SCHOOL PERFORMANCE DISPARITY IN GRANITE SCHOOL DISTRICT A BYU Public Policy Analysis

Problem Statement Why do elementary schools with similar levels of students participating in the free and reduced lunch (FRL) program have varying levels of student achievement?  Task: determining why these variations exist and whether they are a concern

School Performance by FRL

Proficiency Differences High PerformanceDifferenceLow Performance Spring Lane19%Bacchus Westbrook22%Jim Bridger Carl Sandburg20%Beehive Hunter18%Jackling Monroe15%David Gourley

Education Research  School Characteristics  ELL  Parental Involvement  Class size  Interventions  Technology  Principals  Extra curricular activities  “Liking” school  Types of engagement

Quantitative Data  Key Variables:  Percent proficient  Percent of school on free or reduced lunch  Other explanatory variables:  Student-teacher ratio  Mobility rate  Percent ELL  Year-round  PTA ratio  Percent White

Variables Used in Quantitative Analysis VariableMean Standard Deviation MinMaxn Proficiency FRL Control Variables Student-Teacher Ratio Mobility a % English Language Learners Year-round PTA-student ratio b Percent White

Vertical Comparisons Spring LaneBacchusWestbrookBridgerSandburgBeehiveHunterJacklingMonroeGourley Percent Proficient69%50%72%50%73%53%66%48%70%55% Percent FRL53%54%57%58%62%61%70%69%92% Variance Between Schools19%22%20%18%15% Student Teacher Ratio Percent ELL16%23%19%24%16%32%30%28%60%41% Percent White71%57%54%61%66%49%44%52%24%34% Mobility Rate Year-Round SchoolNOYESNOYESNOYESNO PTA-student Ratio

Vertical Comparisons Spring LaneBacchusWestbrookBridgerSandburgBeehiveHunterJacklingMonroeGourley Percent Proficient69%50%72%50%73%53%66%48%70%55% Percent FRL53%54%57%58%62%61%70%69%92% Variance Between Schools19%22%20%18%15% Student Teacher Ratio Percent ELL16%23%19%24%16%32%30%28%60%41% Percent White71%57%54%61%66%49%44%52%24%34% Mobility Rate Year-Round SchoolNOYESNOYESNOYESNO PTA-student Ratio

Horizontal Comparisons HighLow Percent Proficient70%51% Percent on Free/Reduced Lunch67% Variance Between Schools19% Student Teacher Ratio25.7 Percent English Language Learners28%30% Percent White52%51% Mobility Rate Year-Round School0/53/5 PTA-student Ratio

Horizontal Comparisons HighLow Percent Proficient70%51% Percent on Free/Reduced Lunch67% Variance Between Schools19% Student Teacher Ratio25.7 Percent English Language Learners28%30% Percent White52%51% Mobility Rate Year-Round School0/53/5 PTA-student Ratio

School Performance by FRL

School Performance by ELL

Final Model  Our final model uses the following factors to determine where a school should be performing:  FRL and FRL 2  ELL and ELL 2  Percent White  PTA-Student Ratio  Year-Round model  Year-Round × FRL

Expected Proficiency Range Top Half of District by FRL

Expected Proficiency Range Bottom Half of District by FRL

Interviews  Hope to explain the rest of the variation in school proficiency  Pairs chosen based on similar FRL rates, disparate proficiencies  Survey construction  Input from Granite School District  14 questions, 7 Likert scale questions  Conducted by different pairs of interviewers

Interview Data  Small dataset prevented many avenues of analysis  Combined interviewer observations  Overall reactions  Items mentioned most frequently or deemed most important

Principal Responses  Most important responsibilities/responsibilities that take the most time  6 of 10 principals reported relationship building as one of their most important responsibilities  4 principals (3 high/1 low) reported safety as one of their most important responsibilities  6 of 10 principals reported paperwork or reports taking the most time  6 principals (2 high/4 low) reported spending a large proportion of their time resolving problems  Best tools to increase academic performance  Good teachers were consistently reported as one of the best tools available  To improve, principals reported needing more, and better, training for teachers (PLCs, etc.)

Principal Responses  Biggest obstacle to increasing academic performance  6 of 10 principals reported funding or lack of personnel  3 of 5 principals at low performing schools reported teachers or “ourselves”  5 of 10 principals reported language issues or ELL  Support from community  4 of 5 principals from high performing schools reported having a very good PTA  2 of 5 principals from low performing schools reported a strong PTA  Vision statements  4 of 10 principals reported having a vision statement (3 high/1 low)

Qualitative Differences  Spring Lane – Bacchus  Effective implementation of programs  Spring Lane has a dual immersion program  Westbrook – Bridger  More active/effective PTA at Westbrook as well as unified school spirit  Sandburg – Beehive  Leadership and personality of principal  Discussion of test scores with individual students

More Qualitative Differences  Hunter – Jackling  Both have BUG incentive program  Both have charismatic principals; Hunter’s reviews test scores with students  Monroe – Gourley  Dual immersion Spanish program at Monroe  Focus on implementing technology

Qualitative Characteristics  High performing schools  Dual immersion programs  Passionate/charismatic principals  Unified school culture and fully implemented discipline program  Low performing schools  Year round schedules  Principals reported spending too much time on discipline and conflict resolution  Lacking in combination of community support, PTA involvement, and grant money

Findings  All schools except Monroe performing within expected range  Specific differences between high/low performing schools (n=10)  No higher performing schools year-round track  Higher performing had dual immersion programs  Higher performing schools more likely to have standard behavior programs  Principals value teacher training, professional learning communities, and report that teacher training would improve academic outcomes

Recommendations  Use the more comprehensive quantitative model to see where schools can be expected to perform  Reconsider year-round track  Evaluate dual immersion programs  Evaluate standardized behavior programs

Questions?