Hawaii Student Learning ObjectiveEnglish Language Arts (Grade 7)

May 2013

2

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

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

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

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

Hawaii Contextual Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Student Learning Objective: English Language Arts (Grade 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

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

Priority Learning Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Needs Assessment/Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Student Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Instructional Approaches/Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Assessment Method(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

SLOs as a SMART Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Overview of Hawaii English Language Arts (Grade 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Appendix: Tool for Comparing SLO Elements Across Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

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

Hawaii 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 with stakes for teachers2

2013–2014

School year began or plans to begin large scale implementation TBD

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

teachers

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, the State uses student-growth percentiles.

Does the jurisdiction use SLOs to determine educator compensation?

No

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

TBD

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

N/A

SLO ImplementationHow many SLOs are required for most teachers? TBD

How many SLOs are required for most school administrators? N/A

Which teachers and administrators are required to use SLOs? TBD

SLO AssessmentWho selects which assessments are used for SLOs? Teachers and administrators choose the assessments.

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

All assessments must be aligned to State or college- and career-ready standards. Hawaii is piloting an assessment criteria tool as well.

What types of assessments are permitted? Teacher-developed, complex-developed, school-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 (Grade 7)Element List

Priority Learning Targets............................................................................................................................................6

Needs Assessment/Rationale....................................................................................................................................7

Student Population.......................................................................................................................................................8

Instructional Approaches/Strategies......................................................................................................................9

Assessment Method(s)................................................................................................................................................10

SLOs as a SMART Goal...............................................................................................................................................13

6

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author selects appropriate standards for the learning content and references them at the most specific level by number. The selection reflects an appropriate amount of learning content. This content is central, as writing an argument based on research is important to this and future courses including those aligned to college- and career-ready standards.

The author might consider adding a statement about how the SLO aligns with school goals (for example, school literacy goals). Aligning an SLO with school initiatives and goals would reinforce the focus of the school and ensure consistency across initiatives.

Priority Learning TargetsStandardized Name

Learning ContentJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTUsing the State Strategic Plan, the school’s Academic and Financial Plan (ACFIN) and/or team goals, the teacher identifies the area of need and related State/National standards. This need must be based on longitudinal (when available), baseline or pre-assessment data.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT7.W.1:Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.a. Introduce claim(s), acknowledge alternate or opposing claims, and organize the reasons and evidence

logically.b. Support claim(s) with logical reasoning and relevant evidence. using accurate. credible sources and

demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text.c. Use words, phrases, and clauses to create cohesion and clarify the relationships among claim(s), reasons, and

evidence.d. Establish and maintain a formal style.e. Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented.

7.W.4:Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience. (Grade-specific expectations for writing types are defined in standards 1-3 above.)

7.W.8:Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, using search terms effectively; assess the credibility and accuracy of each source; and quote or paraphrase the data and conclusions of others while avoiding plagiarism and following a standard format for citation.

7

Needs Assessment/RationaleStandardized Name

RationaleJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTThe teacher articulates why the specific area of focus was chosen. If the teacher’s goal does not directly align to the goals of the school, a justification is provided. The teacher also articulates why/how the targets for student growth were identified. Results from pre-assessment data may also indicate a need for instruction of a specific topic or content.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTCommon Core Standards require that students are able to construct an argument based on evidence. In order for students to be college and career ready they must be able to take and support a position on a variety of topics. Students were given an initial argumentative essay assignment during the first few weeks of school . 75 of 100 students scored a 1 or 2 on the rubric .

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author includes baseline data (for example, 75 of 100 scored a one or a two). Student baselines indicate a clear need for the learning content for most students. Reviewing more data sources (for example, prior course performance, related assessments, student interests and experiences) to confirm or modify the SLO would enhance its quality. The rationale defends the importance of the content in terms of college and career readiness.

What indicates that students need this content more than other content that the author could have selected? The author might consider a pre-assessment strategy that identifies subskills required to write an argumentative essay.

8

Student PopulationStandardized Name

Student PopulationJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTThe student population should identify the number of students with IEPs, the number of ELL students and any other demographic information that helps to describe their class. The teacher may choose to focus the SLO on the whole class, a subgroup, or a segment population. Of the two SLOs, at least one should cover at least 75% of the students of which you are the teacher of record. If a teacher teaches multiple classes/sections, the SLO will be written for one class.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTThe author of the SLO left this blank .

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

It is unclear which students the author includes in this SLO. Consequently, it is not possible to determine the extent to which the SLO is appropriate.

Do the students have interests and needs (gleaned from data sources other than the pre-assessment) that might inform SLO development and teaching? Including a roster with specific student baselines and targets would add clarity to the specific pre-assessment score distribution. Gathering and analyzing performance data (for example, portfolios) on the student learning in previous English language arts courses would enrich the analysis of student baselines.

9

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSInstructional strategies for teaching the content are not included.

What interventions will occur if students do not initially demonstrate progress? How will the teacher know when to apply those interventions? How do instructional strategies promote inclusion of special education students and English learners? Consider stating the approach for teaching the learning content. Much of the power of SLOs as an instructional reform exists in the link between learning content, teacher practice and student performance.

Instructional Approaches/StrategiesStandardized Name

Instructional StrategiesJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTThe teacher articulates “how” students will progress towards the intended goal. These instructional approaches may be in the form of evidence-based strategies and activities, as well as ideas to keep students engaged, ways to improve students’ critical thinking, etc.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTThe author of the SLO left this blank .

10

Assessment Method(s)Standardized Name

AssessmentsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT

The teacher identifies the methods that will be used to collect data/evidence on student progress. These may include, but are not limited to:

• Norm referenced assessments

• Teacher generated tests and quizzes

• Writing samples (with rubrics specifically reflecting the SLO)

• Observational check lists

• Benchmark assessments

• Performance assessments

• Student created work (such as class assignments) that reflect the student learning objectives outlined in the SLO plan

• Student surveys (that reflect the objectives identified in the SLO plan)

11

12

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT

Students will write an argumentative essay on a controversial topic of their choice or one chosen by the teacher. (For example, should video cameras be allowed in classrooms? Should companies market to children? Are cell phones dangerous? Do violent video games cause behavior problems?) Students will be sure to introduce their claims and support them with multiple accurate and credible print and digital sources. Students must also acknowledge and address alternate or opposing claims. Students should be sure to provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented. The student should establish and maintain a formal tone. Students should have time to examine multiple sources and revise and edit their work.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe assessment is rigorous, reflecting the current collaborative methodologies of next-generation assessments. The rubric reveals that the selected assessment measures all learning content items. It relies on a rubric created by one of two multi-State consortia on assessments for the Common Core State Standards. The use of the rubric makes scoring clear.

This element would be stronger if there were greater alignment between the author’s introductory text, the rubrics and the standards selected for this SLO, particularly 7.W.4. The author does not emphasize language, vocabulary and conventions, important components of the rubric that are also addressed by the standard.

13

SLOs as a SMART GoalStandardized Name

Student Growth TargetsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTThe teacher defines the SLO by writing a goal that is:

• Specific

• Measurable

• Attainable

• Realistic

• Time Specific

SMART goals are a way to not only decide what to do, but how to do it in a way that can easily be tracked to determine whether or not progress is made and know when the goals are met.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT100% of students will show at least 1 level of growth on the Smarter Balanced Assessment Rubric during the course as measured by the end of the year writing assignments.

Students already scoring at the levels three and four will maintain these scores over a variety of writing assignments.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author does not include individual targets or a rationale for why students scoring at level three can meet the SLO goal by maintaining that performance level instead of having to advance to a higher level. Indeed, it is not clear that maintaining a writing score on an identical assessment is a rigorous demonstration of learning.

The author might consider including individual targets and baselines to ensure expectations are high but attainable for each student. Why is one level of growth on the rubric appropriate for some students, and why are students scoring threes and fours expected to show no growth? SLOs typically focus on a group of students with a common identified need, but the students scoring a three on the pre-assessment do not fit this description.

Overview of Hawaii English Language Arts (Grade 7)This SLO for English language arts focuses on argumentation in writing, which is among the most notable challenges emphasized in the Common Core State Standards. The author demonstrates student need for the selected content based on pre-assessment scores, but the SLO will likely work for only those students who have not already mastered this content. The use of a rubric aligned to Common Core and produced by one of the two national assessment consortia lends credibility to this SLO. To further strengthen it, the author could present the instructional strategies the teacher will use to help students meet the targets and focus on all standards the SLO addresses, including the production of clear and coherent writing.

14

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

Priority Learning Targets Learning Content

Needs Assessment/Rationale Rationale

Student Population Student Population

Instructional Approaches/Strategies Instructional Strategies

Assessment Method(s) Assessments

SLOs as a SMART Goal Student Growth Targets

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.