School Audits and School Improvement: Exploring the Variance Point Concept in Kentucky
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a diagnostic intervention (Bowles, Churchill, Effrat, & McDermott, 2002) for schools failing to meet school improvement goals, Ken-tucky used a scholastic audit process based on nine standards and 88 associated indicators called the Standards and Indicators for School Improvement (SISI). Schools are rated on a scale of 1–4 on each indicator, with a score of 3 considered as fully functional (Kentucky De-partment of Education [KDE], 2002). As part of enacting the legislation, KDE was required to also audit a random sample of schools that did meet school improvement goals; thereby identifying practices present in improving schools that are not present in those failing to improve. These practices were referred to as variance points, and were reported to school leaders annually. Variance points have differed from year to year, and the methodology used by KDE was unclear. Moreover, variance points were reported for all schools without differentiating based upon the level of school (elementary, middle, or high). In this study, we established a transparent methodology for variance point determination that differentiates between elementary, middle, and high schools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".