Three-year averaging was conditionally allowed in Utah's 2003 workbook and was confirmed as appropriate in the U.S. department's December 2005 letter to the State Office of Education. However, that provision was not included in the 2005 workbook the federal government approved the month before. The workbook can change every year.

State Office of Education officials past and present and federal officials aren't sure why.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Patti Harrington was in meetings and did not return a message seeking comment Friday.

Three-year averaging became an issue in October when a handful of large school districts, notably Davis District, used it to overturn schools' AYP status. Davis applied it to seven schools, including those with data irregularities and huge population shifts — a big deal, considering schools are judged on the performance of each student group, based on ethnicity, disability, income and English language skills.

Officials in other districts, however, didn't know three-year averaging was possible. Some leaders said having a few districts use it rendered the state's reports inconsistent. So superintendents agreed only the state could grant appeals for a calculation error or extreme circumstance.

State school leaders, however, noted that federal law gives school districts authority to say which schools passed and which didn't. A few weeks later, Harrington told superintendents as much and that they could more broadly define what a data error or emergency is but be able to defend it in the event of a federal audit.

Harrington said in an interview last week that a data error could be reason to use three-year averaging.

Hales said the direction is rooted in legal advice from WestEd, which serves as Utah's compliance service center for No Child Left Behind.

But nowhere in Sacramento attorney Michael E. Hersher's written opinion is three-year averaging addressed. Hersher told the Deseret Morning News WestEd only asked him to look at state and district roles in appeal procedures.

The appeals issue — and who has ultimate say — is crucial.

Schools receiving Title I money because they have a lot of low-income students face sanctions — such as requiring districts to bus kids to higher-performing schools if they want to leave — for repeatedly failing to meet No Child Left Behind standards.

Of 25 schools Granite District overturned on appeal, nine were Title I schools that would have been flagged as schools that needed to improve, said Darryl Thomas, district director of research, assessment and evaluation.