The SLO (Student Learning Objective)

Process

Pennsylvania

SEADAE Assessment InstituteJuly 29, 2014

Intent:

To provide a level of richness that develops assessment literacy and changes teacher practice- not just teacher evaluation, but instead providing a rich instructional tool for teachers so that they could connect student assessment data with teaching and instruction

A (5)process to (4) document a

(3) measure of educator effectiveness

based on (2)student achievement of (1)content

standards.

Definition

4June 26,2014

What items are in your “pie,” and at what percentages?

Are teachers in the arts affected differently than teachers in “tested grades and subjects,” and if so, how?

State Sharing:

Please refer to Handouts for ◦SLO Template◦Performance Task Framework

SLO Process:

Elective RatingIndicatorsMeasure

sGoalContext

To meet federal RTT Requirements

To appropriately address the problem of teacher in non-tested grades and subjects

To improve understanding of assessment literacy for teachers and administrators

To encourage teachers to use student achievement data toward changing instructional practice

Why PA chose this process:

What processes are you using in your state to gather evidence of student achievement?

Are these processes tied to teacher evaluation, and if so, how?

Why were these processes chosen?

State Sharing:

Development of materials and processes: pdesas.org

Implementing SLO Statewide:

Implementation Timelines

Turn around training◦ Authors to Intermediate Unit personnel◦ IU personnel to school district implementation teams

Intent for materials to be used several ways:◦ For professional trainers◦ For school leaders and implementation team

members◦ For personal study

Implementing SLO Statewide:

What materials did your state develop to support use of student achievement as a teacher evaluation tool?

What processes were undertaken to train and implement those materials as part of teacher evaluation?

State Sharing:

Regional Education Lab MACC West Ed Center for Assessment Reform Support Network

◦ SLO Toolkit◦ https://rtt.grads360.org/#communities/tle-sa/

workgroups/slo/slo-toolkit

Assistance and Support Consorita:

Intent for a 3 year plan, still in flux due to current budget constraints

Original plan focused on materials, training, and perception of SLO process ability to improve teaching and learning.

Available studies come primarily from schools who based the process on teacher incentive funds

Research Plan

State recommended process that will be implemented 500 different ways (LEA control)

Distrust of teacher evaluation systems ◦ Unions◦ Denial

Funding◦ State timelines and procurement processes◦ RTT allocation restrictions◦ SLO was the last piece of teacher evaluation

developed but the least familiar piece

Challenges (part 1):

Least familiar component of teacher evaluation◦ Last one developed◦ Perception that SLO should be easy, not

cumbersome Developing “Guidelines for Implementation”

◦ LEA control state◦ Gaming the system

Teachers in non-tested grades and subjects are not familiar with PA Standards and Curriculum Framework

Challenges (part 2):

Levels of alignment required by the process◦ Alignment to PA Standards◦ Alignment of Assessment to Goals and Standards

Connecting PA vision of student achievement to vendor-developed processes and tests

Understanding that SLO is intended to be content specific◦ Continued attempts by administrators to have all

teachers support Math and ELA goals◦ Difficulty understanding assessments that are not

easily quantified

Challenges (part 3):

What challenges did you find in your state when implementing evidence of student achievement as part of teacher evaluation?

State Sharing

Capacity difficulties on all levels◦ Money◦ Time to build and train: building the plane while

flying it◦ Training

Capacity to support trainers Supervision of trainers Understanding the diversity of trainer

abilities/perspectives Ways in which trainers and teachers retrieve and

learn information has changed, suggesting “sound byte” learning

Trainer buy-in was weak

Lessons Learned (part 1):

Should we have trained Assessment Literacy first?◦ Tests should be built from blueprints◦ Designing, Building and Reviewing assessments is a

misunderstood art form Teachers are so inundated with new teacher

evaluation changes that they will settle for compliance as opposed to the rich instructional tool that SLO can be

Teachers and trainers are reluctant to commit to percentages of students demonstrating achievment

Lessons Learned (part 2):

SLO is an opportunity to honor teaching of all content standards areas

SLO is a rich instructional practice

SLO is not an easy piece to initially understand or implement

Summary

PLEASE FILL OUT AN EXIT TICKET