Dr. Voltz's presentation at Raising Student Achievement Conference

1. What
are
SLO’s
Dr.
Richard
Voltz,
Associate
Director
Illinois
Associa;on
of
School
Administrators

3. PERA
(Performance
Evalua;on
Review
Act)
• Performance
Evalua;on
Reform
Act
2010
(PERA)
• New
evalua;ons
for
teachers
and
principals
to
address
prac;ce
and
student
performance
in
an
effort
to
improve
student
achievement
• Guided
by
the
work
of
PEAC
–
Performance
Evalua;on
Advisory
Council
– 32
representa;ve
members
P-­‐20
– Meet
monthly
since
2010
– State
Models
and
Guidance
for
Districts
– Open
Mee;ngs
– Website
Info

6. Two
Parts
Teacher
Prac)ce
Student
Growth

7. Two
Parts
Teacher
Prac)ce
50%
to
75%
Student
Growth
50%
to
25%

9. Common
Approaches
To
Measuring
Student
Growth
• Simple Growth Model - Measures
difference in student attainment over
time.
• Value-Added Model - Measures difference
in student attainment over time, controls
for stable student factors (e.g. race, SES)

10. At
least
one
Type
I
or
Type
II
assessment
At
least
one
Type
III
assessment

11. Type
I
A
reliable
assessment
that
measures
students
in
the
same
manner
with
the
same
poten;al
assessment
items,
is
scored
by
a
non-­‐district
en;ty,
and
is
administered
beyond
Illinois.
(Norm-­‐referenced)

12. Type
II
Developed,
adopted,
approved,
&
u;lized
district-­‐wide
(example:
District-­‐wide
Algebra
test)

13. Type
III
Rigorous,
aligned
with
the
course
curriculum.
The
evaluator
&
teacher
determine
measures
of
student
learning.
(Classroom
Test,
por[olios)

14. Must
have
one
from
Type
I
or
Type
II
and
one
from
Type
III

15. ISBE
Assump;ons
• Districts
should
pilot
student
growth
for
one
year
prior
to
implementa;on
• Districts
should
use
PARCC
as
Type
I
for
math
and
ELA
• Much
work
will
be
done
outside
of
formal
PERA
Joint
Commi^ee
mee;ngs

16. Student
growth
is
“Demonstrable
change
in
a
student’s
learning
between
two
or
more
points
in
;me.”

17. Who
decides?
• District
PERA
Joint
Commi^ee
decides
metrics
&
targets
for
teachers,
including
subgroups.
(ELL,
etc.)
• Evaluator
and
Principal
agree
upon
metrics
&
targets
for
principals.

18. Ques;ons
about
student
growth
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What
assessments
will
you
choose?
How
will
you
measure
core
(tested)
courses?
How
will
you
measure
non-­‐tested
areas?
If
you
use
a
por[olio,
what
is
the
rubric?
What
happens
with
co-­‐teaching?
What
is
the
appropriate
a^endance/class
;me
to
consider?
What
if
a
student
changes
sec;ons?
How
does
block
scheduling
fit?
What
is
the
minimum
number
of
students?
What
is
the
target
growth?
How
do
the
4
ra;ngs
fit
into
the
scheme
of
student
growth?

19. Student
Growth
Metrics
should
align
to
Educa;on
Best
Prac;ces
Standards
based
Team
Teaching
Professional
Learning
Communi;es
Do
not
put
teachers
into
compe;;on
with
each
other
• Each
teacher
should
be
compared
to
a
standard
so
all
could
poten;ally
receive
favorable
ra;ngs
•
•
•
•

20. Are
SLO’s
required?

21. Why
would
you
choose
SLO’s?
• Districts
decide
on
their
own.
• For
those
school
districts
defaul;ng
to
the
state
model
for
student
growth
for
Type
III
assessments,
SLOs
are
the
required
measurement
model
for
student
growth.

22. What
is
the
process?
• Design
Commi^ee
• Formalized
PERA
Joint
Commi^ee
– Commi^ee
has
180
days
to
agree
– Then
ISBE
“Default
Plan”
for
whatever
parts
not
agreed
upon.

23. Plan
Requirements
• Mul;ple
data
points
• One
Type
III
required
• Decide
on
the
Type
III
assessment
– Teacher
created
– Textbook
created
– Student
work
samples
or
por[olios
– Student
performance
assessment
– Grade-­‐level
experts
designed

24. Plan
Requirements
• Teachers
without
Type
I
or
II
must
include
two
Type
III
• Student
growth
expecta;ons
are
consistent
with
the
assessment
and
model
selected
• Requires
midpoint
review
of
progress
which
may
adjust
expecta;ons
• Determine
how
student
characteris;cs
(Sp
Ed,
ELL)
are
used

25. Suggested
Timeline
• Each
district
should
pilot
their
student
growth
approach
for
one
year
prior
to
full
implementa;on
• PARCC
assessments
will
be
considered
an
appropriate
Type
I
assessment
for
math
and
ELA
when
they
are
available.

26. More
Sugges;ons
•
•
•
•
Gradual
implementa;on
Pilot
without
stakes
Sample
pilot
Revise
as
you
learn
more

27. Decisions
of
Joint
Commi^ee
• Determine
which
categories
of
teachers
will
be
required
to
have
a
single
Type
III
assessment
and
which
will
have
two
Type
III
assessments.
• Decide
what
types
of
SLOs
will
be
allowed
and
under
what
condi;ons
they
can
be
used.
• Select
and
ar;culate
each
step
the
teacher
and
administrator
should
follow
to
develop
an
SLO.

28. • Select
the
appropriate
Type
III
assessments
for
each
category
of
teacher.
Iden;fy
assessments
that
will
need
to
be
developed
and
the
supports
needed
to
do
so.
• Select
or
develop
an
SLO
review
and
documenta;on
process.
• Decide
how
SLOs
will
be
scored
and
combined
with
other
measures
of
student
growth.
Determine
what
percentage
or
weight
your
district
will
a^ribute
to
the
SLOs
within
the
broader
evalua;on
system.

29. • Develop
a
plan
for
monitoring
and
evalua;ng
the
SLO
process

30. Ques;ons
• Are
the
assessments
currently
in
use
in
your
district
aligned
to
the
standards?
• What
Type
I,
Type
II,
and
Type
III
assessments
does
the
district
currently
have
available
to
use
for
student
growth
purposes?
– District
should
list
each
Category
of
Teacher
followed
by
specific
Type
I,
II,
and
III
assessment
available

31. District
Assessment
Iden;fica;on
Tool
Category
of
Teacher
Early
Elementary,
Pre-­‐K,
K
1st-­‐5th
Grade
Core
Elementary
PE
Elementary
Resource
6-­‐8
Math
6-­‐8
ELA
6-­‐8
Science
6-­‐8
Social
Studies
6-­‐8
PE
6-­‐12
Health
6-­‐8
Resource
HS
Math
HS
English
HS
Biology
HS
Physics
HS
Social
Studies
HS
PE
HS
Foreign
Language
HS
Driver
Educa;on
HS
Business
HS
CTE
Type
I
Type
II
Type
III

32. Build, Buy, Borrow: Selecting Appropriate Assessments
• Does the assessment match the content that the teacher(s)
intend to teach?
• Do a majority of the items on the assessment align with the
curriculum standards identified?
• Does the assessment measure growth over the interval of
instruction? How?
• Will the data from the assessment be beneficial to teachers?
Students? The district? How?
• Are the assessments administered the same?
• Are the assessment scored the same way?

33. SLO’s

34. What
are
SLO’s
• Targets
of
student
growth
that
teachers
set
at
the
start
of
the
school
year
and
strive
to
achieve
by
the
end
of
the
semester
or
school
year.
• These
targets
are
based
on
a
thorough
review
of
available
data
reflec;ng
students’
baseline
skills
and
are
set
and
approved
aner
collabora;on
and
consulta;on
with
colleagues
and
administrators.

35. What
is
in
an
SLO?
• Baseline
data
and
trend
data
– Specify
data
used,
it
should
be
measureable,
it
should
target
specific
academic
concepts,
skills
or
behaviors.
What
does
the
data
show
you
about
the
student’s
star?ng
points?
• Possible
data
– Pre-­‐assessment
– Review
student’s
previous
performance

36. • Student
popula;on
– Which
students
will
be
included
in
this
SLO?
Include
course,
grade
level,
and
number
of
students.
Evaluator
involved
in
the
process.
– ALL
students
should
be
included,
exclusions
need
to
align
to
PEAC
and
district
guidelines.
• All
of
my
3rd
period
class
of
seventh
grade
science
students.
There
are
18
students
in
the
class.

37. • Interval
of
instruc;on
– What
is
the
dura?on
of
the
course
that
the
SLO
will
cover?
Include
beginning
and
end
dates
• This
is
a
unit
SLO
for
Chemistry.
This
area
of
the
curriculum
generally
runs
from
the
beginning
of
December
through
the
end
of
February.

38. • Standards
and
content
– What
content
will
the
SLO
target?
To
what
related
standards
is
the
SLO
aligned?
• 11.A.3c
Collect
and
record
data
accurately
using
consistent
measuring
and
recording
techniques
and
media.
• 12.C.3a
Explain
interac;ons
of
energy
with
ma^er
including
changes
of
state
and
con-­‐serva;on
of
mass
and
energy.
• 12.C.3b
Model
and
describe
the
chemical
and
physical
characteris;cs
of
ma^er
(e.g.,
atoms,
molecules,
elements,
compounds,
mixtures).
• 13.A.3a
Iden;fy
and
reduce
poten;al
hazards
in
science
ac;vi;es
(e.g.,
ven;la;on,
handling
chemicals).
• 13.B.3f
Apply
classroom-­‐developed
criteria
to
determine
the
effects
of
policies
on
local
science
and
technology
issues
(e.g.,
energy
consump-­‐;on,
landfills,
water
quality).
• CC.7.W.3.d
Text
Types
and
Purposes:
Use
precise
words
and
phrases,
relevant
descrip;ve
details,
and
sensory
language
to
capture
the
ac;on
and
convey
experiences
and
events

39. • The
assessment(s)
to
be
used
– What
assessments(s)
will
be
used
to
measure
student
growth
for
this
SLO?
• Department
(PLC)
created
Chemistry
unit
exam
which
includes
a
hands
on
component,
a
mul;ple
choice
sec;on,
and
a
wri^en
essay
response.

40. • Student
characteris;cs
– What
accommoda?ons
will
you
make
to
allow
for
the
considera?on
of
the
characteris?cs
or
special
student
popula?ons
(Special
Educa?on,
ELL,
At
Risk,
etc)?
• For
sped
students,
IEP
requirements
will
be
followed,
for
example
some
students
will
take
an
alternate
form
of
the
test
with
ques;ons
adapted
to
simpler
language
or
read
aloud.
Growth
goals
will
be
adapted
to
each
student
on
an
individual
basis
based
upon
prior
growth
evidence.
• ELL
students
will
be
tested
using
a
modified
form
of
the
exam.
Growth
goals
will
be
adapted
to
each
student
on
an
individual
basis
based
upon
prior
growth
evidence.
• At
risk
student/poverty
student
has
absenteeism
issues,
the
growth
goal
will
be
less
ambi;ous
due
to
lack
of
exposure
to
material
during
the
unit.
If
student
misses
more
than
95%
of
school
year,
removal
from
SLO
may
result.
• All
students
scoring
more
than
95%
on
the
pre-­‐test
will
be
given
and
alternate
assessment
for
the
post
test.
I
will
use
an
essay
style
of
test,
it
will
test
the
same
standards
in
a
different
and
higher
level
manner,
it
will
require
students
to
show
a
deeper
level
of
synthesis.
I
will
use
the
district
approved
scoring
rubric
for
wri;ng
in
the
content
area.
All
students
will
be
expected
to
score
3.5
or
be^er
to
meet
growth
goal.
• All
students
not
iden;fied
in
the
above
4
categories
will
have
rigorous
but
reasonable
growth
goals
based
upon
prior
baseline
date
indicators.
(Most
will
be
expected
to
grow
a
minimum
of
15%)

41. • Growth
targets
– Considering
all
available
data
and
content
requirements,
what
growth
target(s)
can
students
be
expected
to
reach?
– Should
never
be
based
on
IEP
goals.
(SLO’s
are
for
groups
of
students,
IEP
is
for
individual
student)
• See
a^ached
for
student
roster
of
growth
goals.

43. • Ra;onale
for
growth
target
– What
is
your
ra?onale
for
seOng
the
above
target(s)
for
student
growth
within
the
interval
of
instruc?on
• This
goal
is
reasonable
because
I
will
have
ample
;me
to
instruct
my
students.
There
will
be
three
chapter
tests
along
the
way
so
I
can
monitor
and
adjust
instruc;on
when
necessary.
I
have
built
in
3
days
for
full
class
re-­‐teach
if
necessary.
Kids
on
track
will
have
alternate
work
those
days.

44. • Mid-­‐Point
Learning
Data
Review
– What
kind
of
mid-­‐point
data
did
you
review
in
order
to
review
student
progress
towards
goals?
What
did
your
review
reveal?
What
adjustments
to
instruc?on
will
be
made
(if
any)?
• Review
of
chapter
4
and
5
tests.
Implemented
two
re-­‐teach
days
so
far.
Re-­‐
taught
Bohr
model
to
whole
class
on
day
18
aner
informal
assessments
revealed
great
misunderstandings.

46. Types
of
SLO’s
• Course-­‐level
SLO’s
– Focused
on
the
en;re
student
popula;on
for
a
given
course,
onen
across
mul;ple
classes
• Class-­‐level
SLO’s
– Focused
on
the
student
popula;on
in
a
specific
class
• Targeted
Student
SLO’s
– Separate
SLOs
for
subgroups
of
students
who
need
specific
support
• Targeted
Content
SLO’s
– Separate
SLOs
for
specific
skills
or
content
that
students
must
master
• Tiered
SLO’s
– Course-­‐
or
class-­‐level
SLOs
that
include
differen;ated
targets
for
the
range
of
student
abili;es

47. Teachers
should
not
develop
SLO
assessments
in
isola;on.
Assessments
should
be
developed
by
content
and
grade
level
experts
or
in
a
collabora;ve
PLC
learning
environment
made
up
of
all
the
teachers
in
the
subject
and/or
grade
level.

50. What
do
we
want
all
students
to
know
and
be
able
to
do?

51. How
will
we
deliver
content?

52. How
do
we
know
all
students
are
learning?

53. What
will
we
do
if
students
are
not
learning?

54. For
teacher
evalua;on
purposes,
common
forma;ve
assessments
should
gauge
student
growth
of
essen;al
skills/knowledge,
not
student
a^ainment
for
a
specific
subject
test
or
quiz.

55. Growth
is
NOT
A^ainment

56. Student
growth
should
cover
a
recurring
set
of
standards/objec;ves.

57. Aligning to Common Core
Essential Skills/Knowledge
1.
Endurance:
Will
this
standard
or
indicator
provide
students
with
knowledge
and
skills
that
will
be
of
value
beyond
a
single
test
date?
This
is
informa;on
a
student
will
need
to
know
far
beyond
the
last
test
the
teacher
gives.
2.
Leverage:
Will
this
provide
knowledge
and
skills
that
will
be
of
value
in
mul;ple
disciplines?
(For
example:
making
inferences
is
a
skill
that
can
be
used
in
many
subjects)
3.
Readiness
for
the
next
level
of
learning:
Will
this
provide
students
with
essen;al
knowledge
and
skills
that
are
necessary
for
success
in
the
next
grade
of
the
next
level
of
instruc;on?
Ainsworth,
L.
(2003)

58. Dis;nguish
content
vs.
skills.

59. SLOs
need
to
be
focused
on
academic
targets
that
are
both
long-­‐term
and
measurable.

60. PLC’s
are
vital
for
providing
input
and
answers
for
student
growth
measures.
• What
will
be
assessed?
– What
all
students
have
to
know
and
be
able
to
do.
• How
it
will
be
assessed?
– Selected
responses,
constructed
responses,
performance
• Determine
complexity
of
assessment.
– Determine
how
many
levels.

61. Sandoval
School
District
SLO
Process

62. The
next
slide
is
the
most
important
slide
of
this
en;re
presenta;on!

64. Baseline
•
•
•
•
•
•
What
do
you
know
about
your
students?
What
does
the
data
tell
you?
What
are
their
strengths
and
weaknesses?
How
did
your
students
perform
on
the
pre-­‐test?
What
student
needs
are
iden;fied
from
the
data?
Set
your
criteria
ahead
of
;me:
– Must
be
measurable
– Use
allowable
data
to
drive
instruc;on
and
set
growth
targets
– Targets
specific
academic
concepts,
skills,
or
behaviors
– What
assessments
are
available
in
your
district?

65. Popula;on
• Identify all students being included on the SLO.
• Set your criteria ahead of time.
– Attendance
• Mobile students, late move ins
– Pre-test data must be available
– Exceptions are allowed with approval

66. Objec;ve
• What
is
your
long-­‐term
goal
for
advancing
learning?
• What
are
the
students
expected
to
do
or
know
by
the
end
of
the
semester/year?
• Set
criteria
ahead
of
;me:
•
•
•
•
•
Rigorous
Targets
specific
academic
or
behavioral
skills
Must
use
baseline
data
Must
be
measurable
Collabora;on
is
required

67. Examples
• Students
will
be
able
to
write
reflec;ons,
that
respond
to
a
narra;ve
selec;on,
that
demonstrate
higher
order
thinking
skills.
• Students
will
increase
their
comprehension,
vocabulary,
and
fluency
in
reading.
• Students
will
use
the
scien;fic
method
to
organize,
analyze,
evaluate,
make
inferences,
and
predict
trends
using
data
from
the
classroom
experiments.
• Students
will
demonstrate
an
understanding
of
quadra;cs
and
exponent
rules.

68. Ra;onale
• What
is
the
compelling
why
behind
choosing
the
objec;ve?
• Why
is
it
important
to
cover
the
content?
• Using
your
data
analysis,
how
does
the
content
relate
to
student
strengths
and
weaknesses?
• Set
criteria
ahead
of
;me:
• Align
with
school
and
district
improvement
plans
• Align
with
teaching
strategies
and
learning
content
• Classroom
data
is
reviewed
for
strengths
and
needs
by
student
group,
subject,
concept,
skill,
and
behavior.

69. Examples
• Students
struggle
with
mo;ve,
inference,
making
predic;ons,
drawing
conclusions
from
text,
according
to
the
pre
assessment.
,
so
I
will
focus
on
these
specific
reading
skills.
Most
students
have
mastered
(19/23)
character
traits,
main
idea,
cause-­‐effect,
summarizing.

70. Strategies
• How will you help your students achieve the
objective?
• Set criteria ahead of time:
– Identify the type of instruction or key
strategies
– Be appropriate for learning content and skill
level
– Research based

71. Targeted
Growth
• How
much
growth
is
expected
by
the
end
of
the
evalua;on
cycle?
• Set
criteria
ahead
of
;me:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maximum
of
5
;ers
Expressed
in
whole
numbers
Encourage
collabora;on
Covers
75%
of
the
popula;on
Based
upon
pre-­‐assessment
data
Students
can
uphold
high
achievement
Quan;fiable
goals

72. Assessment
• What assessment will be used to measure
student growth?
• Set criteria ahead of time:
• Administered in a consistent manner and data secure
• Applicable to the purpose of the class and reflective of skills
being covered in the class
• Produces timely and useful data
• Standardized: Same content, administration, and reporting of
results
• Aligned with standards

73. SLO
Expecta;ons
• Elementary
– ELA
and
Math
• Middle
School
and
High
School
– If
teaching
mul;ple
content
areas
must
have
objec;ves
in
at
least
2
content
areas
• All
students
in
the
class
must
be
assessed

74. Scoring
SLO’s
— Assign SLO with value of 1-4
— SLO’s are averaged (Keep decimal value)

75. Finalizing Performance Evaluation
Rating
— 75% Teacher Practice -25% Student Growth
— Teacher Practice Rating (1-4) x 0.75 +
Student Growth Rating (1.0-4.0) x 0.25 =
Overall Rating

76. Student
Demographics
• Do
not
adjust
expecta;ons
for
students
based
on
a
student’s
demographic
or
AYP
classifica;ons.
• Students
with
the
same
performance
history
should
not
have
different
achievement
expecta;ons
based
on
their
demographics.

77. Use
External
and
Internal
Assessments
• Student
achievement
growth
should
be
derived
from
both
external
and
internal
assessments.
• These
assessments
need
to
be
universally
administered.
• Districts
should
not
use
different
tests
for
different
teachers
in
the
same
content
area.

78. Measurement
Model
• Per
state
stature
(Illinois
Administra;ve
Code,
Part
50)
districts
must
adopt
a
measurement
model
that
will
be
used
to
analyze
changes
in
student
test
scores.
• Districts
need
to
compare
the
student’s
projected
achievement
and
the
student’s
actual
achievement
as
the
measurement
model
for
growth.

79. Student
growth
projec;ons
should
be
based
on
the
same
general
methodology
across
all
grades,
subjects,
tests
and
rubrics.

80. Reliability
• Research
is
conclusive
in
documen;ng
that
growth
scores
from
mul;ple
measures
is
more
reliable
than
growth
from
single
measures.
• Combining
growth
scores
into
a
single
summa;ve
growth
score
for
the
teacher
will
greatly
improve
the
reliability
of
the
district’s
teacher
evalua;on
system.

81. Common
Misunderstandings
• The
new
ISBE
growth
value
table
model
is
unrelated
to
the
default
state
growth
model
for
teacher
evalua;on.
• Growth
Value
Table
are
for
NCLB
purposes
• Default
State
Growth
Model
is
the
work
of
PEAC
to
develop
the
default
state
growth
model
for
principal
and
teacher
evalua;on.

82. ISAT
is
allowable
for
teacher
evalua;on

83. Type
III
assessments
need
not
be
teacher
created
for
use
in
his/her
classroom

84. Assessments
mee;ng
the
defini;on
of
Type
I
and/or
Type
II,
can
also
be
used
as
a
Type
III
provided
it
aligns
to
the
curriculum.

85. Reliable
and
valid
assessment
does
not
ensure
a
reliable
and
valid
system
for
measuring
growth

86. Student
Learning
Objec;ve
(SLOs)
as
a
methodology
s;ll
requires
that
the
district
adopt
a
measurement
model
to
quan;fy
how
changes
in
student
test
scores
reflect
changes
in
student
knowledge
or
skills.

87. Founda;onal
Issues
• Assessment
does
not
equal
performance
• Type
I
can
be
a
Type
II
and
can
be
a
Type
III
• If
test
results
are
within
the
normal
ranges
then
teacher
prac;ce
score
trumps
• Focus
on
reliability
and
validity
of
systems,
not
of
tests.
• Combine
local
tests
with
norm
referenced
tests
to
increase
reliability

88. • Focus
on
building
good
performance
evalua;on
systems
not
good
tests.
• The
only
score
that
ma^ers
is
the
score
you
use
for
ra;ng
purposes.
• Reliability
is
a
func;on
of
a
psychometric
analysis.

89. For additional information
contact:
Dr. Richard Voltz
rvoltz@iasaedu.org
217-741-0466
http://richvoltz.edublogs.org