Upload
toby-ball
View
215
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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