School Performance Disparity in Granite School District

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

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

8. Vertical Comparisons

9. Vertical Comparisons

10. Horizontal Comparisons

11. Horizontal Comparisons

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 FRL2 • ELL and ELL2 • Percent White • PTA-Student Ratio • Year-Round model • Year-Round × FRL

15. Expected Proficiency RangeTop Half of District by FRL

16. Expected Proficiency RangeBottom 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 Likertscale 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?