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

2. 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

3. School Performance by FRL

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

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

6. 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

7. Variables Used in Quantitative Analysis VariableMean Standard Deviation MinMaxn Proficiency0.640.120.470.9861 FRL0.610.250.070.9961 Control Variables Student-Teacher Ratio 25.681.7422.9031.4061 Mobility41.2119.239.0588.0360 a % English Language Learners 0.250.150.010.6061 Year-round0.210.410.001.0061 PTA-student ratio0.240.170.020.9060 b Percent White0.570.200.230.9261

8. 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 Ratio26.824.224.927.826.726.424.726.525.323.6 Percent ELL16%23%19%24%16%32%30%28%60%41% Percent White71%57%54%61%66%49%44%52%24%34% Mobility Rate34.857.731.6145.1827.9852.3833.0136.0348.655.35 Year-Round SchoolNOYESNOYESNOYESNO PTA-student Ratio0.380.120.190.090.14 0.190.170.130.09

9. 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 Ratio26.824.224.927.826.726.424.726.525.323.6 Percent ELL16%23%19%24%16%32%30%28%60%41% Percent White71%57%54%61%66%49%44%52%24%34% Mobility Rate34.857.731.6145.1827.9852.3833.0136.0348.655.35 Year-Round SchoolNOYESNOYESNOYESNO PTA-student Ratio0.380.120.190.090.14 0.190.170.130.09

10. 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 Rate35.2049.33 Year-Round School0/53/5 PTA-student Ratio0.210.12

11. 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 Rate35.2049.33 Year-Round School0/53/5 PTA-student Ratio0.210.12

12. School Performance by FRL

13. School Performance by ELL

14. 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

15. Expected Proficiency Range Top Half of District by FRL

16. Expected Proficiency Range Bottom Half of District by FRL

17. 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

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

19. 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.)

20. 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)

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Questions?