Student Learning Objectives (SLO)

Student Learning Objectives(SLO)PPT SOURCE: Dr. Cathleen Cubelic Cathleen.cubelic@miu4.org

VALLEY GROVE SD2014 ~ SLO Workshop

1Our ObjectivesUnderstand what is an SLOUnderstand Process: Design, Build, & ReviewConsider Assessment Quality and PurposeExamine Webbs DOK in reference to AssessmentCollaborate for implementationBuild the SLO on the TemplateUse online tools

2SLO & Assessment LiteracyPre-Test3Student Learning ObjectivesMIND DUMP What do you know?

What have you heard?

What have you researched?

Why are we doing this?

Anything else?

4Student Learning ObjectivesYOUR SLO5written specific to you and a specific class/course/content area for which you teach.Every teacher designs one.Collaborative development is encouraged.Design, Build, Review Repeat next year/cycle In the interest of all studentsTo improve the programKnowing the good teaching matters mostMany Factors and Decisions to make:time frame, course content, learning needs, goal, assessment, measures, indicators Local Decisions!!!67

The Rating Tool PDE 82-12014-15

PVAASRostering 8The SLO in PA is written in relationship to a specific teacher and a specific class/course/content area for which that teacher provides instruction.

9The PSSA test doesnt completely measure my effectiveness.

SLO CONCEPTSSTUDENT ACHIEVEMENT can be measured in ways that reflect authentic learning of content standards.

EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS can be measured through use of student achievement measures10The SLO [Elective data] is in response to this statement.

10SLO DefinitionA process to document a measure of educator effectiveness based on student achievement of content standards.

11The SLO process contains three (3) action components: Design (ing): thinking, conceptualizing, organizing, discussing, researchingBuild (ing): selecting, developing, sharing, completingReview (ing): refining, checking, updating, editing, testing, finalizing

SLO Process12Key Points for TrainersExplain that all components are done before the school year (initial conversation with principal) in preparing the SLO; however, the REVIEW component may also continue until the final results are available to determine whether or not the performance expectations have been reached.Clarify the specific timelines for the SLO process will be determined by local education agencies (LEAs) and not by the state; however, a generic timeline for the SLO process should be presented that outlines a before, during, and after school year set of activities. In general:Teacher develops SLO, along with applicable performance measures before school startsPrincipal reviews and discusses with teacher; adjustments may be required.Teacher reviews SLO progress at some midpoint in the yearPrincipal receives mid-year update from teacher; adjustments may be required.Teacher summarizes performance measure data and evaluates each performance indicatorTeacher presents final SLO resultsPrincipal assigns final rating in Section 5

DESIGN: This component is the thinking step in the process used to conceptualize the learning objective in terms of content, students, and performance measures.BUILD: This component is the action step in the process that focuses on completing the SLO Process template and creating and/or selecting performance measures.REVIEW: This component is the reflection step used to examine the three Cs (i.e., Completeness, Comprehensiveness, and Cohesion) of quality.

IMT Orientation Draft 02Sept11-CS12Student Learning ObjectivesComponentsGoal Statement big idea of what the SLO is based onEndurance Learning has worth beyond the assessmentLeverage Content has value across disciplinesReadiness Provides knowledge/skills necessary for success at future levels of instructionPerformance Measures Assessments used to measure student achievementPerformance Indicators Articulated target for student achievementEffectiveness Rating Translation of number of students meeting performance Indicators How many met target and what does that mean?

13Student Learning ObjectivesAssessment Literacy14Input vs. OutputWhen we think about how we are changing education today, we are moving from a system that focuses on inputs to one that focuses on outputs. In an input world, what we care about for integrity of curriculum is making sure that all of our teachers are giving children exactly the same thing. This is a Betty Crocker curriculum. Betty Crocker has some fantastic recipes and we want to make sure that the boxes of cake always produce the same outcome. Thats what education has been. You get a publisher and they say here are the resources, follow the instruction to the letter and that is Input Integrity.

Assessment changes all that. Assessment is about output integrity. Did the kid learn what he needed to learn? How does that make it different? When we think about outputs, we have to change all those input factors. Betty Crocker doesnt help us; the recipe isnt the guide. The assessment tells us where we need to add a little salt and where we need a little sugar, and where do we need to change what were making altogether. Formative assessment and summative assessment give us information about how successful we are, that we need to use in a different way to look at curriculum and instruction integrity, and build upon what we have done previously...adapting and changing in the name of improvement.

Student Learning ObjectivesAssessment Literacy15ASSESSMENT Foundation for measuring success http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOcYfrZJWi8

WEBBS DOK New version of Blooms Taxonomy Color Laminated ChartPDF Packet http://vimeo.com/20998609

What is RIGOR?Rigor in the classroom

Rigor is creating an environment in which each student is expected to learn at high levels, each student is supported so that he or she can learn at high levels, and each student demonstrates learning at high levels.

-Barbara Blackburn, 2008Barbara Blackburn National educational consultant, author of 14 books, newest on Rigor, presenter and keynote speaker16Rigor can be accomplished by:Increasing the complexity of thinking inCourse content learning progressions and appropriate leveled text for challengeInstruction activities promote critical thinking, communication building, applying integrated ideas, application of concepts, promoting responsibilityAssessment aligned to instructional targets, engages with academic content, requires extended and elaborated responses.Blooms TaxonomyOld(1950s)New (1990s)

HANDOUT: the laminated charts show you a comparison of BLOOMs TAXONOMY with WEBB S DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE. COMPARISONBLOOMs KEY POINTS:6 levelsDifferent sources list different verbsThe same verbs appear as examples in more than one cognitive levelThis overlap indicates that focusing ONLY on verbs to determine what is the level of cognitive demand is not fully adequate.WEBBs KEY POINTS:The DOK is NOT determined by the verb (Blooms) but by the context in which the verb is used and in the depth of thinking that is required.Names 4 different ways students interact with content.Each level is dependent upon how deeply students understand the contentDOK is about what follows the verb...What comes after the verb is moreimportant than the verb itself

Analyze this sentence to decide if the commas have been used correctly does not meet the criteria for high cognitive processing.

The student who has been taught the rule for using commas is merely using the rule.Same Verb 3 different DOK levelsDOK 1- Describe three characteristics of metamorphic rocks.(Requires simple recall)

DOK 2- Describe the difference between metamorphic andigneous rocks. (Requires cognitive processing to determinethe differences in the two rock types)

DOK 3- Describe a model that you might use to representthe relationships that exist within the rock cycle. (Requiresdeep understanding of rock cycle and a determination ofhow best to represent it)DOK is about intended outcome,not difficultyDOK is a reference to the complexity of mental processing that must occur to answer a question, perform a task, or generate a product.

Adding is a mental process. Knowing the rule for adding is the intended outcome that influences the DOK. Once someone learns the rule of how to add, 4 + 4 is DOK 1 and is also easy.

Adding 4,678,895 + 9,578,885 is still a DOK 1 but may be more difficult.WEBBS DOK RESOURCESOnline Search tons of resourcesLaminated Charts Webbs vs. BloomsHandout DOK #1 Levels DescribedHandout DOK #2 Subject Area InfoHandout DOK #3 Question StemsActivity: Question Analysis Math Trip to the CapitalELA Women Poem23SLO Process Components DESIGNThinking about what content standards to measureOrganizing standards and measuresDiscussing with colleagues collective goalsResearching what is needed for a high quality SLO

24Key Points for TrainersDesigning is planning for the SLO, examining what is needed, and how performance measures are used to collect information about student achievement.Activities during this stage establish the foundation for developing a student learning objective, including such things as:Identifying target content standardsDiscussing Big Idea in the standardsThinking about the goalCollaborating with other teachersBrainstorming the type of performance measures

IMT Orientation Draft 02Sept11-CS24SLO Process Components BUILDSelecting the performance measure(s) Developing targets and expectationsCompleting the template Sharing the draft materials with other colleaguesDeveloping/Documenting performance task(s)

25Key Points for TrainersEnsure the participants understand that the building is an iterative process between the original design and create the SLOs. Often the original designs must be changed once the details on how the standards will be measures and developed performance indicator targets. Activities during this stage complete the SLO Process Template 10.0 and include such things as:Selecting (or creating) the performance measures that are aligned to the targeted content standardsDeveloping mastery and/or growth metrics associated with the performance measuresEstablishing performance indicator targetsIdentifying students included in the SLO dataCreating performance expectations

IMT Orientation Draft 02Sept11-CS25SLO Process ComponentsREVIEWChecking the drafted SLO (including the performance measures for quality Refining measures and targetsEditing text and preparing discussion points/highlights for principalFinalizing materialsUpdating completed SLOs with performance data

26Key Points for TrainersEnsure the participants understand that the review phase requires an extensive evaluation of the SLOs quality in terms of the 3Cs.Completeness, Comprehensiveness, and CoherenceQuality assurance checklist and rubricActivities during this stage occur before and after the presentation to the principal, and include such things as:Finalizing and submitting the proposed SLORefining the SLO based upon feedback from the principalCollecting performance data on student achievementAdjusting SLOs at during the school yearUpdating SLOs with dataEvaluating each performance indicatorDetermining the Elective Rating

IMT Orientation Draft 02Sept11-CS26DesignWhat is a Goal Statement?Definition:Narrative articulating the big idea upon which the SLO is built under which content standards are directly aligned.

Characteristics:ENDURANCE: Encompasses the enduring understanding of the standardbeyond the testLEVERAGE: Central to the content areabut has value in other disciplinesREADINESS: Foundational concepts for later subjects/courses necessary to the next stepEndurance LeverageReadiness28Endurance Does it have value beyond the test? Leverage Does it have value in across other disciplines? Readiness Does it provide knowledge and skills that are necessary for success at the next level? IMT Orientation Draft 02Sept11-CS28Goal Statement ExampleStudents will apply the concepts and the competencies of nutrition, eating habits, and safe food preparation techniques to overall health and wellness throughout the life cycle at individual, family and societal levels.29Does this convey an enduring understanding?Is there a central idea?Is there a foundation for later concepts?IMT Orientation Draft 02Sept11-CS29 SLO Goal(Template #1)Goal Statement addresses:WHAT the big idea is in the standardsStandardsHOW the skills and knowledge support future learningRationale Statement:WHY the big idea is a central, enduring concept

http://pdesas.org/standard/PACore

30Take the participants onto the SAS portal to the Curriculum Framework Select a content area to use as the model. As a district team, complete the template with a selected Goal Statement derived from the Big Ideas!30More Considerations for Goal Statements Do you have previous data to help guide your goal? What does your growth and achievement look like? Is there a building/district-wide goal?

31Are there connections to SPP, PVAAS, Danielson areas of focus? Discussion31Activity:Goal Statement (Template #1)Within your team, choose a discipline in which youd like to focus. Preferably, choose a discipline that is very familiar to you.Complete Template #1 Goal Statement

We will post them for the entire group. 32BuildTemplateSection 1

34GoalGoal statement should articulate an appropriate big idea. http://pdesas.org/standard/PACore

Standards should be the appropriate Focus Standards supporting the goal.

Rationale statement should be reasons why the Goal statement and the aligned Standards address important concepts for this class/course.

35Focus on content shifts, PA Core Focus, Important Standards.35TemplateSection 2

36Goal statement should articulate an appropriate big idea

Rationale statement should be reasons why the Goal Statement and the aligned Standards address important learning for this class/course.

36Performance IndicatorDefinition: a description of the expected level of student growth or achievement based on the performance measure

***Articulates Targets for each Performance Measure***

Answers two questions.Does the indicator define student success?What is the specific measure linked to the indicator?37Example:

37Examples of Performance Indicator TargetsStudents will achieve Advanced or Proficient on all four criteria of the Data Analysis Project rubric.Students will score an average of 3 or better on five different constructed response questions regarding linear modeling according to the general description of scoring guidelines.(http://static.pdesas.org/Content/Documents/Keystone%20Scoring%20Guidelines%20-%20Algebra%20I.pdf)Students will improve a minimum of 10% points from pre- to post-test for material in each semester. Students will show significant improvement in the Domain of Measurement on the Classroom Diagnostic Tools Mathematics Grade 7 assessment from the first to the last administration. 38Read each example and have participants decide whether or not the indicators are good. Use the criteria previously established. Discuss each as a group (red or green bucket) and give the reasons for the decision.38Performance Indicator Focus student group

A description of the expected level of achievement for each student in a subset of the SLO population (1F) based on the scoring tools used for each performance measure (4A).

Subset populations can be identified through prior student achievement data or through content-specific pretest data.

39Examples of Performance Indicator Targets: Focused Student GroupStudents who scored below the 30th percentile on their benchmark AIMSweb R-CBM probe will score above the 30th percentile by the end of the school year using the national norms.Students who scored below a 2 on the pre-test will improve a minimum of one level on the post-test.

40What qualifies this as a focused student group? Content-based pretest or prior achievement data? How will the issues of growth and/or achievement factor into the decision about a focused student group indicator?40SLO Design Coherency41All Students Targeted StudentsRATINGActivity:Growth and MasteryWhat assessments may be used as growth, mastery or both?

42Participants complete a Venn Diagram using names of assessments as well as an example Performance Indicator Target for ALL students.42What are the characteristics of a quality assessment?Write (3).Report out the summary from your table.

4343Good assessments haveA specific and defined purposeA mixture of question typesItems/tasks with appropriate DOK levelsItems/tasks that are Standards AlignedA quality rubricA standardized scoring methodAcademic Rigor

A reasonable time limit for completionAn appropriate readability levelMultiple methods of student demonstrationValidity and reliabilityWell-written directions and administration guidelinesCut scores for performance categories

44Academic RigorStandards-AlignedDevelopmentally AppropriateFocused on Higher-Order Thinking

45Weighting, Linking, or OtherwiseStandardYou may consider each Performance Indicator equal in importance.LinkedYou may link multiple Performance Indicators, if you like. Do this for pass before moving on assessments.3. Weighted You may weight multiple Performance Indicators, if you like. Do this when you believe one or more PIs are more complex or more important than others.

4646Standard ScenarioNameStudent ProportionMet TargetPI 1Building a Bridge Project68/80PI 2Roller Coaster Design56/80P1 3Egg Parachute40/8047Weighting ScenarioPhysics Class with (3) PI targets:

Total Score = 72.5%48TemplateSection 3

4949Goal-Indicator-Measure50Indicator #1 might be relating to a growth/progress monitoring PI whereas Indicator #2 may be for a mastery PI50Goal-Indicator-Measure511-1 indicator-assessment ratio51Performance Measure - DescriptionsState the name of the assessment(s).List the type of measure.Explain the purpose, state what the Performance Measure should measure.Identify the timeline and occurrence(s)Scoring Tools should indicate the solution key, rubric, checklist, etc. that is being used to score the PM.Administration & Scoring Personnel should contain who is giving the test and who is scoring it.Performance Reporting should state how others will know which students met the Performance Indicator(s).

52Whats the test? [generally] Why am I giving it? How will it be scored? When will it be administered? 52TemplateSection 4

53There need not be 5.This is arbitrary. Suggestion is between 2 and 5 PIs53Teacher ExpectationsDefinition: identifies each level (Failing, Needs Improvement, Proficient, Distinguished) students are meeting the Performance Indicator Targets.These reflect the continuum established by the teacher prior to the evaluation period.Each level is populated with a percentage range so that there is distribution of performance across levels.Based on the actual performance across all identified Performance Indicators, the evaluator will determine one of the four levels for the SLO. 54Template Section 5

55ReviewSLO Coherency Rubric

School Leaders SLO Checklist

Assessment QA ChecklistTools for Review

57The Online Toolhttp://www.pdesas.org/Use the Homeroom link at bottom rightClick the RIA Homeroom site link in the top paragraphRegister and log in.

5859SLO & Assessment LiteracyPost-Test60PERFORMANCE TASK FRAMEWORK

This template is used to organize performance tasks used in the SLO process.

Performance Measure

a.Performance Measure Name

SLO Alignment

b.Class/Course Titlec. Grade(s)/ Level

d.PA Standards

e.Performance Measure Purpose

1. Administration (Teacher)

1a.Administration Frequency

1b.Unique Task Adaptations/Accommodations

1c.Resources/Equipment

2. Process (Student)

2a.Task Scenarios

2b.Process Steps

2c.Requirements

2d.Products

3. Scoring (Teacher)

3a.Scoring Tools

3b.Scoring Guidelines

3c.Score/Performance Reporting

Performance Measure FrameworkGeneral Guidance: Think of the performance task as a single booklet consisting of administration guidelines on Page 1, guidelines to the students on Page 2, and detailed scoring criteria on Page 3, including sample responses aligned to the scoring rubric/tool.

Page 1. Administration (TEACHER)a. Administrative frequency: How many times will the student be given this task within an identified timeframe?b. Unique task adaptations and/or accommodations: How does the task change in either presentation, response options, setting, etc. to accommodate students with disabilities, English language learners, etc.?c. Resources and/or equipment: What equipment, tools, text, artwork, etc. is needed by the student to accomplish the task? What additional personnel are needed to administer the task?Page 2. Task Scenarios, Requirements, Process Steps, Products (STUDENT)a. Task scenario: What information is provided for the student that provides the context necessary to create a response, project, produce, demonstration?b. Requirements: Given the scenario, how are the task requirements articulated to the student in order to establish key criteria by which performance is evaluated? Which requirements are implied, thus requiring deeper understanding of the content being assessed? Which criteria are stated explicitly in order to adhere to the time constraints, product parameters, etc.?c. Process steps: What guidance expresses the sequence of events, steps, or phases of the task? How are extended (multiple days) timelines and demonstrations of progress articulated?d. Products: Given the activities within the task, what products, demonstrations, or performances are expected during and/or at the end of the process? What information is provided about the criteria used to judge student calculations, products, demonstrations, performances, etc.? Scoring (TEACHER)a. Scoring tools: How does the rubric classify different levels of performance, student work, etc.? How is the overall score attained? How well are multiple dimensions aligned to the standards?b. Scoring guidelines: How are the steps that are used to evaluate student products, performances, etc., articulated? What guidance is provided to assign scores for incomplete work? How are additional scoring personnel identified and trained? Given an overall score or classification/performance level, how are examples, models, or demonstrations provided?c. Score/Performance reporting: How are overall results reported back to the student? How are scored results reported for all students?

BuildingTemplate #5-Performance Task Framework

SLO Coherency Rubric-PDESLOAbstractDuring the REVIEW phase, use Template #6 as a self-assessment tool to evaluate the overall alignment of SLOs.The RIA GroupPennsylvania Department of Education Version 2.0

General DirectionsDesigned to examine the alignment characteristics of each Student Learning Objective (SLO), the Coherency Rubric, Version 1, serves as the measurement tool to ensure that each SLO meets the coherency criteria established by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Consistent with the three-phase SLO design process, the rubric includes the following components: Design, Build, and Review. Each component contains a series of descriptors that specify the criteria for evaluating SLO quality. For this initial year of SLO development, descriptors are evaluated using a simple performance rating scale of Meets Criteria or Not Applicable.Part I: DesignJustify any N/A rating in the space provided at the bottom of the table.Task IDDescriptorRating

Meets CriteriaN/A

1.1The goal statement articulates the big idea (enduring understanding) under which targeted content standards are directly aligned. The statement is concise and free of technical jargon.

|_||_|

1.2Targeted content standards have a direct influence on student performance outcomes and are viewed as central to the subject area.

|_||_|

1.3 The course/subject area associated with the SLO is logically linked to the big idea and targeted content standards.

|_||_|

1.4A blueprint or other design document illustrates relationships among key components (i.e., goal statement, targeted content standards, performance indicators, performance measures, student achievement expectations, and overall teacher rating).

|_||_|

1.5Performance measure is designed to evaluate the targeted content standards (as demonstrated by the performance measures alignment characteristics).

|_||_|

N/A Justifications

Part II: BuildJustify any N/A rating in the space provided at the bottom of the table.Task IDDescriptorRating

Meets CriteriaNeeds Addressed

2.1The goal statement represents a central concept that is enduring, has leverage, and is foundational to further, more complex content standards.

|_||_|

2.2The SLO is supported by a representative sample of the educators students, with a sample size that is sufficient to make valid inferences about student achievement.

|_||_|

2.3Targeted content standards are selected using a valid and reliable approach that is fair and unbiased.

|_||_|

2.4Performance indicators are specific, criteria-focused, challenging (yet attainable), and directly linked to the performance measures.

|_||_|

2.5Performance measures establish benchmarks for two or more points in time within a given school year [Growth]. In addition or alternatively, performance measures establish a clear, date-specific target for an on-demand demonstration of skill and knowledge attainment [Mastery].

|_||_|

2.6The overall rating is directly linked to a performance continuum based on the percentage of students meeting expectations across all performance indicators.

|_||_|

N/A Justifications

Part III: ReviewJustify any N/A rating in the space provided at the bottom of the table.Task IDDescriptorRating

Meets CriteriaNeeds Addressed

3.1The SLO is based on performance measures that are technically sound (i.e., reliable, valid, and fair) and appropriately aligned to the targeted content standards.

|_||_|

3.2The SLO mitigates unintentional consequences and/or potential threats to inferences made about meeting performance expectations.

|_||_|

3.3 The SLO has supporting data and/or evidence to support the assignment of an overall teacher rating (i.e., Failing, Needs Improvement, Proficient, and Distinguished).

|_||_|

3.4The SLO has been reviewed to ensure that it is complete. Meaning, all applicable elements within SLO Template 10.0 have been addressed according to the prescribed business rules.

|_||_|

3.4The SLO has been reviewed to ensure that it is comprehensive. Meaning, all performance measures have been examined to determine that they are appropriate for use in the SLO process.

|_||_|

N/A Justifications

ReviewingSLO Coherency Rubric-PDE-Version4

General DirectionsDesigned to examine the alignment characteristics of each Student Learning Objective (SLO), the Coherency Rubric, Version 1, serves as the measurement tool to ensure that each SLO meets the coherency criteria established by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Consistent with the three-phase SLO design process, the rubric includes the following components: Design, Build, and Review. Each component contains a series of descriptors that specify the criteria for evaluating SLO quality. For this initial year of SLO development, descriptors are evaluated using a simple performance rating scale of Meets Criteria or Not Applicable.Part I: DesignJustify any N/A rating in the space provided at the bottom of the table.Task IDDescriptorRating

Meets CriteriaN/A

1.1The goal statement articulates the big idea (enduring understanding) under which targeted content standards are directly aligned. The statement is concise and free of technical jargon.

|_||_|

1.2Targeted content standards have a direct influence on student performance outcomes and are viewed as central to the subject area.

|_||_|

1.3 The course/subject area associated with the SLO is logically linked to the big idea and targeted content standards.

|_||_|

1.4A blueprint or other design document illustrates relationships among key components (i.e., goal statement, targeted content standards, performance indicators, performance measures, student achievement expectations, and overall teacher rating).

|_||_|

1.5Performance measure is designed to evaluate the targeted content standards (as demonstrated by the performance measures alignment characteristics).

|_||_|

N/A Justifications

Part II: BuildJustify any N/A rating in the space provided at the bottom of the table.Task IDDescriptorRating

Meets CriteriaNeeds Addressed

2.1The goal statement represents a central concept that is enduring, has leverage, and is foundational to further, more complex content standards.

|_||_|

2.2The SLO is supported by a representative sample of the educators students, with a sample size that is sufficient to make valid inferences about student achievement.

|_||_|

2.3Targeted content standards are selected using a valid and reliable approach that is fair and unbiased.

|_||_|

2.4Performance indicators are specific, criteria-focused, challenging (yet attainable), and directly linked to the performance measures.

|_||_|

2.5Performance measures establish benchmarks for two or more points in time within a given school year [Growth]. In addition or alternatively, performance measures establish a clear, date-specific target for an on-demand demonstration of skill and knowledge attainment [Mastery].

|_||_|

2.6The overall rating is directly linked to a performance continuum based on the percentage of students meeting expectations across all performance indicators.

|_||_|

N/A Justifications

Part III: ReviewJustify any N/A rating in the space provided at the bottom of the table.Task IDDescriptorRating

Meets CriteriaNeeds Addressed

3.1The SLO is based on performance measures that are technically sound (i.e., reliable, valid, and fair) and appropriately aligned to the targeted content standards.

|_||_|

3.2The SLO mitigates unintentional consequences and/or potential threats to inferences made about meeting performance expectations.

|_||_|

3.3 The SLO has supporting data and/or evidence to support the assignment of an overall teacher rating (i.e., Failing, Needs Improvement, Proficient, and Distinguished).

|_||_|

3.4The SLO has been reviewed to ensure that it is complete. Meaning, all applicable elements within SLO Template 10.0 have been addressed according to the prescribed business rules.

|_||_|

3.4The SLO has been reviewed to ensure that it is comprehensive. Meaning, all performance measures have been examined to determine that they are appropriate for use in the SLO process.

|_||_|

N/A Justifications

ReviewingSLO Coherency Rubric-PDE-Version4