Schools with higher percentages of students in poverty have lower student assessment results on the 2015-16 Kansas Math and ELA assessments, and larger schools have lower student achievement results than smaller schools. In addition, higher poverty schools are likely to have larger gaps in performance based on special education status and possibly school lunch eligibility when it comes to performing at grade level or above, but can be expected to have smaller gaps in performance based on special education status, lunch eligibility, and ELL program participation when it comes to performing at college/career ready or above. Finally, larger schools are likely to have larger gaps in performance based on lunch eligibility, ELL program participation, and possibly special education stats when it comes to performing at grade level or above, and can be expected to have smaller gaps based on special education status but larger gaps based on lunch status when it comes to performing at college/career ready or above. This report presents the results of a statistical analysis to determine the extent to which a school's enrollment size and the percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch predict student performance on the 2015-16 Kansas State Assessments. School-level assessment data was used to see how the assessment results, consisting of the percent performing "at grade level or above" (levels 2, 3, and 4) and performing at "college or career ready" (levels 3 and 4) for Math and English Language Arts (ELA) for students in the all, free and reduced lunch, self-paid lunch, ELL, Non-ELL, with disabilities, and without disabilities groups could be predicted based on a) the school's total student enrollment, and b) poverty as measured by the percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Accountability data was used (rather than report card data), and the analysis focused on the overall school results rather than grade-level-specific results. For the 2015-16 data, there were 1,374 schools included, 118 (8.588%) of which were private schools. Not every school was included in each analysis, as some schools did not have students in one or more of the student subgroups.