary by assignment, service minutes, evaluations, and student needs.