Louisiana Student Learning ObjectiveLiteracy – Signiicant Disabilities (Grades 2-4)

May 2013

2

Table of ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

What Is an SLO? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

What Is an Annotated SLO? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

How to Use This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Louisiana Contextual Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Student Learning Objective: Literacy–Significant Disabilities (Grades 2-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Element List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Rationale for SLT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Student Learning Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Baseline Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Scoring Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Overview of Louisiana Literacy–Significant Disabilities (Grades 2-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Appendix: Tool for Comparing SLO Elements Across Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3

Introduction What is an SLO?

As States and school districts implement educator evaluation systems that include measures of student growth, one of the challenges they face is identifying measures for non-tested grades and subjects. The use of student learning objectives (SLOs) is one promising approach to addressing this challenge. Structurally, an SLO consists of several “elements” that describe a specific learning objective for a particular student population as well as a specific, systematic process for how an educator can identify and implement strategies to track progress toward that goal and achieve it.

What is an Annotated SLO?

The Reform Support Network (RSN) has developed a series of annotated SLOs to orient readers around their structure, provide analysis and suggest specific actions to strengthen the SLO’s quality. Each annotated SLO, such as the one in this document, provides analysis and suggestions for improvement for each individual element within the SLO as well as the SLO as a whole. States, school districts, colleges, universities and others can use the RSN’s collection of annotated SLOs, the “SLO Library,” to prepare teachers and administrators to develop high-quality SLOs or to improve SLOs that they have already developed.

The SLO Library is not a collection of exemplary SLOs. The RSN designed the library as a teaching tool, so most of the jurisdictions intentionally provided the library with SLOs that vary in quality. They also vary in their subject areas and grade levels. Each SLO review identifies and discusses both strengths and areas for improvement. It is up to the reader, then, not to mimic the SLOs found in the library but to extrapolate lessons learned from them to produce new, original and high quality SLOs.

How to Use This Document

The RSN intends for the SLO Library to support any stakeholder actively engaged in learning about or implementing SLOs: State departments of education, school districts and schools, teachers implementing SLOs, administrators leading an SLO process and colleges of education interested in adding SLO coursework to their teacher or administrator preparation programs.

Each annotated SLO begins with contextual information for the jurisdiction that produced the SLO and then presents each element of the SLO in sequence. Each element begins with the jurisdiction’s actual description of it, which is followed by the text of “an author” from the jurisdiction. Think of the author as the teacher(s) or school district administrator(s) who actually wrote the SLO. The language from the jurisdiction’s description comes from the jurisdiction’s SLO template or other guidance materials. The author’s text comes from the SLO provided by the jurisdiction. Both sections are unedited.

The subsequent section, “Review of the Author’s Text and Potential Improvements,” is the focus of the library and should be of greatest interest to the reader. This section analyzes the text written by the author from the jurisdiction and provides considerations for improving the quality of the individual element.

An overall summary of the entire SLO follows the presentation of the elements and concludes the review of the SLO.

The appendix contains what the RSN calls an “element comparison tool,” which links the name of the element used by this jurisdiction to the standardized term used in the SLO Library. The comparison table intends to provide readers with the means to compare elements across SLOs, even if they are called by different names.

4

Louisiana Contextual InformationSLO Implementation TimelineSchool year the jurisdiction piloted or plans to pilot SLOs without stakes for teachers1

2011–2012

School year the jurisdiction piloted or plans to pilot SLOs with stakes for teachers2

2012–2013

School year began or plans to begin large scale implementation

2012–2013

SLO Development and ApprovalWho develops SLOs? Individual teachers, grade- or content-level teams of

teachers, school and district administrators

Are collectively developed SLOs permitted (for example, by teams of teachers and administrators)?

Yes

Who approves SLOs? School administrators

SLO Use in EvaluationAre SLOs required or optional for use in evaluating educators? Required

Are SLOs the sole measure of student growth in the evaluation system? If not, what other measure(s) does the jurisdiction use?

No, they are one of multiple measures in the system. Other measures include observations and value-added data, where available.

Does the jurisdiction use SLOs to determine educator compensation?

Beginning in the 2013–2014 school year, school districts will base their compensation schedules in part on effectiveness, as determined by the Compass evaluation system, which incorporates SLOs.

What weight does the SLO carry in determining the summative rating for teachers in the jurisdiction’s evaluation system?

50 percent for teachers of non-tested subjects

What weight does the SLO carry in determining the summative rating for administrators in the jurisdiction’s evaluation system?

50 percent for school administrators

SLO ImplementationHow many SLOs are required for most teachers? 2 SLOs per year

How many SLOs are required for most school administrators? 2 SLOs per year

Which teachers and administrators are required to use SLOs? Teachers of non-tested subjects, teachers of tested subjects, and all administrators

SLO AssessmentWho selects which assessments are used for SLOs? Teachers, school and district administrators

Are there standards or required development processes for assessments created by teachers, schools, or districts? If so, what are they?

Yes, the State recommends that teachers and school administrators use a clear rubric creating and judging assessments for non-tested grades and subjects.

What types of assessments are permitted? Teacher-developed, school-developed, district-developed, State-developed and national models

Are performance or portfolio-based assessments permitted for SLOs?

Yes

Are commercially available assessments permitted for SLOs? Teachers, school and district administrators

1 SLOs will not be used in educator evaluations2 SLOs may be used in educator evaluations

5

Student Learning Objective: Literacy–Significant Disabilities (Grades 2-4)Element List

Rationale for SLT............................................................................................................................................................6

Student Learning Target..............................................................................................................................................7

Baseline Data...................................................................................................................................................................8

Scoring Plan.....................................................................................................................................................................9

6

Rationale for SLTStandardized Name

RationaleJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTPlease include targeted content standards and/or explanation of assessment method, as applicable.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTThese students have significant cognitive disabilities and most have complex communication needs. All are working on literacy skill development, but at different levels. Each requires augmentative and assistive technology supports across environments to access literacy materials and make progress. The Literacy Rubric provides a tool, which can be used to measure progress of this population of students ranging from Early Emerging Literacy, to Transitional Emerging Literacy, to Early Conventional Literacy across various components of reading (Phonemic Awareness, Concepts of Print, Word Recognition, Fluency, and Comprehension). The projected growth target for each student is based upon his/her current performance as well as past learning trends as measured via this tool. This assessment tool has been used as an alternate to DIBELS for this population of students, and can be used across all grade levels for more general progress monitoring.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author presents student needs in this content area in general terms, noting, for example, that students have “complex communication needs.” However, the text does not specify what they are. The author describes the chosen rubric for the assessment as appropriate for the student population, while noting but not specifying past learning trends. The pre-assessment scores listed in a later element indicate significant room for growth in this content area.

The author might consider further informing the student learning target (SLT) by incorporating the State’s instructional guidance on special populations. Where possible, the author might cite specific standards that are included in the content and describe how the assessment tool measures progress towards these standards. SLTs promote a standards-based approach to teaching and assessment and are strongest when clear connections exist between the SLT and specific performance indicators.

7

Student Learning TargetStandardized Name

Student Growth TargetsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTThe student learning targets set goals for student academic growth and are used to determine the Student Growth component score.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTFour of the six students in the class will demonstrate growth in literacy skills (Early Emerging, Transitional Emerging, Early Conventional) as evidenced on a pre- and -post assessment via the Staugler Literacy Rubric. Refer to the data below for projected growth for each student, as measured by their total rubric scores.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe goal is for four out of six students to achieve the targets, with differentiated targets that reflect the author’s knowledge of student starting points.

Without specifics about the abilities and needs of these students, it is unclear if the goals are rigorous and realistic. Why should not six out of six students hit their targets? Gathering and analyzing additional data about student learning (such as portfolios, IEPs, and historical data for this course) would enrich the analysis of student baselines and targets.

8

Baseline DataStandardized Name

Baseline JURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTPlease include what you know about the targeted students’ performance/skills/achievement levels at the beginning of the year, as well as any additional student data or background info used in setting your target.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTStudent 1: Baseline = 5/25; Projected Growth = 7/25Student 2: Baseline = 8/25; Projected Growth = 10/25Student 3: Baseline = 1/25; Projected Growth = 2/25Student 4: Baseline = 3/25; Projected Growth = 4/25Student 5: Baseline = 16/25; Projected Growth = 20/25Student 6: Baseline = 3/25; Projected Growth = 4/25

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

The author provides baseline data and projected growth for each student in succinct terms. Individualized targets promote clarity in expectations for students.

This SLO element is exemplary in that it provides baseline data and goals for each individual student. It would be strengthened by the inclusion of additional achievement data (for example, performance on previous coursework) and pertinent information from individual IEPs that would help teachers and evaluators alike determine if the targets are rigorous and reasonable for each student.

9

Scoring PlanStandardized Name

ScoringJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT

Scoring Plan:Insufficient Attainment of Target (1):

The teacher has demonstrated an insufficient impact on student learning by falling far short of the target.

Partial Attainment of Target (2):

The teacher has demonstrated some impact on student learning, but did not meet the target.

Full Attainment of Target (3):

The teacher has demonstrated a considerable impact on student learning by meeting the target.

Exceptional Attainment of Target (4):

The teacher has demonstrated an outstanding impact on student learning by surpassing the target by a meaningful margin.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT

Achievement range: Achievement range: Achievement range: Achievement range:Fewer than 3 students meet their target.

3 out of 6 students meet their target.

4 out of 6 students meet their target.

5 or 6 students meet their target

OR

4 students meet their target and at least 2 exceed the target by at least 1 point

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThis SLT scoring plan combines two methodologies of translating student results into an SLT score. One is the percentage of students meeting their target. The other is the consideration of students who exceed their targets.

This SLT recognizes students who exceed their targets, while continuing to consider the percentage of students meeting their target in all possible outcomes. If full attainment of the target is in fact a rigorous expectation, then this SLO succeeds in providing an incentive for implementers of this SLO to push students beyond expectations. What matters most here, however, is that it is important to be sure that the expectation that 66 percent of students meet their goals is, in fact, rigorous.

Overview of Louisiana Literacy–Significant Disabilities (Grades 2-4)This literacy SLO includes a description of work with a small population of students with significant cognitive disabilities and focuses on increasing literacy skills. The author sets a different target for each individual student. The author might consider strengthening this already strong approach by presenting any additional considerations that went into the formulation of final targets (for instance, additional achievement data or information in IEPs). The expectation that 66 percent of students will meet their goals is a target that is lower than those found in most SLOs that set a percentage expectation. The provision of additional information would help ensure that the 66 percent figure sets high standards for student and teacher performance. It would also be helpful for the author to specify which areas are the most difficult for students to learn, so that teachers can adjust instructional strategies to address those learning needs.

10

An earlier version of this document was developed under the auspices of the Reform Support Network, with funding from the U.S. Department of Education under contract #GS-23F-8182H. This publication features information from public and private organizations and links to additional information created by those organizations. Inclusion of this information does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any products or services offered or views expressed, nor does the Department of Education control its accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness.

Appendix: Tool for Comparing SLO Elements Across JurisdictionsLouisiana Element Name Standardized Name

Rationale for SLT Rationale

Student Learning Target Student Growth Targets

Baseline Data Baseline

Scoring Plan Scoring