Project to determine how to distribute a $50 million foundation grant to help close the achievement gap among third through eighth grade students at New York City school districts and individual schools.

1. Analysis for Optimal
Grant Distribution
Grant Allocation of the Generous Donation
to NYC Schools from
The Foundation for Excellence in
Education

2. Presented by
Alex Bell
Data Analytics Major
Southern New Hampshire University
B.S. Graduation Spring 2018
Email: alexander.bell@snhu.edu

3. Agenda
 Foundation Grant
 Data Overview
 Research Questions
 Results
 Questions
 Next Steps
 Reflection

4. Foundation Grant
$50 million grant from the Foundation for Excellence in
Education to help close the achievement gap among third
through eighth grade students at New York City school districts
and individual schools.

5. Data Overview

6.  2013-2014
 Common Core Proficiency Test Results
 English language arts
 Mathematics
 3rd through 8th grade students
 430,000+ Students
 Results Citywide
 Results by 5 Boroughs
 Results by 32 Districts
 1,126 Individual primary and intermediate schools

7. Proficiency levels of NYC students by subject area grades 3-8

8. Improvements in Total of Level One Proficiency Students 2013-2014

9. Research Questions

10. 1. Are underperforming students equally
distributed among NYC school districts and
individual schools?
2. What proportion of students are testing at a
low proficiency level in English Language Arts
and Mathematics?
3. What distribution methods will be the most
effective at increasing student performance.

11. Are underperforming students equally
distributed among NYC school districts and
individual schools?
• Filter Data Into Categories
• Test for Independence
Why not simply disperse the grant
evenly among the schools and school
districts?

12. Categorized Data of Student
Proficiency Levels by School
District
Data will be analyzed to
determine difference
between observed and
expected values

13. Test for Independence
Pearson’s Chi-Squared Test
Null Hypothesis:
The students’ district and students’ proficiency levels are
independent of one another (no relationship exists).
Alternative Hypothesis:
The students’ district and students’ proficiency levels are not
independent of one another (a relationship exists).

14. Chi-square test examines the
difference between observed and
expected values.
Test results generate a p-value
which tells us if the results are
significant
Significance is defined as having a
p-value of less than .05.
𝛼 < .05

15. Result:
𝛼 = 3.86701𝐸 − 39
Which is a very small number!
We therefore reject the null hypothesis and
accept the alternative hypothesis:
A relationship exists between school
districts and student proficiency levels.

16. What proportion of students are testing at
a low proficiency level in English
Language Arts and Mathematics?

17. Definition of Level One Proficiency:
Students performing at this level are well below proficient in
standards for their grade. They demonstrate limited knowledge,
skills, and practices embodied by the New York State P-12
Common Core Learning Standards for English Language
Arts/Literacy and/or Mathematics that are considered insufficient
for the expectations at this grade. (NY Education Dept., 2014.)

18. Definition of Level Two Proficiency:
Students performing at this level are partially proficient in
standards for their grade. They demonstrate knowledge, skills,
and practices embodied by the New York State P-12 Common
Core Learning Standards for English Language Arts/Literacy
and/or Mathematics that are considered partial but
insufficient for the expectations at this grade. Students
performing at Level 2 are considered on track to meet current
New York high school graduation requirements but are not yet
proficient on Common Core Learning Standards at this grade.
(NY Education Dept., 2014.)

19. NYC Level 1&2 Proficiency by Borough
High
concentrations of
low proficiency
students in the
Bronx

20. NYC Level 1&2 Proficiency by School District
High concentrations of low
proficiency students in
several areas of Brooklyn as
well as in the Bronx

21. What distribution methods will be the most
effective for increasing student proficiency
and closing the performance gap?

22.  Targeted towards schools and districts with high
concentrations of Level One and Level Two
students
 Weighted to provide extra help for Level One
students
Distribution Methods

23. Targeted to Low Performing schools
2005 Study by consulting firm Parthenon Group
Boston Data Analysis and Research
Parthenon discovered
“…concentrations of low performers in the
(NYC)schools …were a “a powerful predictor of an
individual school’s ability to prevent Level 1 and Low
Level 2 students from falling behind.”
(Meyer 2015)

24. Weighted to Provide Extra Help
This weighted factor concept is based on the Title I
Distribution Formulas (McCann, 2013) that utilize a
weighted system for determining grants based on
poverty levels in schools.

25. Results

26. Grant Allocation
by Borough

27. Grant Allocation by School District

28. Top 50 Grant Distributions by School

29. Questions?

30. Next Steps
Target Grants
Track Results
Analyze
Future Application

31. Thank You
Alex Bell
Alexander.bell@snhu.edu