STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE (SLO) PROCESS...

© Pennsylvania Department of Education

Template #4-SLO Process Template – May 2014

STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE (SLO) PROCESS TEMPLATE SLO is a process to document a measure of educator effectiveness based on student achievement of content standards. SLOs are a

part of Pennsylvania’s multiple-measure, comprehensive system of Educator Effectiveness authorized by Act 82 (HB 1901).

1. Classroom Context

1a. Name 1b. School 1c. District

1d. Class/

Course Title

1e. Grade

Level

1f. Total # of

Students

1g. Typical

Class Size

1h. Class

Frequency

1i. Typical

Class Duration

2. SLO Goal

2a. Goal Statement

2b. PA Standards

2c. Rationale

3. Performance Measures (PM)

3a.

Name

PM #1:

PM #2:

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:

3b.

Type

District-designed Measures and Examinations

Nationally Recognized Standardized Tests

Industry Certification Examinations

Student Projects

Student Portfolios

Other:___________________________

3c.

Purpose

PM #1:

PM #2:

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:

3d.

Metric

Growth (change in student performance across

two or more points in time)

Mastery (attainment of a defined level of

achievement)

Growth and Mastery

3e.

Administration

Frequency

PM #1:

PM #2:

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:

3f.

Adaptations/

Accommodations

IEP

ELL

Gifted IEP

Other

3g.

Resources/

Equipment

PM #1:

PM #2:

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:

3h.

Scoring Tools

PM #1:

PM #2:

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:

3i.

Administration

& Scoring

Personnel

PM #1:

PM #2:

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:

3j.

Performance

Reporting

PM #1:

PM #2:

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:

Ratings Indicators Measures Goal Context


Template #4-SLO Process Template – May 2014

4. Performance Indicators (PI)

4a.

PI Targets:

All Student Group

PI Target #1:

PI Target #2:

PI Target #3:

PI Target #4:

PI Target #5:

4b.

PI Targets:

Focused Student Group

(optional)

PI Target #1:

PI Target #2:

PI Target #3:

PI Target #4:

PI Target #5:

4c.

PI Linked

(optional)

4d.

PI Weighting

(optional)

PI Weight

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

5. Elective Rating

5a. Level

Failing

0% to ___ % of

students will meet the

PI targets.

Needs Improvement

___% to ___% of


PI targets.

Proficient

___% to ___% of


PI targets.

Distinguished

___% to 100% of


PI targets.

Teacher Signature _________________________Date______ Evaluator Signature _____________________Date______

5b. Rating

Distinguished (3)

Proficient (2)

Needs Improvement (1)

Failing (0)

Notes/Explanation



SLO Process Template -Help Desk – May 2014 1

Help Desk: Section 1

This page provides detailed guidance to Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Department of

Education’s SLO Process Template.

Element Definition Format Example

1a. Name Educator’s full name First, MI, Last Juan L. Rodríguez

1b. School

Name of school(s) to which the

educator is assigned during the

current year.

Full Name(s) Dunham High School

Dunham Elementary School

1c. District

Name of district to which the

educator is assigned during the

current year

Full Name Dunham Area SD

1d. Class/Course

Title

Name of the class/course/content area

upon which the SLO is based. Full Name(s)

Physical Education

Algebra II

Art

ELA (Writing)

Math (Measurement)

1e. Grade Level

Grade level(s) for those students

included within class/course

identified in Element 1d.

Numeric values/Text

11 (Single Grade)

3, 5, 7 (Multiple Grades)

K (Kindergarten)

Pre-K 4 (4 year old students)

1f. Total # of

Students

Aggregate number of students

(estimated, across multiple sections)

for which data will be collected and

applied to this SLO.

Numeric values only 25 (Single class/section)

120 (Multiple classes/sections)

1g. Typical Class

Size

The “average” number of students in

a single session of the class/

course identified in Element 1d.

Numeric values only

4

20

80

1h. Class Frequency

The frequency and time frame in

which the class/course identified in

Element 1d is delivered.

Numeric and text

values for each

unique class/course:

(# of sessions) per

(week, 6 day cycle)

for (year, semester,

35 day rotation)

equaling a total of

(#) sessions

5 sessions per week for one year equaling a

total of 180 sessions.

3 sessions per 6 day cycle for one semester

equaling a total of 45 sessions.

1i. Typical Class

Duration

The average number of minutes

allocated to deliver a “session” of the

class/course identified in Element 1d.

Numeric values only

120 (content area taught within a day-long self-

contained classroom)

45 (typical secondary course delivery model)







2a. Goal Statement Narrative articulating the “Big Idea”

upon which the SLO is based. Text narrative

(Foreign Language)

Students will demonstrate effective

communication in the target language by

speaking and listening; writing; and reading.

(Physics)

Students will demonstrate their understanding of

the concepts of force, the conservation of

energy, and the conservation of momentum by

explaining the motion of different moving

objects.

2b. PA Standards

References the PA Standards that

align with the Goal Statement.

Numeric references to PA Standards

are found at:

http://www.pdesas.org/standard/views

References additional professional

organization standards that align to the

Goal Statement.

Hyperlinks or

Numeric and text

values

PA Standards

3.2.B Physics Standards

3.2.10.B1

(Hyperlink) 9.1.5.A

PDE CIP 12.0508 Institutional Food Worker

Task Grid tasks 2222, 2224, 2225

Professional Standards

ACTFL 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

2c. Rationale

Narrative providing reasons why the

Goal Statement and the aligned

Standards address important learning

for this class/course/content area.

Text narrative

(Foreign Language)

Speaking, reading, and writing are integral to

second language learning, as they demonstrate

the ability to communicate in the target

language.

(Physics)

PA Academic Standards for Science and

Technology and Engineering Education identify

the concepts of force, the conservation of

energy, and the conservation of momentum as

big ideas in physics. The concepts of force, the

conservation of energy, and the conservation of

momentum form the basis of classical physics

and are often applied in engineering and other

related disciplines.

http://www.pdesas.org/standard/views

http://www.pdesas.org/Standard/StandardsBrowser/22254







3a. Name

List the name of each Performance

Measure for which a Performance

Indicator is established in Section 4a.

Narrative text

HS Choir

Individual Vocal Assessment Task

Physics

Force Concept Inventory

3b. Type

Identify the type(s) of Performance

Measure(s) listed in 3a. From the

given list, select all types that are

applicable.

Select box

(Multiple boxes can

be selected to

describe a single

Performance

Measure)




Student Projects

Student Portfolios

Other

3c. Purpose

The purpose statement for each

Performance Measure that addresses

who, what, and why.

Narrative text

Physics

Force Concept

To measure student understanding of

fundamental concepts in Newtonian mechanics.

3rd Grade Math

Measurement Data Project

The data project is intended to measure student

proficiency of using appropriate tools to collect

and interpret data.

3d. Metric

The metric used by the performance

measure to evaluate the performance

indicator.

Select box

(Select only one box)

Growth (change in student performance

across two or more points in time)


achievement)

Growth and Mastery

3e. Administration

Frequency

The timeframe during the school year

that the Performance Measures are

administered to students. For

Performance Measures administered

more than one time, the frequency

(e.g., quarterly) is annotated.

Narrative text

World Language

Speaking Assessment: during the last quarter of

the instructional period

Physics

PM #1: Force Concept Inventory

Prior to the start of the unit on forces and at the

end of the unit on forces.




3f. Adaptations /

Accommodations

Identifies and lists any unique

adaptations or special

accommodations needed for IEP,

ELL, Gifted IEP, or Others to

complete the tasks within each

Performance Measure.

Select all boxes that

apply

Provide Narrative

IEP

ELL

Gifted

Other

3g. Resources /

Equipment

Identifies any unique resources,

including equipment and personnel,

associated with each Performance

Measure.

Narrative text

Open space suitable for theatrical performance

Access to books, journals, and online resources

for research, scripts, and theatrical text.

3h. Scoring Tools

Identifies the scoring “tools” for each

performance measure

For objective measures, scoring keys

and SCR (Short Constructed Response

/ECR (Extended Constructive

Response) rubrics are identified. For

subjective measures, the name of each

scoring rubric and accompanying

guidelines are listed.

Narrative text

HS Choir

Individual Vocal Assessment Task Rubric

Physics

Force Concept Inventory Scoring Key

Family & Consumer Science

Meal Planning Task Checklist

3i. Administration &

Scoring

Personnel

Identifies two key individuals: The

person administering the performance

measure(s) and the person scoring.

This is particularly important for

subjective measures in which the

subject matter expert is both

administrator and scorer.

Narrative text

Physics

Roller Coaster Energy Project

Can be administered and scored by a Certified

Physics Teacher

HS Choir

Individual Vocal Assessment Task

Can be administered by the student and scored

by a Certified equivalent Choral Music

professional

3j. Performance

Reporting

Identifies the manner by which

student performance on the

Performance Measures will be

communicated to others (as

appropriate).

Narrative text

World Language

Speaking Assessment:

Summary report of students who met the

performance indicator

HS Choir

Individual Sight Singing Task

Summary list of students who achieve the

performance indicator.







4a. PI Targets: All

Student Group

A description of the expected level

of achievement for each student in

the SLO population (as defined in

Element 1f) based on the scoring

tool(s) used for each performance

measure (as listed in Element 3a).

For each

Performance

Indicator, 2 items

are required:

(1) Performance

Measure Name

(2) Narrative text

Physics

(1) Roller Coaster Energy Project

(2) Students will achieve 6 out of 9 using the

roller coaster project rubric.

US History

(1) US History Final Exam

(2) Students will achieve an 85% or higher on

the final exam.

5th Grade ELA

(1) DRA

(2) Using the DRA text gradient chart,

students will demonstrate one year of

reading growth.

4b. PI Targets:

Focused Student

Group

(optional)

A description of the expected level

of achievement for students in a

subset of the SLO population (as

defined in Element 1f) based on the

scoring tool(s) used for each

performance measure (as listed in

Element 4a).

Subset populations can be identified

through prior student achievement

data or through content-specific pre-

test data.

For each

Performance

Indicator, 3 items

are required:

(1) Description of

the subset

population

(2) Performance

Measure Name

(3) Narrative text

World Language

(1) IEP students and students who have a

Basic or Below-Basic reading ability as

evidenced by PSSA scores in ELA

(2) Speaking Assessment

(3) To achieve Basic or above in 2 out of 4

rubric criteria

5th Grade ELA

(1) Students who score Below Basic (</=45%)

on the Beginning-of-Year Benchmark

Assessment

(2) Study Island

(3) Minimum 30% increase shown on the End-

of-Year Benchmark Assessment.

4c. PI Linked

(optional)

A description of any performance

measures for which a student must

meet a specific achievement level in

order to meet achievement levels on

additional performance measures.

Narrative Text

Family and Consumer Science

Students must meet the performance indicator

on the Food Safety and Sanitation Test prior to

beginning the Kitchen Competency Task.

4d. PI Weighting

(optional)

An assignment of proportional

values among PIs prior to

aggregation and application to

Section 5. Weighting can be applied

when there is more than one

performance indicator.

Numeric values

represented by either

percentages or

proportions

PI Weight

#1 20%

#2 40%

#3 40%







5a. Level

Four levels of projected

performance regarding the PI,

reflecting a continuum

established by the educator prior

to the evaluation period. Each

performance level (i.e., Failing,

Needs Improvement, Proficient,

and Distinguished) is populated

with a percentage range such

that 0% to 100% meeting

expectations is distributed

among the levels.

Numeric

values only

Failing

0% to 69% of

students will

meet the PI

targets.

Needs

Improvement

70% to 79% of

students will

meet the PI

targets.

Proficient

80% to 94% of

students will

meet the PI

targets.

Distinguished

95% to 100% of

students will

meet the PI

targets.

Once the SLO is completed through Element 5a, the SLO can be signed and implemented.

Elements 5b is not to be completed until after performance data are collected, reviewed, evaluated and reported.

5b. Rating

Given the actual performance

regarding the PI, the principal or

evaluator identifies one of four

performance levels.

This section is not completed

until after performance data are

collected, reviewed, and

evaluated against each

performance indicator, and in the

aggregate, against 5a criteria.

Select only

one box

Distinguished (3)

Proficient (2)


Failing (0)



5b. Notes/

Explanation

Provides space for the educator

to articulate influences, factors,

and other conditions associated

with the assigned rating as well

as to reflect on purposeful

review of the data.

This section is not completed

until after performance data are

collected, reviewed, and

evaluated against each

performance indicator, and in the

aggregate, against 5a criteria.

Narrative

text

Suggested Topics for Comment:

1. In-depth analysis of the data that will provide goals for future

implementation and improvement of student achievement through

this SLO.

2. Recommendations as to how analysis of the achievement data will

inform future teaching practice as defined by Danielson’s

Framework for Teaching.

3. Recommendations for further SLO development to support

student achievement of standards in this targeted content area.

STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE (SLO) PROCESS TEMPLATE

SLO is a process to document a measure of educator effectiveness based on student achievement of content standards. SLOs are a



1a. Name Cliff Barnes 1b. School Southfork H.S. 1c. District Southfork S.D.

1d. Class/

Course Title U.S. History

1e. Grade

Level Grade 10

1f. Total # of

Students 150

1g. Typical

Class Size 25

1h. Class

Frequency Daily

1i. Typical

Class Duration 43 minutes

2. SLO Goal

2a. Goal Statement

The history of the United States continues to influence its citizens, and has impacted the

world. Through examination of the experiences of immigration and migration in the U.S.,

students will evaluate conflict and cooperation among social groups and organizations.

2b. PA Standards 8.1.12.A, 8.1.12.B, 8.1.12.C, 8.1.12.D

2c. Rationale

Students must learn to evaluate how conflict and cooperation shape history so they can apply

those same evaluative skills to other events in history as well as using those skills to propose

solutions to contemporary problems.


3a.

Name

PM #1: Immigrant Project

PM #2: Conflict and Cooperation Simulation

(App)

PM #3: Southfork US History Mid-Term Exam

PM #4:

PM #5:

3b.

Type




Student Projects

Student Portfolios

Other: iPad application

3c.

Purpose

PM #1: Allows students to conduct research on

select immigrant groups in the USA and

demonstrate the challenges the group endured.

PM #2: Lets students apply principles of

conflict/cooperation to hypothetical scenarios

created by gaming simulation.

PM #3: Utilizes the course’s historical content

to exhibit students’ abilities to apply

conflict/cooperation skills.

PM #4:

PM #5:

3d.

Metric




achievement)

Growth and Mastery

3e.

Administration

Frequency

PM #1: Once (second

quarter/November)

PM #2: Twice (before and after

immigration unit) November

PM #3: Once at conclusion of the

semester (January)

PM #4:

PM #5:

3f.

Adaptations/

Accommodations

IEP

ELL

Gifted IEP

Other

Expectations Measures Indicators Goal Context

*This SLO is not an exemplar, it is to be used for training purposes only.*

3g.

Resources/

Equipment

PM #1: Selected websites and library

resources

PM #2: iPad cart and CONflixx apps

downloaded

PM #3: District U.S. History Midterm

PM #4:

PM #5:

3h.

Scoring Tools

PM #1: Immigrant Project Rubric

PM #2: App Scoring Function

PM #3: U.S. History Midterm

Scoring Key

PM #4:

PM #5:

3i.

Administration

& Scoring

Personnel

PM #1: Certified Social Studies Teacher

PM #2: Certified Teacher

PM #3: Certified Social Studies Teacher

PM #4:

PM #5:

3j.

Performance

Reporting

PM #1: Summary list of students

who meet PI mastery target


who make PI target for growth or

attain proficiency/advanced

PM #3:Summary list of students who

meet PI mastery target

PM #4:

PM #5:


4a.

PI Targets:

All Student Group

PI Target #1: All students will score proficient or advanced on the Immigration Project

Rubric

PI Target #2: All students will show 20 point growth from first to second administration of

the Conflixx simulation or score proficient or higher.

PI Target #3:All students will score 75% or higher on the US History Mid-Term Exam

4b.

PI Targets:


(optional)

N/A

4c.

PI Linked

(optional)

N/A

4d.

PI Weighting

(optional)

PI Weight

#1 50

#2 25

#3 25

#4

#5

5. Elective Rating

5a. Level

Failing

0% to 65 % of


PI targets.

Needs Improvement

66% to 74% of


PI targets.

Proficient

75% to 90% of students

will meet the PI targets.

Distinguished

90% to 100% of


PI targets.


5b. Rating

Distinguished (3)

Proficient (2)


Failing (0)

Notes/Explanation



pac3/2014





1a. Name Ray Krebbs 1b. School Southfork HS 1c. District Southfork S.D.

1d. Class/

Course Title Environmental Science

1e. Grade

Level Grade 11

1f. Total # of

Students 90

1g. Typical

Class Size 30

1h. Class

Frequency Daily

1i. Typical


2. SLO Goal

2a. Goal Statement Biological diversity directly impacts the ability of an ecosystem.

2b. PA Standards S11.A.3.1, S11.B.1.1,S11.B.3.1

2c. Rationale Students need to be able to explain how adaptations, degree of specialization, and behavior of

organisms affect the niche they fill within their ecosystem.


3a.

Name

PM #1: Biome Experiment

PM #2: Biodiversity Assessment

PM #3: Tractor Physics Report

PM #4:

PM #5:

3b.

Type




Student Projects

Student Portfolios

Other:

3c.

Purpose

PM #1: This experiment has students test the

effects of biodiversity on self-created biomes.

PM #2: This objective test assesses the

students’ knowledge environmental factors that

affect an ecosystem.

PM #3: This multipage report has students

explore how the engineering of tractors has

improved the growth of agriculture over the

years.

PM #4:

PM #5:

3d.

Metric




achievement)

Growth and Mastery

3e.

Administration

Frequency

PM #1: Once during the unit taught

(March)

PM #2: Once after the unit is taught

(April)

PM #3: Once (November)

PM #4:

PM #5:

3f.

Adaptations/

Accommodations

IEP

ELL

Gifted IEP

Other



http://www.pdesas.org/Standard/StandardsBrowser#27310?cf=y



3g.

Resources/

Equipment

PM #1: 10 Gallon Glass Biomes and

related supplies per student

PM #2: Textbook Assessments on

Biodiversity

PM #3: AAM (American Agricultural

Manuals) from 1956-2013, Access to

the Farmers’ Online Index, Select

Tractor Digest Journal Articles

PM #4:

PM #5:

3h.

Scoring Tools

PM #1: Biome Experiment Rubric

PM #2: Biodiversity Assessment

Scoring Key

PM #3: Tractor Comparison Chart

PM #4:

PM #5:

3i.

Administration

& Scoring

Personnel

PM #1: Science Teacher

PM #2: Science Teacher

PM #3: Ag. Ed. Teacher

PM #4:

PM #5:

3j.

Performance

Reporting


who meet PI mastery target


who attain proficiency/advanced on

the assessment


who demonstrate growth.

PM #4:


4a.

PI Targets:

All Student Group

PI Target #1: 70% of the students will score proficient or advanced on the Biome Experiment

Rubric

PI Target #2: Students will score 60% or higher on the Biodiversity Assessment

PI Target #3: Students will demonstrate how improvements to the engineering of modern

tractors have made agricultural output grow by 30% in recent years.

PI Target #4:

PI Target #5:

4b.

PI Targets:


(optional)

PI Target #1: N/A

PI Target #2:

PI Target #3:

PI Target #4:

PI Target #5:

4c.

PI Linked

(optional)

N/A

4d.

PI Weighting

(optional)

PI Weight

#1 25

#2 25

#3 50

#4

#5

5. Elective Rating

5a. Level

Failing

0% to 65 % of


PI targets.

Needs Improvement

66% to 74% of


PI targets.

Proficient



Distinguished

90% to 100% of


PI targets.


5b. Rating

Distinguished (3)

Proficient (2)


Failing (0)

Notes/Explanation


*This SLO is not an exemplar, it is to be used for training purposes only.* pac3/2014





1a. Name Jeremy Wendell 1b. School Westar Middle Sch 1c. District Southfork S.D.

1d. Class/

Course Title Math 7

1e. Grade

Level Grade 7

1f. Total # of

Students 32

1g. Typical

Class Size 30

1h. Class

Frequency Daily

1i. Typical


2. SLO Goal

2a. Goal Statement Numerical measures describe the center and spread of numerical data.

2b. PA Standards

2c. Rationale The collection, analysis, organization, and interpretation of data help students to answer real

world questions.


3a.

Name

PM #1: Data Set Research Presentation

PM #2: Basic Skills Test

PM #3: Homework

PM #4:

PM #5:

3b.

Type




Student Projects

Student Portfolios

Other: Homework

3c.

Purpose

PM #1: Students conduct a research project

and share their data via different mathematical

data representations

PM #2: To test students’ ability to perform

basic mathematical operations

PM #3: To check for daily understanding

PM #4:

PM #5:

3d.

Metric




achievement)

Growth and Mastery

3e.

Administration

Frequency

PM #1: Once (April)

PM #2: Twice (March, May) before and

after Numerical Measures unit

PM #3: Daily

PM #4:

PM #5:

3f.

Adaptations/

Accommodations

IEP

ELL

Gifted IEP

Other

3g.

Resources/

Equipment

PM #1: Mathexpress Program

PM #2: N/A

PM #3: N/A

PM #4:

PM #5:

3h.

Scoring Tools

PM #1: Presentation Rubric

PM #2: Test Scoring Key

PM #3: HW Answer Keys

PM #4:

PM #5:



3i.

Administration

& Scoring

Personnel

PM #1: Math Certified Teacher

PM #2: Math Certified Teacher

PM #3: Peer Students

PM #4:

PM #5:

3j.

Performance

Reporting

PM #1: Summary Report of

Proficient/Advanced PIs

PM #2: Summary Report of Growth

PM #3: Homework Summary Report

PM #4:


4a.

PI Targets:

All Student Group

PI Target #1: All students will score Needs Improvement or higher on the Data Set Research

Presentation rubric

PI Target #2: All students will show 10 point growth from first to second administration of

the Basic Skills Test.

PI Target #3: All students will complete homework 90% of the time it is given.

PI Target #4:

PI Target #5:

4b.

PI Targets:


(optional)

PI Target #1: N/A

PI Target #2:

PI Target #3:

PI Target #4:

PI Target #5:

4c.

PI Linked

(optional)

N/A

4d.

PI Weighting

(optional)

PI Weight

#1 30

#2 25

#3 35

#4

#5

5. Elective Rating

5a. Level

Failing

0% to 69 % of


PI targets.

Needs Improvement

70% to 79% of


PI targets.

Proficient



Distinguished

90% to 100% of


PI targets.


5b. Rating

Distinguished (3)

Proficient (2)


Failing (0)

Notes/Explanation



pac3/2014





1a. Name Kristen Shepherd 1b. School Fort Worth Elem 1c. District Southfork S.D.

1d. Class/

Course Title Language Arts 5

1e. Grade

Level Grade 5

1f. Total # of

Students 27

1g. Typical

Class Size 27

1h. Class

Frequency Daily

1i. Typical


2. SLO Goal

2a. Goal Statement Effective writers and speakers prepare and communicate messages to address the audience

and purpose and employ language to effectively communicate a message.

2b. PA Standards CC.1.5.5.G

2c. Rationale Students must be able to effectively communicate a message by using proper conventions.


3a.

Name

PM #1: IFA (International Fluency

Assessment)

PM #2: CBA (Curriculum Based

Comprehension Assessment)

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:

3b.

Type




Student Projects

Student Portfolios

Other:

3c.

Purpose

PM #1: Shows improvements in students’

reading fluency levels

PM #2: Indicates students’ comprehension

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:

3d.

Metric




achievement)

Growth and Mastery

3e.

Administration

Frequency

PM #1: Weekly

PM #2: After every story

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:

3f.

Adaptations/

Accommodations

IEP

ELL

Gifted IEP

Other

3g.

Resources/

Equipment

PM #1: IFA Grid Sheets/#2 pencils

PM #2: CBA Test Copies

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:

3h.

Scoring Tools

PM #1: Program Printout

PM #2: Scoring Key

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:



3i.

Administration

& Scoring

Personnel

PM #1: Elementary Certified Teacher

PM #2: Elementary Certified Teacher

PM #3:

PM #4:

PM #5:

3j.

Performance

Reporting

PM #1: Weekly

PM #2: Monthly

PM #3:

PM #4:


4a.

PI Targets:

All Student Group

PI Target #1: All students will score at grade level by the May 1st IFA administration

PI Target #2: All students will show 20% growth in comprehension by the end of the school

year.

PI Target #3:

PI Target #4:

PI Target #5:

4b.

PI Targets:


(optional)

PI Target #1: N/A

PI Target #2:

PI Target #3:

PI Target #4:

PI Target #5:

4c.

PI Linked

(optional)

N/A

4d.

PI Weighting

(optional)

PI Weight

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

5. Elective Rating

5a. Level

Failing

0% to 65 % of


PI targets.

Needs Improvement

65% to 90% of


PI targets.

Proficient



Distinguished

95% to 100% of


PI targets.


5b. Rating

Distinguished (3)

Proficient (2)


Failing (0)

Notes/Explanation

Teacher Signature _________________________Date______ Evaluator Signature _____________________Date______/


pac3/2014

Revised October 2014 1

Student Performance Measures for Classroom Teachers

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

The following FAQs are provided for guidance purposes only. It is recommended that any decision or action taken by a Local Education Agency (LEA) related to evaluation of its professional and temporary professional employees be made in consultation with the LEA’s solicitor. 1. What are student performance measures and how are they applied to classroom teachers’

evaluations? Pursuant to Act 821, student performance related to a classroom teacher’s evaluation consists of multiple measures related to student achievement which include three statutorily prescribed components: building level data, teacher specific data, and elective data that are utilized, when available, in the evaluation of the performance of classroom teachers.

2. How much do student performance measures count towards a classroom teacher’s

evaluation? Student performance measures account for a combined 50% of a classroom teacher’s evaluation.

3. What if data related to one of the three student performance measures is unavailable for

inclusion in an evaluation? Not all measures or components may be available or applicable to every classroom teacher. The Department through regulation has addressed instances when data may be unavailable and has provided an alternative substitute depending on the component that is unavailable or not applicable to the classroom teacher. These substitutions are addressed below.

4. What is a measure of student achievement?

A student achievement measure is a score or value that reflects a student’s performance on a high quality assessment designed to 1) align to a specified set of academic and/or interpersonal skills standards, and 2) measure student proficiency relative to a clearly defined set of content/skill-based expectations. It is expected that districts perform due diligence in the review of assessments utilized by schools and teachers, to ensure they provide for reliable results and valid inferences that support the manner in which results are intended to be used*.

1 24 P.S. § 11-1123


Types of Assessments that provide for student achievement measures

Examples including but not limited to those listed below

State developed standardized assessments that align to the PA Core and Academic Standards, PA English Language Proficiency Standards, or PA Student Interpersonal Skills Standards.

PSSA’s, Keystones, PASA, CDT

Standardized assessments that align to National Standards (e.g. , ACTFL’s National Standards for Foreign Language Education) and/or other specified academic and/or interpersonal standards.

Access for ELL’s, Advanced Placement exams, International Baccalaureate exams, ACT/SAT, Stanford 10, Terra Nova, Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Woodcock Johnson, KTEA, TOWRE, TOLD, NOCTI GRADE, GMADE, DIBELS, Aimsweb, DRA

Student-level performance assessments that align to the PA Core and Academic Standards, PA English Language Proficiency Standards, or PA Student Interpersonal Skills Standards.

Assessments that require students to engage in an activity or demonstration that provides evidence of their proficiency in a course or content area, given a defined set of standards and content/skill-based expectations (e.g., music, art, physical education, career technology education)

Other classroom assessments aligned to the PA Core and Academic Standards, PA English Language Proficiency Standards, or PA Student Interpersonal Skills Standards.

Projects, portfolios, curriculum based assessments, district developed end of course exams

Assessments designed to measure students’ progress towards IEP goals.

Behavioral checklists that evaluate interpersonal skills, language or academic skills. Curriculum based assessments.

Aggregate measures/indices are considered measures of student achievement because they are based upon student data resulting from assessments such as those outlined above.

PVAAS and SPP

*In order to support educators in the selection and development of high quality achievement measures, PDE provides a set of training modules on assessment literacy. These modules provide educators with the resources they need to identify high quality assessments. These resources are available in the SAS portal.

BUILDING LEVEL DATA

5. What is building level data? Building level data is a calculation/score of specified elements particular to the building or configuration of grades assigned a unique four digit identification number by the Department and applied to the evaluation of a classroom teacher who teaches a grade/subject/course in that building. The building level data score comprises 15% of a classroom teacher’s overall rating and includes but is not limited to the following when data is available and applicable to a building in which the classroom teacher provides service:

• Student performance on assessments. • Value-added assessment system data made available by the Department under section 221 of the

Public School Code (24 P.S. § 2-221). • Graduation rate as reported to the Department under section 222 of the Public School Code (24

P.S. § 2-222). • Promotion rate. • Attendance rate as reported to the Department under section 2512 of the Public School Code (24

P.S. § 25-2512). • Industry certification examinations data. • Advanced placement course participation. • Scholastic aptitude test and preliminary scholastic aptitude test data.

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000262&DocName=PS24S2-222&FindType=L

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000262&DocName=PS24S2-222&FindType=L


The building level data score is published annually as the School Performance Profile (SPP) on the Department’s website. The weight assigned to each element that comprises the SPP/building level data score is included on the website as well as in the appendix to the regulations at 22 Pa. Code § 19.1 et seq.

6. Do all classroom teachers receive a building level data score as part of the evaluation? No. The evaluation of both professional and temporary professional employees working as classroom teachers shall contain a building level data score if they are teaching in a building which receives a SPP/ building level data score. For classroom teachers who teach in a building that does not have a SPP/building level data score, the score from the teacher observation and practice portion of the evaluation is utilized in its place at 15% of the overall evaluation. Intermediate Units (IU) and part-time Career and Technical Centers (CTC) do not receive a SPP/building level score.

7. What if an employee teaches in more than one building? How is the building level data score applied? A professional or temporary professional employee who teaches in more than one building will receive a building level data score based upon a weighted average of the time of service provided in each building.

8. For a new first year temporary professional, how is the building level score applied to the

mid-year and year-end evaluation? Act 82 does not specifically describe or limit the timing of the application of the building level data score to temporary professional or professional employee evaluations. It requires that a building level score be utilized in the evaluation of professional and temporary professional employees. However, for a new first year teacher who has never worked in the school building during any period of time attributable to the existing and available SPP/building level data score, any data related to the first year temporary professional employee and his or her impact in the school building is unavailable. For first year teachers, the 15% building level data score will be comprised of the score from the teacher observation and practice portion of the temporary professional’s mid-year and year-end evaluation.

9. For a second year temporary professional, how is the building level score applied to an

evaluation? Is this the same for the third year of employment as a temporary professional? As mentioned previously, Act 82 does not describe or limit the timing of the application of a building level score. However, it does require that a building level score be utilized in the evaluation of professional and temporary professional employees. 22 Pa. Code § 19.1 clarifies that the LEAs should use the statutorily required student performance elements in any evaluation if the data is applicable and available. The regulatory standards further state that “Nothing in these standards of use for multiple measures of student performance, this section or this chapter shall be construed to limit or constrain the authority of the chief school administrator of an LEA to initiate and take action on a personnel matter, including dismissal of a classroom teacher, based on information and data available at the time of the action.” 22 Pa. Code §19.1 (IV.) (e) Given this language in regulation, the current and existing building level score may be utilized in any mid-year or year-end evaluation of a temporary professional employee’s second or third year of employment.


PDE understands that the release date of the SPP/building level data score is prompting some LEAs to consider finalizing the required second/year-end evaluation for temporary professionals in the fall when the most recent SPP/building level data is published. Given this and the possibility of legal challenges related to the application of a building level data score, each LEA should consult with its solicitor concerning the application of the SPP/building level data score to a temporary professional’s evaluation including the impact of the requirements of 24 P.S. §11-1108.

10.For a tenured professional employee, how is the building level score applied to the annual or any periodic evaluation? As mentioned previously, Act 82 does not specifically describe or limit the timing of the application of a building level score. However, it does require that a building level score be utilized in the evaluation of professional and temporary professional employees. 22 Pa. Code § 19.1 clarifies that the LEA should use the statutorily required student performance elements in any evaluation if the data is applicable and available. The regulatory standards further state that “Nothing in these standards of use for multiple measures of student performance, this section or this chapter shall be construed to limit or constrain the authority of the chief school administrator of an LEA to initiate and take action on a personnel matter, including dismissal of a classroom teacher, based on information and data available at the time of the action.” 22 Pa. Code § 19.1 (IV.) (e) Given this language in regulation, the current available and existing building level score at the time of evaluation may be utilized in any annual or periodic evaluation of a tenured professional employee. PDE understands that the release date of SPP/building level data scores is prompting some LEAs to consider finalizing the annual evaluations for professional employees in the fall when the most recent SPP/ building level score data is published. Given this and the possibility of legal challenges related to the application of building level data score, any LEA should consult with its solicitor concerning the application of the SPP/building level data score to a professional employee’s evaluation.

11.How should an LEA evaluate employees who serve in dual roles, specifically the individual who teaches half time and supervises staff half time? Ultimately, a LEA must determine the best way to evaluate employees serving in multiple roles. LEAs could consider the percentage of time an individual is spending in his or her respective role as a determining factor. This decision should be made in collaboration with the employee and the district solictor. Whatever a LEAs chooses to do it should do consistently across all staff.

12.How is the building level data score applied to any evaluation for a professional or

temporary professional employee who transfers to a new school building? Pursuant to regulation, any employee who transfers buildings may choose to utilize the teacher specific data score for the employee’s evaluation in the new placement for two school years starting on the date when the classroom teacher begins the assignment in the new building.


TEACHER SPECIFIC DATA 13.What is teacher specific data?

Teacher specific data are measures of student performance related to the particular classroom teacher and shall include all of the following components if applicable and available: • Student performance on state assessments • Value added assessment system data (PVAAS data) • Progress meeting the goals of student individualized education plans • Locally developed school district rubrics (LDR).

14.How do I write a SLO for five or less students?

LEAs may choose to utilize a “n” count of 11 across teacher specific and elective data. In absence of teacher specific and elective data the observation and practice components of the evaluation system could be substituted. It is a local decision whether a LEA chooses to utilize a lower “n” count for teacher specific and elective data. Hence, a LEA could choose to develop a SLO for less than eleven students, if it believes that it can attribute student achievement to the teacher. An LEA should discuss any decision to use the “n” count of 11 or a lower “n” count with its solicitor. Whatever decision is made should be applied consistently across staff.

15. Are SLOs accounting for 35% of a teacher’s evaluation in the absence of VAM? No. LEAs must give due consideration to all data defined in the Act and regulations for teacher specific and elective data. Teacher Specific Data shall comprise 15% of the final teacher evaluation and shall include the following when data is available and applicable to a specific classroom teacher:

Student Performance on Assessment Shall comprise no more than 5%

Value Added Assessment Data Shall comprise not less than 10% nor more than 15%

Progress in meeting the goals of student IEP (SLO process)

Shall comprise no more than 5%

Locally Developed Rubric (SLO process-assessments defined in elective component)

Shall comprise no more than 15%

Elective data shall consist of measures of student achievement that are locally developed and selected by the LEA from a list approved by PDE. Assessments include but are not limited to:

• District designed measures and examinations • Nationally recognized standardized tests • Industry certification exams • Student projects pursuant to local requirements • Student portfolios pursuant to local requirements


16.How is the “student performance on assessments” measure calculated and applied to an evaluation? Student performance on state assessments is calculated annually for a classroom teacher with available state assessment data and a rating score is determined based upon the percentage of the classroom teacher’s students who score proficient or advanced on the applied state assessments pursuant to conversion Table-H provided in regulation.

17.What is the percentage weight given to student performance on state assessments in relation to an evaluation? Teacher specific data scores related to student performance on state assessments shall not comprise more than 5% of a teacher’s overall performance evaluation.

18.Who determines the final percentage weight up to the allowable 5%?

The LEA determines the final percentage weight given to student performance on state assessments based upon the availability of any and/or all other teacher specific data for a particular classroom teacher.

19.What is value added assessment system data?

Pennsylvania value added assessment system (PVAAS) data estimates the academic growth of a teacher’s group of students for a given period based upon student performance on state assessments. PVAAS teacher specific growth is provided for each PA assessed subject/grade/course for a teacher for each year it is available and based upon a three year rolling average of available assessment data of the most recent three consecutive years.

20.Who provides the score based upon PVAAS to the LEAs?

The Department or its designee will provide PVAAS data to LEAs for school year 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 and every year thereafter.

21.How is the PVAAS data converted into a score that will be applied to an evaluation?

The PVAAS data supplied by the Department based upon three years of growth will be provided to the LEA who will then use Table I provided in regulation to convert the PVAAS data score to the 0-3 scale for inclusion in a classroom teacher’s evaluation.\

22.What is the percentage weight given to the PVAAS data related to teacher specific data?

A score based upon available PVAAS data shall comprise not less than 10% of the classroom teacher’s final evaluation for those teachers who teach a subject/grade/course for which PVAAS data is available.

23.What component or measure is utilized in the absence of a 3 year rolling average of PVAAS

data? In school year 2013/14, the LEA shall utilize the rating from the teacher observation portion of the tool for the PVAAS data portion of any classroom teacher evaluation. In school year 2014/15 and every school year thereafter, if PVAAS data is unavailable, the teacher specific data measure for temporary or professional employees shall be comprised of the other three teacher specific data measures when data is applicable and available as follows: Student performance on assessments, (not more than 5%), Progress in meeting the goals of student IEPs, (not more than 5%), Locally developed rubric (not more than 15% in the case where none of the other measures of teacher specific data are available.)


Like the SPP/building level score, PVAAS data will be published in the fall each year for the previous school year. In the first year of availability of the three year rolling average data, some LEAs are considering finalizing the year end or annual evaluation in the fall for teachers with PVAAS growth data and use the current and available 3 year averaged PVAAS growth measure score in any future mid-year, periodic or year-end evaluation. Given this and the possibility of legal challenges related to the application of the PVAAS data score, each LEA should speak to its solicitor related to the application of the PVAAS data to classroom teacher evaluations.

24.What is meant by “progress in meeting the goals of student IEPs” and how will that be measured as a component of teacher specific data? It is a measure of growth and student performance related to special education students meeting IEP goals. Any measure based upon progress made in meeting students’ IEPs may be developed by the local LEA, if applicable to a particular classroom teacher, and shall be validated through a Student Learning Objective (SLO) process to compile a score for such measure. PDE has developed a voluntary SLO template for IEP progress. LEAs are not required to use the template and can utilize the original PDE template if they choose. Both templates can be accessed on the educator effectiveness- classroom teacher website- http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/educator_effectiveness_project/20903/p/1173845 Teachers may use aggregated case load data of the percentage of students meeting IEP goals through documented progress monitoring. LEAs may choose to aggregate all IEP goals or identify a particular targeted subject area as an area of focus. The supervising administrator should work in collaboration with the teacher to set the performance measures and indicators and should meet frequently with the special education teacher to review progress monitoring data (e.g. select a targeted subject area and grade level). Per IDEA, it is expected if students’ progress monitoring data indicates a student is not making progress, the IEP team must be reconvened to consider all data and make adjustments to the students program.

25.Does IEP progress include GIEPs? No, the statute is specific in its definition tying IEP progress to those plans required under IDEA.

26.What is the percentage weight assigned to any score based upon “progress in meeting the

goals of student IEPs?” Any score attributable to a classroom teacher related to progress in meeting the goals of student IEPs when applicable and available shall be no more than 5% of a classroom teacher’s overall evaluation.

27.Who determines the final percentage weight up to the allowable 5% for progress in meeting

the goals of student IEPs? The LEA determines the percentage weight given to progress meeting student IEP goals based upon the availability of any and/or all teacher specific data for a particular classroom teacher with a total percentage not to exceed 5%.

28.What are locally developed rubrics (LDR) and how will they be developed and applied to an

evaluation? A locally developed rubric may be created by an LEA related to student performance and attributed to the classroom teacher. LDRs may include independent and unique student performance measures developed by the LEA for the specific teacher or they may be selected from the list of elective data measures developed and published by the department annually and described below in the elective data section of these FAQs.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/educator_effectiveness_project/20903/p/1173845

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/educator_effectiveness_project/20903/p/1173845


29.What is the percentage weight assigned to locally developed rubrics?

For classroom teachers who possess teacher specific data from student performance on state assessments and PVAAS growth data, any score related to locally developed rubrics shall be no more than 5% of the classroom teacher’s overall evaluation based upon the availability of any other teacher specific measures. For classroom teachers who do not teach state assessed subject areas and have no state assessment measure or PVAAS growth measure, the LDR shall comprise no more than 15% of the teacher specific data portion. Of course, this percentage may be reduced for classroom teachers without state assessment or PVAAS data, if the classroom teacher has applicable and available data based upon progress meeting student IEPs. In this instance, the LDR could be reduced to no less than 10%.

30.Must a LEA use a SLO to validate and score any locally developed rubric?

Yes.

31.How will teacher specific data measures be determined for a classroom teacher without any

assessed data? For classroom teachers without state assessment data, the LEA must determine a teacher specific data score based upon the classroom teacher’s progress in meeting the goals of student IEPs, if applicable and available, and a LDR which may consist of an elective data measure selected from the list of Department approved electives measures.

32.May a classroom teacher without state assessment data use an elective data measure for

the entire 15% of the teacher specific data measure? Yes, if no data is available or applicable from the other three teacher specific data components (including progress made on IEPs), a classroom teacher may utilize the LDR which per regulation may include use of one of the approved elective data measures for the entire 15% of the teacher specific data component.

33.May a classroom teacher without any state assessment data use just one elective data

measure for the combined 15% teacher specific data and 20 % elective data of his or her evaluation? Pursuant to Act 82, classroom teachers must be evaluated using measures of student performance that include a score for a building level data measure, teacher specific data measure and elective data measure with specified percentages attributed to the classroom teacher’s overall rating. Furthermore, Act 82 requires teacher specific data to comprise all of the following: • Student performance on state assessments • Value added assessment system data (PVAAS data) • Progress meeting the goals of student individualized education plans • Locally developed school district rubrics (LDR).

Regulation further clarified that all four measures are to be used if the data is applicable and available

for a temporary professional or professional employee. However, some classroom teachers may never have state assessment or PVAAS growth measures as part of the teacher specific data score because they do not teach a state assessed subject. Similarly, not all teachers may have students with IEPs to calculate progress meeting the goals of student IEPs. Thus, these temporary professional and professional employees may only have a teacher specific data measure comprised of a locally developed rubric.


Because LDR is not defined in Act 82, pursuant to regulation, LEAs may choose to utilize a measure from the list of elective data measures as the LDR. It is recommended that a classroom teacher’s evaluation which utilizes an elective data measure as the LDR also include an additional and separate elective data measure attributed to the 20% elective data measure.

Although it is recommended that classroom teachers be given a separate LDR/elective measure and

separate elective data measure, a LEA and classroom teacher may agree to use a single elective data measure chosen from the list of elective measures to comprise both the 15% teacher specific data score and the 20% elective score, which would account for 35 % of an educator’s evaluation if no other teacher specific data elements are available or applicable.

The LEA should consult with its solicitor regarding any possible agreement made between the LEA and

classroom teachers to utilize a single elective/LDR measure as the combined teacher specific data and elective data measure in light of the requirements of Act 82 and current regulation.

34.Who determines what combination of teacher specific data is utilized and the weights

assigned to each component? The LEA determines what teacher specific data elements are utilized for a classroom teacher based upon the availability of the data and applicability to the individual classroom teacher in accordance with Act 82 and regulation. The LEA also determines the final weight allotted to each applicable teacher specific data component in accordance with regulation and as explained in these FAQs.

ELECTIVE DATA 35.What are Elective Data Measures?

Elective data measures are locally developed measures of student achievement that may be selected from an annual list provided by the Department including but not limited to the following:

• District designed measures and examinations • National recognized standardized tests • Industry certification examinations • Student projects pursuant to local requirements • Student portfolios pursuant to local requirements.

36.What is the percentage weight assigned to any elective data measures?

Elective data measures are 20% of a classroom teacher’s overall evaluation.

37.How is the score determined and validated for any elective data measure selected? LEAs must utilize the SLO process to validate the weight assigned to elective data measures. The Department provides templates for SLOs and guidance related to their application and use.

38.May an LEA utilize more than one elective data measure as part of the 20% elective data

measure? Yes. More than one elective data measure may be utilized to comprise the 20%.

39.Who determines the percentages up to the 20% percent if an LEA utilizes more than on

elective data measure? The LEA determines the proportion of the 20% weight attributed to more than one elective data measure.

STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE (SLO) PROCESS...

Documents

Transcript of STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE (SLO) PROCESS...