Annual UMES Summer Institute

1
Annual UMES Summer InstituteMaking the
Adjustment Student Learning Objectives
2
(No Transcript)
3
State Teacher Evaluation Model
Professional Practice
Student Growth
50 Qualitative Measures Domain percentages
proposed by LEA and approved by MSDE
50 Quantitative Measures As defined below
Planning and Preparation 12.5
Instruction 12.5
Classroom Environment 12.5
Professional Responsibilities 12.5
DRAFT 6/6/13
K-12 Non-Tested Area/Subject Teachers 20 SLO
Lag Measure based on School
Progress Index Indicators (
Achievement, Gap Reduction, Growth,
College and Career Readiness),
Advanced Placement Tests, or
similarly available measures 15 SLO
Measure as determined by priority
identification at the district or
school level 15 Annual SLO Measure as
determined by priority identification
at the classroom level
High School Teacher Tested Subjects 20 SLO Lag
Measure based on HSA Algebra,
HSA English 2, HSA Biology, or HSA
American Government and including
an HSA data point 15 Annual SLO
Measure as determined by
priority identification at the district
or school level 15 Annual SLO
Measure as determined by
priority identification at the
classroom level
Elementary/Middle School Teacher One Tested
Area 20 MSA Lag Measure based on
either 20 Math or 20 Reading 15
Annual SLO Measure as determined by
priority identification at the
district or school level 15 Annual
SLO Measure as determined by
priority identification at the
classroom level
Elementary/Middle School Teacher Two Tested
Areas 20 MSA Lag Measure based on
10 Reading and 10 Math 15
Annual SLO Measure as
determined by priority
identification at the district or
school level 15 Annual SLO Measure
as determined by priority
identification at the classroom level
or
or
or
4
A Student Learning Objective (S.L.O.) is
Adapted from New York State District-wide Growth
Goal Setting Process Road Map for Districts
5

• Objective Summary Statement
• Summary of goal
• Data Review Baseline Evidence
• Data sources
• Instructional starting point for students
• Student Population
• Student sub groups
• Performance level/grade level
• Learning Content
• Critical content, skill mastery
• Instructional Interval
• Length of time the teacher has for instruction
  to meet the target
• Target
• Projected student performance levels
• Rationale for appropriateness and rigor of target
• Evidence of Growth
• Measures that document growth toward target
• Strategies
• Methods of instruction that support student
  growth

SLO COMPONENTS
5
6
Student Learning Objectives

• Can be used for teachers in both tested and
  non-tested areas
• Teachers have 2 or 3 SLOs, principals may have
  more
• High school teachers in tested areas and high
  school principals must have one SLO with HSA as a
  data point
• Recommend use of team, grade or content SLO
• Recommend alignment of teacher and principal SLOs
  with school and district improvement plans

7
SLO Process

• STEP 1 - Professional Development
• STEP 2 - Data Review
• STEP 3 SLO Development
• STEP 4 - Review and Approval Conference
• STEP 5 - Mid-Interval Conference
• STEP 6 - Final SLO Review
• STEP 7 Integration of SLO Results
• STEP 8 Next Steps

7
8
Ensure evaluator accountability
Student Learning ObjectivesQuality Assurance

• SLO Quality Assurance Domains
• Priority of Standard
• Quality of Measure Evidence
• Rigor of Target
• Action Plan

8
9
Quality Assurance Domains


Priority of Standard The content is aligned to common core, international, national, state, local or industry recognized standards. The skills and/or knowledge is critical for advancement to future coursework (i.e. if students do not master the standards, they will not be able to progress to the next level). The content reflects school and district priorities. The scope of the content is appropriate for the length of the instruction interval.
10
Establish Priority of Standard
11
Quality Assurance Domains


Quality of Measure Evidence The source(s) of evidence provides the data you need to determine if the target has been met. The measure(s) is aligned to the standards and provides evidence relative to the target. The measure is appropriate for the student population. The measure meets the criteria established by the state, district or school.
12
Quality Assurance Domains


Rigor of Target The target is anchored in baseline data including historical data (i.e. district, school and student level data) and multiple measures if possible. The rationale explains how the rigor and attainability of the numerical target were determined. For example, the target is based on the past performance of students or the expectation of a years growth or the mastery of a standard or incremental improvement. The numerical target represents an appropriate amount of student learning for the interval of instruction. If appropriate, the SLO differentiates targets for individuals or groups of students based on baseline data so that all targets are rigorous yet attainable.
13
Quality Assurance Domains


Action Plan The selected instructional strategies support students in reaching the target for this SLO. The identified professional development supports the successful implementation of the SLO.
14
Making the Connections

• Frame evaluation process as part of the
  continuous improvement process
• Align State District - School goals with S.L.O.
  goals
• Connect S.L.O process with other aspects of good
  teaching
• Integrate S.L.O. training with Common Core and
  other curricular training
• Integrate S.L.O. development with existing data
  review/analysis processes
• Provide opportunities for collaboration

15
Teacher Principal Evaluation System
Student Learning ObjectivesAdditional Resources

•  
• http//www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/
• programs/tpe
• Dr. Linda Burgee lburgee_at_msde.state.md.us
  410-767-0487