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
100%
Upper Limit
90%
80%
Fitted Values
CARL SANDBURG
WESTBROOK
70%
MONROE
SPRING LANE
Lower Limit
HUNTER
60%
GOURLEY
50%
BACCHUS
BEEHIVE
BRIDGER
JACKLING
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Percent of School on Free or Reduced Lunch
90%
100%
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
 Mobility
rate
 Percent ELL
 Year-round
 PTA ratio
 Percent White
ratio
Variables Used in Quantitative Analysis
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
n
Proficiency
0.64
0.12
0.47
0.98
61
FRL
0.61
0.25
0.07
0.99
61
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
Variable
Control Variables
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
25.7
Percent 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
25.7
Percent 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
Upper Limit
100%
90%
80%
Fitted Values
Lower Limit
SANDBURG
WESTBROOK
70%
MONROE
SPRING LANE
HUNTER
60%
GOURLEY
BEEHIVE
50%
BACCHUS
BRIDGER
JACKLING
40%
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Percent of School on Free or Reduced Lunch
90%
100%
School Performance by ELL
100%
Upper Limit
90%
Fitted Values
80%
Lower Limit
SANDBURG
WESTBROOK
70%
MONROE
SPRING LANE
HUNTER
60%
GOURLEY
BEEHIVE
50%
BACCHUS
BRIDGER
JACKLING
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Percent English Language Learners
50%
60%
Final Model

Our final model uses the following factors to
determine where a school should be performing:
and FRL2
 ELL and ELL2
 Percent White
 PTA-Student Ratio
 Year-Round model
 Year-Round × FRL
 FRL
Lower Range
Upper Range
Proficiency Score
FOX HILLS
VALLEY CREST
SANDBURG
BEEHIVE
ARCADIA
COPPER HILLS
MILL CREEK
HILLSIDE
MAGNA
BRIDGER
WESTBROOK
BACCHUS
SPRING LANE
TRUMAN
GEARLD WRIGHT
TWIN PEAKS
DIAMOND RIDGE
BENNION
SMITH
WOODSTOCK
ROSECREST
WILLIAM PENN
CRESTVIEW
OAKWOOD
MORNINGSIDE
UPLAND TERRACE
DRIGGS
EASTWOOD
OAKRIDGE
COTTONWOOD
Percent Proficient
Expected Proficiency Range
Top Half of District by FRL
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Lower Range
Upper Range
Proficiency Score
REDWOOD
ROOSEVELT
LINCOLN
HILLSDALE
STANSBURY
GOURLEY
MONROE
GRANGER
JAMES E MOSS
WOODROW WILSON
WEST KEARNS
WESTERN HILLS
PIONEER
OQUIRRH HILLS
PLYMOUTH
PHILO FARNSWORTH
SOUTH KEARNS
ACADEMY PARK
TAYLORSVILLE
ROLLING MEADOWS
ORCHARD
JOHN C FREMONT
PLEASANT GREEN
HUNTER
JACKLING
SILVER HILLS
ROBERT FROST
LAKE RIDGE
WHITTIER
Percent Proficient
Expected Proficiency Range
Bottom Half of District by FRL
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
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




Support from community



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
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?