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

SPRING LANE

BACCHUS

WESTBROOK

BRIDGER

BEEHIVE

CARL SANDBURG

JACKLING

HUNTER

MONROE

GOURLEY

Fitted Values

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

40%

60%

80%

100%

50%

70%

90%

Perc

ent P

roficie

nt

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%10% 30% 50% 70% 90%

Percent of School on Free or Reduced Lunch

Proficiency Differences

High Performance Difference Low Performance

Spring Lane 19% Bacchus

Westbrook 22% Jim Bridger

Carl Sandburg 20% Beehive

Hunter 18% Jackling

Monroe 15% 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

Variable MeanStandard Deviation

Min Max n

Proficiency 0.64 0.12 0.47 0.98 61

FRL 0.61 0.25 0.07 0.99 61

Control Variables

Student-Teacher Ratio

25.68 1.74 22.90 31.40 61

Mobility 41.21 19.23 9.05 88.03 60a

% English Language Learners

0.25 0.15 0.01 0.60 61

Year-round 0.21 0.41 0.00 1.00 61

PTA-student ratio 0.24 0.17 0.02 0.90 60b

Percent White 0.57 0.20 0.23 0.92 61

Vertical Comparisons

 Spring Lane

Bacchus

Westbrook

Bridger

Sandburg

Beehive

Hunter

Jackling

Monroe

Gourley

Percent Proficient 69% 50% 72% 50% 73% 53% 66% 48% 70% 55%

Percent FRL 53% 54% 57% 58% 62% 61% 70% 69% 92% 92%

Variance Between Schools 19% 22% 20% 18% 15%

Student Teacher Ratio 26.8 24.2 24.9 27.8 26.7 26.4 24.7 26.5 25.3 23.6

Percent ELL 16% 23% 19% 24% 16% 32% 30% 28% 60% 41%

Percent White 71% 57% 54% 61% 66% 49% 44% 52% 24% 34%

Mobility Rate 34.8 57.7 31.61 45.18 27.98 52.38 33.01 36.03 48.6 55.35

Year-Round School NO YES NO YES NO YES NO NO NO NO

PTA-student Ratio 0.38 0.12 0.19 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.09

Vertical Comparisons

 Spring Lane

Bacchus

Westbrook

Bridger

Sandburg

Beehive

Hunter

Jackling

Monroe

Gourley

Percent Proficient 69% 50% 72% 50% 73% 53% 66% 48% 70% 55%

Percent FRL 53% 54% 57% 58% 62% 61% 70% 69% 92% 92%

Variance Between Schools 19% 22% 20% 18% 15%

Student Teacher Ratio 26.8 24.2 24.9 27.8 26.7 26.4 24.7 26.5 25.3 23.6

Percent ELL 16% 23% 19% 24% 16% 32% 30% 28% 60% 41%

Percent White 71% 57% 54% 61% 66% 49% 44% 52% 24% 34%

Mobility Rate 34.8 57.7 31.61 45.18 27.98 52.38 33.01 36.03 48.6 55.35

Year-Round School NO YES NO YES NO YES NO NO NO NO

PTA-student Ratio 0.38 0.12 0.19 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.09

Horizontal Comparisons

  High Low

Percent Proficient 70% 51%Percent on Free/Reduced Lunch 67% 67%

Variance Between Schools 19%

Student Teacher Ratio 25.7 25.7Percent English Language Learners 28% 30%

Percent White 52% 51%

Mobility Rate 35.20 49.33

Year-Round School 0/5 3/5

PTA-student Ratio 0.21 0.12

Horizontal Comparisons

  High Low

Percent Proficient 70% 51%Percent on Free/Reduced Lunch 67% 67%

Variance Between Schools 19%

Student Teacher Ratio 25.7 25.7Percent English Language Learners 28% 30%

Percent White 52% 51%

Mobility Rate 35.20 49.33

Year-Round School 0/5 3/5

PTA-student Ratio 0.21 0.12

School Performance by FRL

SPRING LANE

BACCHUS

WESTBROOK

BRIDGER

BEEHIVE

SANDBURG

JACKLING

HUNTER

MONROE

GOURLEY

Fitted Values

Lower Limit

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

ent P

roficie

nt

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of School on Free or Reduced Lunch

Upper Limit

School Performance by ELL

SPRING LANE

SANDBURG

WESTBROOK

BACCHUS BRIDGERJACKLING

HUNTER

BEEHIVEGOURLEY

MONROE

Upper Limit

Fitted Values

Lower Limit

40%

60%

80%

100%

50%

70%

90%

Perc

ent P

roficie

nt

0% 20% 40% 60%10% 30% 50%

Percent English Language Learners

Final Model

Our final model uses the following factors to determine where a school should be performing: FRL and FRL2

ELL and ELL2

Percent White PTA-Student Ratio Year-Round model Year-Round × FRL

Expected Proficiency RangeTop Half of District by FRL

CO

TTO

NW

OO

D

EA

STW

OO

D

UPLA

ND

TER

RA

CE

OA

KW

OO

D

WIL

LIA

M P

EN

N

WO

OD

STO

CK

BEN

NIO

N

TW

IN P

EA

KS

TR

UM

AN

BA

CC

HU

S

BR

IDG

ER

HIL

LSID

E

CO

PPER

HIL

LS

BEEH

IVE

VA

LLEY C

REST

WH

ITTIE

R

RO

BER

T F

RO

ST

JAC

KLI

NG

PLE

ASA

NT G

REEN

OR

CH

AR

D

TA

YLO

RSV

ILLE

SO

UTH

KEA

RN

S

PLY

MO

UTH

PIO

NEER

WEST K

EA

RN

S

JAM

ES E

MO

SS

MO

NR

OE

STA

NSB

UR

Y

LIN

CO

LN

RED

WO

OD

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lower Range Upper Range Proficiency Score

Perc

ent

Pro

ficie

nt

Expected Proficiency RangeBottom Half of District by FRL

WH

ITTIE

R

LAK

E R

IDG

E

RO

BER

T F

RO

ST

SIL

VER

HIL

LS

JAC

KLI

NG

HU

NTER

PLE

ASA

NT G

REEN

JOH

N C

FR

EM

ON

T

OR

CH

AR

D

RO

LLIN

G M

EA

DO

WS

TA

YLO

RSV

ILLE

AC

AD

EM

Y P

AR

K

SO

UTH

KEA

RN

S

PH

ILO

FA

RN

SW

OR

TH

PLY

MO

UTH

OQ

UIR

RH

HIL

LS

PIO

NEER

WESTER

N H

ILLS

WEST K

EA

RN

S

WO

OD

RO

W W

ILSO

N

JAM

ES E

MO

SS

GR

AN

GER

MO

NR

OE

GO

UR

LEY

STA

NSB

UR

Y

HIL

LSD

ALE

LIN

CO

LN

RO

OSEV

ELT

RED

WO

OD

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lower Range Upper Range Proficiency Score

Perc

ent

Pro

ficie

nt

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?