Louisiana Student Learning ObjectiveMathematics (Grade 8)

May 2013

2

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

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

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

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

Louisiana Contextual Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Student Learning Objective: Mathematics (Grade 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

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

Rationale for SLT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Student Learning Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Baseline Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Scoring Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Overview of Louisiana Mathematics (Grade 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Appendix: Tool for Comparing SLO Elements Across Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

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

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

2011–2012

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

2012–2013

School year began or plans to begin large scale implementation

2012–2013

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

teachers, school and district administrators

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

Yes

Who approves SLOs? School administrators

SLO Use in EvaluationAre SLOs required or optional for use in evaluating educators? Required

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

No, they are one of multiple measures in the system. Other measures include observations and value-added data, where available.

Does the jurisdiction use SLOs to determine educator compensation?

Beginning in the 2013–14 school year, school districts will base their compensation schedules in part on effectiveness, as determined by the Compass evaluation system, which incorporates SLOs.

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

50 percent for teachers of non-tested subjects

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

50 percent for school administrators

SLO ImplementationHow many SLOs are required for most teachers? 2 SLOs per year

How many SLOs are required for most school administrators? 2 SLOs per year

Which teachers and administrators are required to use SLOs? Teachers of non-tested subjects, teachers of tested subjects, and all administrators

SLO AssessmentWho selects which assessments are used for SLOs? Teachers, school and district administrators

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

Yes, the State recommends that teachers and school administrators use a clear rubric creating and judging assessments for non-tested grades and subjects.

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

Are performance or portfolio-based assessments permitted for SLOs?

Yes

Are commercially available assessments permitted for SLOs? Teachers, school and district administrators

1 SLOs will not be used in educator evaluations2 SLOs may be used in educator evaluations

5

Student Learning Objective: Mathematics (Grade 8)Element List

Rationale for SLT............................................................................................................................................................5

Student Learning Target..............................................................................................................................................6

Baseline Data...................................................................................................................................................................7

Scoring Plan.....................................................................................................................................................................8

Rationale for SLTStandardized Name

RationaleJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTPlease include targeted content standards and/or explanation of assessment method, as applicable.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTIn order to be prepared for success in high school and beyond, my students must be proficient in the mathematical skills and concepts included in the 8th grade Grade Level Expectations (GLEs). A score of Basic or above on the LEAP assessment will indicate that they have mastered key skills and are ready for high school level work.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe rationale is based on the expectation that students will demonstrate grade-level abilities in mathematics on the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP).

The author would strengthen the student learning target (SLT) by citing the targeted learning content. Identifying the specific standards would help teachers and evaluators ensure that the assessment and instructional strategies align to the standards. The author should also consider pinpointing the students’ areas of need and placing special focus on a smaller number of standards where the need and the potential for growth are the greatest.

6

Student Learning TargetStandardized Name

Student Growth TargetsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTThe student learning targets set goals for student academic growth and are used to determine the Student Growth component score.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTBy the end of the year, 65% of my students (59 out of 90) will score Basic or above on the 8th grade math LEAP assessment.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe target specifies the percentage of students who must score in the acceptable range or above on the LEAP assessment required for the grade.

Although the goal is to move a number of students to a higher level of achievement, one third of students are not expected to score basic or above on the required assessment. The author could strengthen this SLT by setting high expectations for all students. The author might consider establishing tiered targets based on improvement in scale scores, if available. This tiered target approach would allow the author to set significant expectations for all students, not just 65 percent.

7

Baseline DataStandardized Name

Baseline JURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTPlease include what you know about the targeted students’ performance/skills/achievement levels at the beginning of the year, as well as any additional student data or background info used in setting your target.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTOn the 7th grade LEAP math assessment last year, 21 of my students scored Unsatisfactory; 45 scored Approaching Basic; 21 scored Basic; and 3 scored Mastery. 35 of the students who scored Approaching Basic had scale scores in the top 33% of that range. 30 of them had scored Unsatisfactory just two years earlier in 5th grade. To continue this upward trajectory for my students, I am aiming to move this group of 35 into the Basic range this year, while working to move my other students towards higher levels of achievement as well. This will be ambitious, as the 8th grade LEAP will include content my students haven’t seen for 2-3 years, but given the rate at which they’ve been able to grow the past few years, I am confident it will be achievable.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

The author conducts a thorough review of available historical data, going back two years to look at test score patterns. The analysis demonstrates knowledge of the targeted students because it pays particular attention to where students scored inside performance categories. This level of analysis helps evaluators and teachers make informed decisions about whether the learning targets set by the SLT are rigorous and realistic.

This Baseline Data comes from the LEAP mathematics assessment, which seems to measure content of a different course. The author might consider including a pre-assessment based on content important to the present course.

8

Scoring PlanStandardized Name

ScoringJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT

Scoring Plan:Insufficient Attainment of Target (1):

The teacher has demonstrated an insufficient impact on student learning by falling far short of the target.

Partial Attainment of Target (2):

The teacher has demonstrated some impact on student learning, but did not meet the target.

Full Attainment of Target (3):

The teacher has demonstrated a considerable impact on student learning by meeting the target.

Exceptional Attainment of Target (4):

The teacher has demonstrated an outstanding impact on student learning by surpassing the target by a meaningful margin.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT

Achievement range: Achievement range: Achievement range: Achievement range:Less than 57% of students (fewer than 51) score Basic or above.

58-64% of students (52-58) score Basic or above.

65-72% of students (59-65) score Basic or above.

73% of students (66) or more score Basic or above.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe scoring ranges reflect different percentages of students scoring basic or above, and appear to follow State guidelines.

If the author set tiered targets potentially based on scale scores, the SLT could account for the performance of 100 percent of students, not just 73 percent. If scale-score targets were informed by pre-assessment data, the data would provide evidence of the rigor of the targets.

Overview of Louisiana Mathematics (Grade 8)This mathematics SLT examines previous student performance data and sets targets based on that data. It also considers several years’ worth of prior student performance. The SLT does not identify the specific standards it covers. Rather, the author includes general statements about grade level expectations. A pre-assessment, aligned to this year’s content, would inform the selection of standards by providing SLT users with data showing students’ greatest learning needs. Finally, the author should consider crafting a learning target for the SLT that would expect growth for all students.

9

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

Rationale for SLT Rationale

Student Learning Target Student Growth Targets

Baseline Data Baseline

Scoring Plan Scoring

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.