Dancing Moose Montessori School-West Valley City
Data last updated · May 2026
Quality Indicators
See Methodology →- Overall QualityCombines daily care quality (interactions, learning, environment) with structural features like staff-to-child ratios and teacher qualifications.4 / 5
- Process QualityThe quality of daily care — caregiver-child interactions, learning activities, and the emotional climate. Drawn from the state QRIS rating, accreditations, and Head Start CLASS observations.Not Available
- Structural QualityMeasurable features like staff-to-child ratios, group sizes, license status, and teacher qualifications. Provider-level data when available; otherwise the state regulatory baseline.4 / 5
Why this rating
This daycare earned 4 out of 5 stars overall. Structural quality reflects Utah's licensing baseline. Utah caps infant ratios at 1:4, toddler ratios at 1:5, and preschool ratios at 1:15. Lead-teacher education isn't regulated. Teachers must complete 20 hours of annual training. No objective process measures (e.g., state quality rating or national accreditation) are available for this daycare. The overall rating reflects structural features only.
Quality Recognitions & Accreditations
- State Quality Rating
- Child Care Quality System Default Foundation of Quality Learn more →
- Accreditations
- National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)Not Accredited
- National Accreditation Commission (NAC)Not Accredited
- National Early Childhood Program Accreditation (NECPA)Not Accredited
- National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC)Not Accredited
Facility Info
- Facility type
- Daycare
- Age groups served
- Infants, Toddlers, School-Age
- Licensed capacity
- Not Available
- Teacher-child ratios & group sizesState Minimum Displayed
Age Max ratio Max group Infants 1:4 8 Toddlers 1:5 10
Teacher Credentials
- Lead teacher credentialState Minimum Displayed
- Not Regulated
Inspection History
Across 1 inspection since 2025, the issues cited most often were Staff Qualifications & Background Checks (2), Food Safety & Allergic Reactions (1), and Building & Premises Safety (1). None of the 5 findings were critical.
See the Inspection Visit
Apr 17, 20255 Findings5 Important
- The Provider Was Out of Compliance with Rule R381-100-11(1)(c) by Not Ensuring That Each Caregiver Maintains Active…R381-100-11(1)(a)-(f)
The provider was out of compliance with rule R381-100-11(1)(c) by not ensuring that each caregiver maintains active supervision of each child by knowing the number of children in their care at any time. In Room 3, the caregiver stated they had 15 children in care when there were 16 children in the r
- The Provider Was Out of Compliance with Rule R381-100-13(4) by Having Choking Hazards Accessible to Children Younger…R381-100-13(4)
The provider was out of compliance with rule R381-100-13(4) by having choking hazards accessible to children younger than three years old. In Room 2, there were choking hazards accessible to children younger than three years old. This was a repeat rule noncompliance as noted on June 11, 2024 and Dec
- The Provider Was Out of Compliance with Rule R381-100-19(13) by Not Ensuring That Protective Cushioning Covers The…R381-100-19(13)
The provider was out of compliance with rule R381-100-19(13) by not ensuring that protective cushioning covers the entire surface of each required use zone. In the North playground near the merry-go-round, there was a tear in the unitary cushioning.
- The Provider Was Out of Compliance This Rule R381-100-24(11) by Not Ensuring Styrofoam Is Inaccessible to Infants And…R381-100-24(11)
The provider was out of compliance this rule R381-100-24(11) by not ensuring styrofoam is inaccessible to infants and toddlers. In Room 2, there were styrofoam eggs accessible to toddlers.
- The Provider Was Out of Compliance with Rule R381-100-7(9)(c) by Not Ensuring That Caregivers Complete the Preservice…R381-100-7(9)(a)-(g)
The provider was out of compliance with rule R381-100-7(9)(c) by not ensuring that caregivers complete the preservice training offered by the department before caring for children. At the time of the inspection, there was a caregiver who had not completed preservice training.