Maryland 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

Maryland Contextual Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

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

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

Objective Summary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Data Review and Baseline Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Student Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Learning Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Instructional Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Evidence of Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Teacher Professional Development and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Overview of Maryland English Language Arts (Grade 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Appendix: Tool for Comparing SLO Elements Across Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

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

Maryland Contextual InformationSLO Implementation TimelineSchool year the jurisdiction piloted or plans to pilot SLOs withoutstakes for teachers1

2011–2012, (seven pilots); 2012–2013, (full pilot year for all systems)

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

2013–2014 (used for evaluation purposes)

School year began or plans to begin large scale implementation 2013–2014 (for teacher and principal evaluation)

SLO Development and ApprovalWho develops SLOs? District administrators, individual teachers and principals (if

appropriate), 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 for teachers, district administrators for principals

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

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

No, Maryland School Assessments (MSA) must be used for teachers of elementary and middle grades in tested areas and for principals. The School Progress Index (SPI), the new State accountability measure, may be used and is in use in the State model.

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?

20 percent to 35 percent; no one measure can be used for more than 35 percent

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

20 percent to 35 percent; no one measure can be used for more than 35 percent

SLO ImplementationHow many SLOs are required for most teachers? A minimum of 2 to 4

How many SLOs are required for most school administrators? A minimum of 2 to 4

Which teachers and administrators are required to use SLOs? Individual school districts have the option of requiring SLOs for some or all educators based on their evaluations, as approved by the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE).

SLO AssessmentWho selects which assessments are used for SLOs? Teachers, teams of teachers, school administrators, district

administrators and State administrators

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

Yes, there are guidelines from MSDE, which must approve each LEA’s teacher and principal evaluation system.

What types of assessments are permitted? Teacher-developed and school-developed (with approval by the school district), 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 (Grade 7)Element List

Objective Summary Statement.................................................................................................................................5

Data Review and Baseline Evidence......................................................................................................................6

Student Population.......................................................................................................................................................7

Learning Content..........................................................................................................................................................8

Instructional Interval...................................................................................................................................................9

Target............................................................................................................................................................10

Evidence of Growth....................................................................................................................................................11

Rationale..........................................................................................................................................................12

Strategies....................................................................................................................................................13

Teacher Professional Development and Support..............................................................................................14

Objective Summary StatementStandardized Name

Student Growth TargetsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTSummarize the long term academic goal for students.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTAll students in my seventh grade English Language Arts classes will show at least one year’s growth in writing claim based on arguments.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThere is a summary statement with a target goal for all students.

This statement provides a concise introduction to the SLO.

6

Data Review and Baseline EvidenceStandardized Name

BaselineJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTDescribe and explain the process and information used to create this SLO.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTThe data selected to create this SLO include:

Students’ sixth grade end of course assessment writing scores from last year.

Students’ sixth grade third quarter benchmark scores for writing arguments.

The diagnostic assessment for writing arguments administered the second week of this school year

Review of student’s writing folders from sixth grade.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSMultiple measures blend the previous year’s data (for example, test and portfolio) with a current-year diagnostic assessment. The SLO does not provide any findings from the data. As a result, student baselines are unclear.

Which of the assessments comprise the pre-assessment? How did students perform on the pre-assessment? This information is critical for identifying learning content, selecting instructional strategies and setting targets.

7

Student PopulationStandardized Name

Student PopulationJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTDescribe and explain the student group(s) selected for this SLO.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTFor this SLO, all 58 students in my seventh grade English Language arts classes are targeted. These students include nine students with IEPs targeting reading comprehension in their goals (and the co-teacher is in my classroom four times a week supporting these students), two ELL students who receive support from the ESOL teacher (twice a week) within my classroom, three students who were absent more than 15% of the school year and are currently monitored by the Student Support Team.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

The SLO targets all students and identifies subgroups. The author identifies supports for students who need additional assistance, such as English learners (ELs) and students with individualized education plans (IEPs).

To strengthen this element, the author might consider identifying the current performance levels of the students. For example, attaching a roster of students that delineates their baseline levels of learning for the selected content would provide further information about their specific needs.

8

Learning ContentStandardized Name

Learning ContentJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTDescribe the specific content focus for this SLO.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTAs we transition to the Common Core State Standards in ELA/Literacy, there is a significant shift to focusing on having students write arguments based on information they have read. In seventh grade, students must not only introduce their claim(s), but also an opposing claim. They must also show relationships between and among claims using more precise language. This SLO is developed from the following Common Core State Standard for English Language Arts/Literacy for Writing.

Standard W .7 .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. (same as grade 6)

c. Use words, phrases, and clauses to create cohesion and clarify the relationships among claim(s), reasons, and evidence.

d. (same as grade 6)

e. (same as grade 6)

Essential skills and knowledge needed to master supporting standard 1a include:

• Adapt the prewriting stage of the writing process to an argument, including developing alternate claims

• Gather information to support claims.

• Compose a draft of an introduction that presents a claim or claims and addresses any alternate claim or claims

Essential skills and knowledge needed to master supporting standard 1c include:

• Combine ideas with the appropriate word or words that promote unity among claims and the confirmation of reasons.

• Use transitions purposefully to support unity.

• Apply academic vocabulary to express relationships precisely.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThis SLO identifies specific standards as the learning content, and provides a rationale for the selection of these standards. A positive feature of this element is its description of prerequisite skills and knowledge students need for the selected content. This understanding will help to inform instruction.

This SLO indicates that some standards for sixth and seventh grade are the same. However, there are differences between items b and e. These differences can sometimes be important; it’s worth taking care to cite the standards accurately.

How does this content help prepare students for future coursework and beyond? What is the relationship of the content to school and district priorities? The author might consider including some of the Common Core State Standards associated with reading informational texts, as the arguments need to connect to and emerge from texts students have read.

9

Instructional IntervalStandardized Name

Interval of InstructionJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT

Describe the instructional period for this SLO.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTSchool year 2012-2013 (one year)

English language arts class is 55 minutes daily

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe element identifies the duration of the course including the daily minutes, which represents a time-appropriate selection.

The author might consider including specific beginning and end dates for the teaching period, and explaining why this interval is appropriate for the key learning experiences of students. This level of specificity plays an important role in determining whether the interval matches the intended learning experiences and the related targets.

10

TargetStandardized Name

Student Growth TargetsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTDescribe and explain the expectations for student growth for students included in this SLO.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTAfter focused instruction, all nine students with IEPs will show a minimum of one year, three months growth on the end of year writing assessment on argument. The two ELL students will show a growth of one year, three months on the end of year writing assessment on argument. All other students will show a minimum of one year’s growth on the end of year writing assessment on argument.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author provides targets, though it is unclear what the baselines actually are. This is essential, because without baselines we cannot measure growth. The author provides differentiated targets for the two EL students and the nine students with IEPs. Without further information on the assessments and scoring, it is unclear how growth will be calculated to determine one year’s growth or one year and three months’ growth.

Including a roster with specific student baselines and targets would add clarity to the specific pre-assessment score distribution. Gathering and analyzing performance data on student learning in previous courses would enrich the analysis of student baselines.

11

Evidence of GrowthStandardized Name

AssessmentsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT

Describe what evidence will be used to determine student progress or growth.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT

To monitor student progress, the following strategies and measures will be used:

Analysis of quarterly district benchmarks for writing argument that are aligned to the Common Core State Standards

Analysis of performance-based writing tasks, aligned to informational text read during instructional units, using district writing rubrics that are aligned to the Common Core State Standards for writing

Analysis of writing argument pieces in the students’ writing folders

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

To the author’s credit, this element uses multiple measures. To strengthen it further, the author could add a straightforward explanation of how to use different assessments to determine baselines. In addition, a more thorough description of the assessments in terms of their structure, administration, scoring and the content they measure would improve this element.

The reference to formative assessments in this element raises a concern. It is important to identify how those administering this SLO will differentiate their use of formative and summative assessments. Formative assessments typically measure learning during instruction; summative assessments measure learning at the end of instruction.

What comprises the summative assessment and how does it demonstrate achievement of the target? Are the writing prompts and associated informational texts vetted to ensure comparable levels of rigor exist on the baseline and summative assessments? The use of rubrics for scoring calls for safeguards to improve reliability and comparability. As an example, it can be helpful for trained colleagues and assessment specialists to review the assessments.

12

RationaleStandardized Name

RationaleJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTDescribe and explain the relevance of any complexity factors considered in developing this SLO (e.g., student group diversity, unusually high number of transient students, block scheduling, co-teaching circumstances, and specific facility issues).

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTIt is critical that the students with IEPs, and ELLs accelerate their achievement at a rate greater than a year so that they are on track for college and career. Using the additional resources provided will enable those students to improve at this rate. Focused instruction on writing argument will enable all students to increase their skills by at least one year, if they are present for instruction.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSAll students must grow at least one year or one year and three months. In particular, those who are behind must grow more than one year to close the achievement gap for those students. However, because baseline data are missing for this SLO, it is difficult to determine if these targets are both rigorous and attainable.

The SLO describes the reasons for differentiating targets. This element would be stronger if it provided further justification for why the growth targets are appropriate.

13

StrategiesStandardized Name

Instructional StrategiesJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTDescribe and explain the key instructional strategies selected for implementation to support students in reaching the growth target for this SLO.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTGuided writing instruction on identifying claims and opposing claims

Guided writing instruction on developing the introduction, body, and conclusion of an argument

Mini lessons on gathering evidence from text(s) – collaboratively developed with co-teacher and ESOL teacher.

Vocabulary instruction that is focused on word choice, transitions, and academic vocabulary

Routine writing and formal writing will provide opportunities for writing practice and growth

Strategy/skill-focused mini-lessons will target problem areas) – collaboratively developed with co-teacher and ESOL teacher.

Digital text will be used to scaffold struggling readers when reading the informational text used as the writing prompt) – collaboratively chosen with co-teacher and ESOL teacher.

Appropriate multi-media will be used to scaffold lack of background knowledge/experience, as appropriate. ) – collaboratively chosen with co-teacher and ESOL teacher.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe SLO provides a list of strategies — intended to differentiate instruction based on individual student needs — to support students during instruction.

The author might consider including a reference to any research or other evidence that speaks to the effectiveness of the identified strategies.

14

Teacher Professional Development and Support

Standardized Name

Teacher Professional Development and Support

JURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTDescribe and explain the professional development opportunities that will support your instruction for this SLO.

Describe and explain any additional materials or resources that will support your instruction and assist students in meeting the growth target for this SLO.

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTProfessional development on strategies for teaching writing that are effective with SWD and ELL students.

Continued professional development on using writing rubrics that are aligned to the Common Core

Opportunities to collaboratively score writing with colleagues to insure that level of rigor is appropriate

Opportunities to evaluate Continued professional development of Universal Design for Learning Principles

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe identified professional development and support is specific and linked to the student population and learning content in the SLO. When known, it can be helpful for the author to identify the provider of the professional development to ensure a common understanding of the available support.

What research or other evidence indicates that this is the most effective professional development strategy? How will the effectiveness of the professional development be determined for this teacher?

Overview of Maryland English Language Arts (Grade 7)This SLO for seventh-grade English language arts focuses on a key standard (W.7.1). Including another item, such as a reading standard, would add depth and rigor to the SLO. The author reviews a number of data sources to develop the SLO, but because the author does not include specific baseline scores, the initial level of student performance is unclear. The author specifies targets in terms of one year’s growth, or one year and three months’ growth, but the author leaves unexplained how those administering the SLO will determine if students have grown to this extent. This calls the appropriateness of the targets, instructional strategies and rationale into question. Finally, the SLO offers multiple instructional strategies to address student needs and reports a significant level of collaboration between the classroom teacher and both the ESOL teacher and co-teacher.

15

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

Objective Summary Statement Student Growth Targets

Data Review and Baseline Evidence Baseline

Student Population Student Population

Learning Content Learning Content

Instructional Interval Interval of Instruction

Target Student Growth Targets

Evidence of Growth Assessments

Rationale Rationale

Strategies Instructional Strategies

Teacher Professional Development and Support Teacher Professional Development and Support

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.