Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Understanding Common Concerns about the Focus
School MetricAugust 2012
1
What are they? How are they determined? How do Focus Schools compare to
Non-Focus schools? What happens once a school is
named? How does a school exit Focus School
status?
2
Schools with the largest achievement gaps.
Achievement gap is defined as the difference between the average scale score for the top 30% of students and the bottom 30% of students.
This methodology is an improvement over using a solely demographic-based gap methodology because it targets achievement gaps.
3
Focus schools are merely one of many methods in the system to identify schools in need of interventions and support.
Identifying Focus Schools is a critical component to Michigan achieving key goals:• -to close the achievement gap within schools • -to reduce the achievement gap statewide
4
The bottom 30% subgroup is comprised of the traditional ESEA subgroups.
All “traditional” subgroups are represented.
Most commonly occurring subgroups in the Bottom 30%:• students with disabilities• limited English proficient students• black/African American students• economically disadvantaged students
5
6
0.2
.4.6
Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities
Limited English Proficient WhiteBlack Asian/Pacific IslanderHispanic Multiracial
Focus schools have even higher concentrations of the subgroups (mentioned previously) in their bottom 30% subgroup than non-Focus schools.
This indicates that the Focus methodology is • still detecting differences in achievement in traditional
subgroups • identifying schools where there are not only large
achievement gaps in general, but where there are also large gaps between demographic subgroups
• identifies schools that otherwise may not be identified using traditional subgroup methodology
7
8
0.2
.4.6
.8
Non-Focus School Focus School
Economic Disadvantage Students with DisabilitiesLimited English Proficient WhiteBlack/African American Asian
Hispanic Multiracial
Graphs by focusv1
Analyses conducted to determine if the bottom 30% subgroup consisted solely of any demographic subgroup
To address the question:• Does the bottom 30% “solely” consist of
any one subgroup?
9
01
23
0 .5 1 0 .5 1
Non-Focus School Focus School
Den
sity
Percent Economically Disadvantaged Students in the Bottom 30%Graphs by focusv1
10
05
10
15
0 .5 1 0 .5 1
Non-Focus School Focus School
Den
sity
Percent Black Students in Bottom 30% SubgroupGraphs by focusv1
11
05
10
15
20
0 .5 1 0 .5 1
Non-Focus School Focus School
Den
sity
Percent Black Students in School OverallGraphs by focusv1
12
0.0
5.1
.15
.2.2
5
Non-Focus School Focus School
Avg % SWD in Top 30% Avg % SWD in Middle 40%
Avg % SWD in Bottom 30% Avg % SWD School
Graphs by focusv113
0.0
5.1
.15
.2.2
5
Non-Priority School Priority School
Avg%SWD Top 30% Avg%SWDMiddle40%
Avg%SWDBottom30% Avg%SWDSchool
Graphs by priority
14
Focus schools have even higher concentrations of the subgroups (mentioned previously) in their bottom 30% subgroup than non-Focus schools.
This indicates that the Focus methodology is • - still detecting differences in achievement in
traditional subgroups • - identifying schools where there are not only
large achievement gaps in general, but where there are also large gaps between demographic subgroups
• -identifies schools that otherwise may not be identified using traditional subgroup methodology
15
16
0.2
.4.6
.8
Non-Focus School Focus School
Economic Disadvantage Students with DisabilitiesLimited English Proficient WhiteBlack/African American Asian
Hispanic Multiracial
Graphs by focusv1
Are Focus schools only high-achieving schools?
Are Focus schools only high socioeconomic status schools?
Is the bottom 30% subgroup in Focus schools actually high performing?
Are schools more likely to be Focus schools if they have [fill in the blank group] kids?
18
02
04
06
08
01
00P
erc
ent E
con
omic
ally
Dis
adva
nta
ged
0 20 40 60 80 100Overall Percentile Rank
Focus Schools Non-Focus Schools
19
05
01
000
50
100
0 50 100 0 50 100
Urban Suburb
Town Rural
Focus School Non-Focus School
Pe
rcen
t ED
Stu
dent
s
School Percentile Rank
Graphs by locale4cat
20
05
01
00
0 50 100 0 50 100
Elementary/Middle School High School
Focus Non-Focus
Pe
rcen
t ED
Stu
dent
s
Overall Percentile Rank
Graphs by gradespan
21
02
04
06
08
01
00P
erc
ent M
inor
ity S
tude
nts
in B
uild
ing
0 20 40 60 80 100Overall Percentile Rank
Focus Schools Non-Focus Schools
22
Is the bottom 30% subgroup in Focus schools actually high-performing?
Is the bottom 30% subgroup in Focus schools higher than the top 30% subgroup in non-Focus schools?
Is the top 30% subgroup in focus schools higher-performing than non-focus schools?
23
Across all subject areas and E/MS and high school, the bottom 30% subgroup consistently had average achievement z-score below zero, and most of them are between -0.5 and -1.5.
24
0.5
11
.5
-2 -1 0 1 -2 -1 0 1
Non-Focus Focus
Den
sity
Bottom 30% Reading E/MSGraphs by Focus
0.5
11
.5
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Non-Focus Focus
Den
sity
Top 30% Subgroup Reading E/MSGraphs by FocusBottom 30% Top 30%
25
Have not detected any significant patterns yet
Continuing to analyze the data Because metric compares top 30
percent of kids to bottom 30 percent of kids in the school, it’s unlikely the gap is being driven exclusively by one group or type of kids.
Hypothesis: Schools with a range of student economic disadvantage are more likely to be Focus schools, because the higher income kids are all in the top 30% and the low income kids are all in the bottom 30%
This would make the metric a proxy for socioeconomic gap, not achievement gap
0.5
11
.5
-2 -1 0 1 -2 -1 0 1
Non-Focus Focus
Den
sity
Bottom 30% Reading E/MSGraphs by Focus
0.5
11
.5
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Non-Focus Focus
Den
sity
Top 30% Subgroup Reading E/MSGraphs by FocusBottom 30% Top 30%
30
See “Focus Schools Facts and Figures” on www.mi.gov/focusschools for more detail on these graphics
Contact [email protected]
Call 877-560-8378, option 6 to speak with a member of the Evaluation Research and Accountability Unit
31
![Attribution-Based Confidence Metric For Deep Neural Networks€¦ · critical or high-assurance applications is inhibited due to two major concerns: their brittleness [6, 7] to adversarial](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5f06b3197e708231d4194bb6/attribution-based-conidence-metric-for-deep-neural-networks-critical-or-high-assurance.jpg)
