Understanding Common Concerns about the Focus School Metric August 2012 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
TWO STEP EQUATIONS 1. SOLVE FOR X 2. DO THE ADDITION STEP FIRST
Advertisements

You have been given a mission and a code. Use the code to complete the mission and you will save the world from obliteration…
Advanced Piloting Cruise Plot.
Chapter 1 The Study of Body Function Image PowerPoint
Copyright © 2011, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 5 Author: Julia Richards and R. Scott Hawley.
Copyright © 2011, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 6 Author: Julia Richards and R. Scott Hawley.
Author: Julia Richards and R. Scott Hawley
1 Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Appendix 01.
1 Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved Fig 2.1 Chapter 2.
By D. Fisher Geometric Transformations. Reflection, Rotation, or Translation 1.
Focus Schools Presented by: Michigan Department of Education Webinar Presentation by: Joann Neuroth, Office of Education Improvement and Innovation (OEII)
UNITED NATIONS Shipment Details Report – January 2006.
Business Transaction Management Software for Application Coordination 1 Business Processes and Coordination.
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
Title Subtitle.
Exit a Customer Chapter 8. Exit a Customer 8-2 Objectives Perform exit summary process consisting of the following steps: Review service records Close.
My Alphabet Book abcdefghijklm nopqrstuvwxyz.
A presentation to the Board of Education
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.
0 - 0.
DIVIDING INTEGERS 1. IF THE SIGNS ARE THE SAME THE ANSWER IS POSITIVE 2. IF THE SIGNS ARE DIFFERENT THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE.
FACTORING ax2 + bx + c Think “unfoil” Work down, Show all steps.
Addition Facts
Year 6 mental test 5 second questions
Year 6 mental test 10 second questions
ZMQS ZMQS
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated 2011 TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING.
Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System (PVAAS) High Growth, High Achieving Schools: Is It Possible? Fall, 2011 PVAAS Webinar.
(This presentation may be used for instructional purposes)
ABC Technology Project
© Charles van Marrewijk, An Introduction to Geographical Economics Brakman, Garretsen, and Van Marrewijk.
© Charles van Marrewijk, An Introduction to Geographical Economics Brakman, Garretsen, and Van Marrewijk.
VOORBLAD.
15. Oktober Oktober Oktober 2012.
1 Breadth First Search s s Undiscovered Discovered Finished Queue: s Top of queue 2 1 Shortest path from s.
Copyright © 2010, SAS Institute Inc. All rights reserved. Making Data Work for Kids: EVAAS Teacher Reports October 2012 SAS ® EVAAS ® for K-12.
BIOLOGY AUGUST 2013 OPENING ASSIGNMENTS. AUGUST 7, 2013  Question goes here!
Factor P 16 8(8-5ab) 4(d² + 4) 3rs(2r – s) 15cd(1 + 2cd) 8(4a² + 3b²)
Riverside County African-American Performance Shannon Wells, PhD 1.
Squares and Square Root WALK. Solve each problem REVIEW:
Basel-ICU-Journal Challenge18/20/ Basel-ICU-Journal Challenge8/20/2014.
© 2012 National Heart Foundation of Australia. Slide 2.
Lets play bingo!!. Calculate: MEAN Calculate: MEDIAN
Top-to-Bottom (TTB) Ranking
Top-to-Bottom Ranking & Priority/Focus/Reward Designations Understanding the.
Understanding Generalist Practice, 5e, Kirst-Ashman/Hull
Chapter 5 Test Review Sections 5-1 through 5-4.
GG Consulting, LLC I-SUITE. Source: TEA SHARS Frequently asked questions 2.
Addition 1’s to 20.
Model and Relationships 6 M 1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
25 seconds left…...
Test B, 100 Subtraction Facts
Januar MDMDFSSMDMDFSSS
Week 1.
Analyzing Genes and Genomes
We will resume in: 25 Minutes.
©Brooks/Cole, 2001 Chapter 12 Derived Types-- Enumerated, Structure and Union.
Intracellular Compartments and Transport
1 Unit 1 Kinematics Chapter 1 Day
PSSA Preparation.
Essential Cell Biology
1 PART 1 ILLUSTRATION OF DOCUMENTS  Brief introduction to the documents contained in the envelope  Detailed clarification of the documents content.
How Cells Obtain Energy from Food
1 Requirements for Focus Schools Focus Schools Conference Presenter: Yvonne A. Holloman, Ph.D. September 17-18, 2012.
Top-to-Bottom Ranking & Priority/Focus/Reward Designations Understanding the.
Presentation transcript:

Understanding Common Concerns about the Focus School Metric August

 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

 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

 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

10

11

12

13

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

 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

19

20

21

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

Bottom 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

Bottom 30% Top 30% 30

 See “Focus Schools Facts and Figures” on for more detail on these graphics  Contact mde-  Call , option 6 to speak with a member of the Evaluation Research and Accountability Unit 31