Ohio Student Learning ObjectiveEnglish Language Arts – Phonics/Word Recognition (Grade 1)

May 2013

2

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

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

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

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

Ohio Contextual Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Student Learning Objective: English Language Arts – Phonics/Word Recognition (Grade 1) . . . . 5

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

Baseline and Trend Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Student Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Interval of Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Standards and Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Assessment(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Growth Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Rationale for Growth Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Overview of Ohio ELA – Phonics/Word Recognition (Grade 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Appendix: Tool for Comparing SLO Elements Across Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

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

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

2012–2013

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

2013–2014

School year began or plans to begin large scale implementation

2013–2014

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

teachers

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

Yes

Who approves SLOs? The LEA decides.

SLO Use in EvaluationAre SLOs required or optional for use in evaluating educators? Required for those teachers in non-tested grades and

subjects

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

Other measures include the Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS) and vendor assessments approved by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE).

Does the jurisdiction use SLOs to determine educator compensation?

The LEA decides.

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

The LEA decides. The SLO counts for up to 50 percent of the rating, dependent upon the availability of growth data.

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

The LEA decides. The SLO counts for up to 50 percent, dependent upon the availability of growth data.

SLO ImplementationHow many SLOs are required for most teachers? 1 SLO is recommended in the pilot year; 2 to 4 during the

implementation year.

How many SLOs are required for most school administrators? The LEA decides

Which teachers and administrators are required to use SLOs? Teachers of non-tested subjects and grades and school administrators with no value-added or ODE-approved vendor assessment data

SLO AssessmentWho selects which assessments are used for SLOs? The LEA decides.

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

Yes, the State provides a checklist for se-lecting appropriate assessments.

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

Are performance or portfolio-based assessments permitted for SLOs?

Yes

Are commercially available assessments permitted for SLOs? Yes 1 SLOs will not be used in educator evaluations2 SLOs may be used in educator evaluations

5

Student Learning Objective: English Language Arts – Phonics/Word Recognition (Grade 1)Element List

Baseline and Trend Data..............................................................................................................................................5

Student Population..........................................................................................................................................................6

Interval of Instruction...................................................................................................................................................7

Standards and Content................................................................................................................................................8

Assessment(s)....................................................................................................................................................................9

Growth Targets.............................................................................................................................................................10

Rationale for Growth Targets...................................................................................................................................11

Baseline and Trend DataStandardized Name

BaselineJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTWhat information is being used to inform the creation of the SLO and establish the amount of growth that should take place within the time period?

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTAll students have been enrolled in full day kindergarten program since 2011. On the baseline assessment of the Dolch Sight Word List, 90 % of first graders knew 33 or more Dolch Words, 3 % knew between 25-32 Dolch words and 7% knew 24 or lower words.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author identifies specific levels of student performance on the pre-assessment. Indicating students attended full-day kindergarten provides valuable context about prior learning.

The author could strengthen this SLO by examining other sources of data about the students (for example, kindergarten assessment scores or report cards) to provide further context for their performance on the baseline assessment. Multiple measures would yield more data and make it easier to set rigorous and achievable goals.

6

Student PopulationStandardized Name

Student PopulationJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTWhich students will be included in this SLO? Include course, grade level, and number of students.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTThis SLO covers all 80 students in the first grade class. Some students have specific needs that require modifications and accomodations and/or differentiation in instruction and assessment.

3 students receive the services of the intervention specialist.

20 students receive Title I services

XX students receive the services of the Speech and Language Teacher. (Note: The jurisdiction left the number of students that receive the services of the Speech and Language Teacher blank .)

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author includes all 80 of her students in the SLO and specifies the number of students who receive special services.

The author could strengthen this SLO by describing student strengths and weaknesses. The author might consider focusing this description on a section of students whose needs are particularly acute (for example, the eight students whose scores were lowest on the pre-assessment).

7

Interval of InstructionStandardized Name

Interval of InstructionJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTWhat is the duration of the course that the SLO will cover? Include beginning and end dates.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTThe interval of instruction is from September 2012 through May 2013.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

The author identifies the months when instruction begins and ends.

The author could strengthen this element by projecting the amount of instructional time per day for each student. This would help evaluators and teaches alike determine if the interval of instruction is appropriate for the SLO.

8

Standards and ContentStandardized Name

Learning Content JURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTWhat content will the SLO target? To what related standards is the SLO aligned?

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTThe target will focus on phonics and word recognition skills. This target aligns with the Common Core Standard RF 1.3G which is to recognize and read grade appropriate irregularly spelled words.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author addresses one Common Core State Standard (RF.1.3.g). The standard aligns to one important set of skills, but is too narrow in focus.

To improve the rigor and quality of the SLO, the author should consider including additional key standards. For example, he or she could add - first-grade reading standards for informational and literary texts. While not required by the jurisdiction, the SLO should identify the instructional strategies that the teacher will use. The inclusion of strategies would promote discussion between teachers and evaluators about how best to help students learn the content.

9

Assessment(s)Standardized Name

AssessmentsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT

What assessment(s) will be used to measure student growth for this SLO?

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTStudents will be assessed using the Dolch pre-primer, primer and first grade sight word lists, working one-on-one with the assessor. The student will recognize and read each sight word within one second (this aligns with the expectations of the State of Ohio Diagnostic Assessment.) The assessment will be administered quarterly.

Students demonstrating mastery of the first grade list at the beginning of first grade will be given the same assessment using the second grade DOLCH list.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSWhile the author does not include the assessment as a part of the SLO, the word lists are publicly accessible. The element includes instructions for administering the assessment (one-on-one) and scoring each item (correctly, within one second). The assessment aligns to the standard selected. Students who mastered the pre-assessment will receive the second-grade assessment, though the term “mastery” needs clarification. It is not clear, for instance, what number of words correctly spoken at the right rate demonstrate mastery.

Including additional measures of student performance would strengthen this SLO.

10

Growth TargetsStandardized Name

Student Growth TargetsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTConsidering all available data and content requirements, what growth target(s) can students be expected to reach?

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTStudents will be expected to demonstrate the following growth on the DOLCH sight word assessment between September and May:

Pre-assessment score range Target Score on-end-of-year assessment126 or more words 95% of first grade list AND 95% of second grade list67-125 words 95% of first grade list and 50% of second grade list33-66 words 95% of first grade list25-32 words 80% of first grade list24 or fewer words 60% of first grade list

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author uses pre-assessment data to tier final targets and differentiate expectations. This practice acknowledges different starting points.

Consider adding a chart displaying the individual pre-assessment scores and targets for each student. This would clarify the distribution of students within each of the three score ranges in the “Pre-assessment score range” column.

11

Rationale for Growth TargetsStandardized Name

RationaleJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT

What is your rationale for setting the target(s) for student growth within the interval of instruction?

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT

The expected growth was determined based upon historical observations of first graders as we begin gathering data to help identify trends. These growth expectations are slightly more rigorous than than historical observations indicated for students with a low score on the sight word assessment. Sight word recognition is critical to reading development as indicated in the Common Core standards for Grade 1 English Language Arts.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSWhile the author suggests that the targets are more rigorous than those set in previous years, he or she does not provide evidence. Still, the expectations may in fact not be high enough. Although SLOs generally work best when they are narrow in focus, this SLO may be too narrow in its concentration on sight recognition. Further, 90 percent of students already know 33 or more words. Adding more standards to this SLO would allow the author to elevate expectations for students and broaden the target(s) beyond sight recognition.

While the author cites “historical observations” (for example, last year’s scores), he or she needs to provide the actual data so evaluators and teachers can discuss whether the expectations for this SLO are in fact morerigorous.

Overview of Ohio ELA – Phonics/Word Recognition (Grade 1)This first-grade SLO addresses and measures a key component of reading: sight recognition. The standards and content selection are, however, too narrow. The addition of more pivotal content and standards would improve the SLO’s quality. The author could further strengthen the SLO by providing historical data to support assertions about prior student performance.

12

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

Baseline and Trend Data Baseline

Student Population Student Population

Interval of Instruction Interval of Instruction

Standards and Content Learning Content

Assessment(s) Assessments

Growth Targets Student Growth Targets

Rationale for Growth Targets Rationale

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.